Cabinet considering extending employer Kiwisaver beyond the age of 65

NZ First leader and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters says that Cabinet is considering extending the age when employers have to contribute to employees’ Kiwisaver. The age employers are required by law to contribute is currently 65.

But Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says that no decisions have been made.

And Seniors Minister Tracey Martin says “we need older people to stay in paid work”.

RNZ: Peters and Ardern send mixed messages over KiwiSaver changes

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Minister for Seniors, Tracey Martin, were at a Grey Power conference yesterday to announce an injection of more than $8 million to revamp the SuperGold card website, a new app and in funding digital literacy training for seniors.

During the announcement Ms Martin stressed the importance of maintaining a workforce over the age of 65.

“We are going to increasingly need older people to stay in paid work if they want to. We can not have 1.2 million seniors dropping out of the workforce,” she said.

At the conference, Horowhenua Grey Power president Terry Hemmingsen, who was called in to work after he had retired, asked why his employer – the government – had scrapped its contributions to his fund.

“The day you turn 65, that 2 percent employer contribution stops. With government agencies, so being in education, I could keep paying in myself, and did. But I lost the 2 percent. Now that’s discriminatory on the basis of age, wouldn’t you think?”

On that basis you could also say that paying people National Superannuation from age 65 is discriminatory on the basis of age.

But Hemmingsen has a point. People employed with negotiable wage rates can factor in things like the the employer contribution. The KiwiSaver contribution is part of an overall remuneration package, and once that ceases at 65 theoretically at least pay rates can be renegotiated.

But people employed by the Government with industry wide rates of pay, like teachers, may not be able to do that.

Perhaps a solution is for public servant pay rates to be adjusted once someone turns 65.

NZ Herald: Deputy PM Winston Peters says Cabinet is looking into changes to NZ Super eligibility

He said that Cabinet is considering changing the KiwiSaver rules so people over 65 were able to have their contributions matched by their employer.

speaking at the Grey Power annual meeting today, Peters hinted that changes were on the way in this area.

“Something like 70,000–80,000 people have come into our country … and whether they pay tax or not, have acquired full superannuation just like some of you who have worked 45 years,” he told those gathered.

“The issue of being able to arrive in our country and get full super after just 10 years is being addressed as I speak.”

Speaking to media after the speech, he said the Government was looking into increasing the amount of time someone has to live in New Zealand before being eligible for the scheme.

Asked if the Government’s position on the issue would be unveiled before the 2020 election, he said: “Very much so, yes”.

At the moment, if someone over 65 is still working their employer is not obligated to match their contribution.

Peters said this was “not right”.

“And the Government and Cabinet are looking at that matter as we speak – trying to see why that would be fair and, more broadly, why would we not keep on encouraging older people to keep on saving?

“It’s a serious question, we’re looking at that right now.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was less enthusiastic, but also non-committal:

“New Zealand First has long held a policy in this area and it’s absolutely within any party leader’s rights to reiterate that,” she said at a post-Cabinet press conference today.

“But I note that the Deputy Prime Minister also acknowledged that no decisions have been made.”

“When we make any decision related to retirement or savings, they will be announced – I’m not going to speculate on any other policy work that is being done, or has been done”.

I am concerned that Cabinet could be discussing this possibility and could make a decision according to Peters without proper public discussion and debate.

There is no reference to KiwiSaver in the Labour-NZ First Coalition Agreement.

Government under-delivery continues with ‘dismal’ social welfare tweaks

The Government year of under-delivery continued last week with an announcement of social welfare reforms tweaks being buried on Friday afternoon when it would have been anticipated that most news coverage would have been of Pike River mine re-entry – which also didn’t deliver.

Green co-leader Marama Davidson sounds deflated and resigned to under-delivery this term at least.

Yes I affirmed that these first steps and changes have come too late for too many.

I know change is long overdue, and people deserve support now. Can guarantee I’m committed to that change and the hard work it requires. It’s right people demand we just sort this out asap.

Sue Bradford:

“The government’s response to the findings of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) is dismal.”

A Welfare Expert Advisory Group was set up with an expectation it would report back with transformative reforms – which it did, with 42 recommendations. But the Government announcement on Friday indicated that only one of these would be implemented straight away, and another two would have to wait another year. And these are really only relatively minor tweaks.

In the 2017 election campaign the Green Party nearly died in a ditch when  co-leader Metiria Turei launched a major promotion for social welfare reform by revealing her experiences with claiming more benefits than she was eligible for. Support for the Green Party slumped.

Turei resigned and the Greens survived the election, but their number of MPs dropped from 14 to 8, and their share of the vote dropped from10.7% to 6.3%. They managed to negotiate their way into Government with Labour, but outside of Cabinet, and with what have turned out to be vague commitments. On social welfare the Confidence & Supply Agreement states:

Fair Society

10. Overhaul the welfare system, ensure access to entitlements, remove excessive sanctions and review Working For Families so that everyone has a standard of living and income that enables them to live in dignity and participate in their communities, and lifts children and their families out of poverty.

In April 2018 Marama Davidson was appointed as the new female co-leader of the Greens – Marama Davidson wins Green Party co-leadership race

She spoke about winning back voters who the Green Party had lost to Labour in the 2017 election – but also reaching out to new voters from her own background in poorer communities.

“In order to be a genuine and relevant voice for modern Aotearoa, we need to reflect its diverse reality. We need more members from all backgrounds and communities,” Davidson said.

“I know what it is to struggle to find a home to rent. I know what it is to not have enough food for your tamariki. And I know that no parent should have to go through that.”

“The community I come from is at the coalface of the most pressing issues we face as a society: rising poverty and inequality, the housing and homelessness crisis, polluted rivers and poor health and education outcomes.”

She said a massive economic shift was needed to a system that put the wellbeing of people and the environment above simple GDP growth.

Co-leader James Shaw said Davidson’s campaign had “lit a wildfire through the party.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called Davidson to congratulate her.

“The Green Party is a valued confidence and supply partner of this Government and I look forward to working with Marama to build a stronger, fairer and more inclusive country,” Ardern said.

“I am sure our work will be strengthened with the addition of Marama Davidson helping to leading this important work alongside me, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, and Green Co-leader James Shaw.”

It looks like Davidson has not strengthened much if anything on social welfare reform.

The Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) was established in May 2018, with twelve ‘experts’ appointed. The Terms of Reference stated:

1. …It is timely at this critical juncture to evaluate whether our social welfare system remains fit for purpose in contemporary New Zealand.

2. The Government’s vision is for a welfare system that ensures people have an adequate income and standard of living, are treated with and can live in dignity and are able to participate meaningfully in their communities.

Objective

5. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group (the WEAG) is being established to provide advice to the Government on options that could best give effect to its vision for the future direction of the social welfare system.

They delivered their Report to the Minister for Social Development on 26 February 2019.

On Friday afternoon (3 May 2019) the Government announced that “its vision for the future direction of the social welfare system” would amount to a few minor tweaks.

Marama Davidson’s initial response promoted just one of the tweaks:

The Confidence and Supply Agreement between the and commits to removing excessive sanctions. This starts with today’s announcement.

In response to comments on Twitter she acknowledged the failure to deliver urgent reform.

Davidson:

I know change is long overdue, and people deserve support now. Can guarantee I’m committed to that change and the hard work it requires. It’s right people demand we just sort this out asap.

She sounds disappointed and deflated.

Sue Bradford (The Spinoff): No hope for progressive welfare reform from this government

The government’s response to the findings of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) is dismal.

It appears the only substantive welfare reform we can expect during this parliamentary term is the removal of the financial sanction against sole parents who can’t or won’t name their child’s father. That’s great, but that’s it.

Both Labour and the Greens went into the 2017 election promising the elimination of this sanction. It could have been axed as soon as they took power. Instead, it is now clear that the government has deliberately delayed action until the WEAG reported back, just so they could point to at least one reform of substance after the expenditure of $2 million on the working group.

The sole parent sanction won’t be removed until April next year, and the Government has confirmed there will be no backdating.

…I am so angry that this government has not had the courage of any convictions in responding to the WEAG’s heartfelt mahi.

We are seeing the weakest possible response to the WEAG’s sterling efforts. There is no commitment to any significant change during this parliamentary term. To talk about transforming welfare in three, five or 10 years as Sepuloni does is simply meaningless.

Any beneficiary expecting a sudden onset of empathy from this government can forget about that, apart from those who will directly benefit from the ending of the naming-father sanction.

None of the existing lot are going to do anything serious. It would require a kind of courage and commitment not in evidence when it comes to standing up for the rights and wellbeing of beneficiaries. The Greens have a legacy of fine welfare policies and Marama Davidson and others do seriously support the kind of recommendations made by the WEAG. However,  this is not backed up by the practice of the Greens in this term of Parliament, near-silenced in their role as support party, and with a tendency to skitter away from hard battles under any kind of pressure.

That’s scathing of the Government, but especially scathing of Bradford’s own Green Party (she may have ditched them now but was an MP and stood for leadership in the past).

If we’re ever going to hope for transformative and progressive welfare reform, it is now clear it will need to be championed by a party that is not yet in Parliament.

There is no sign of such a party, so it not just a dismal under-delivery, the outlook for social welfare reform looks dismal.

 

 

 

Leaked Cabinet paper on cannabis referendum ‘out of date’

A Cabinet Paper detailing cannabis law reform referendum options has been leaked to the National Party (who insist on misnaming the drug) just before the issue will be considered by Cabinet, but Green MP Chloe Swarbrick says that it is out of date.

National: Cabinet Paper shows NZ not ready for (cannabis) referendum

A Cabinet Paper leaked to National which will be considered by the Government tomorrow shows New Zealand will head into the recreational marijuana referendum with many unanswered questions, National’s Drug Reform spokesperson Paula Bennett says.

“Cabinet will tomorrow consider four different options for the referendum but no matter which option it choses, there are huge holes.

“The Cabinet Paper is clear that smoking marijuana when you’re under the age of 25 is detrimental for development of the brain, and yet it recommends that the legal age should be 20. The legal age seems to have been plucked out of thin air.

“The paper acknowledges that regular marijuana use increases the risk of developing depression, psychosis and schizophrenia and is especially harmful to those under 25-years-old. It also acknowledges that there is a one in six chance of young people becoming dependent. This would result in further demand for mental health services.

“Only one of the options being considered will give New Zealanders some certainty about what they’re voting for – the other options will mean a huge lack of information.

“Every option takes us straight to legalisation instead of decriminalisation. Many other countries consider decriminalisation first before leaping straight to legalisation.

“National understands that as usual with this Government, the coalition has been unable to reach a consensus and the decision around which option they will choose has been holding up the process.

“The problem with that is there isn’t time for yet more coalition disagreements on an issue this important.”

The 2020 Cannabis Referendum proposals outline four options including;

  • A general question consistent with the undertaking in the Confidence and Supply agreement: “Do you support legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis?” This would not be accompanied by any legal framework or other policy decisions and it would be left to a subsequent Parliament to determine what to do in the event of a ‘yes’ vote.
  • A questions referring to a specific policy framework document setting out the basic principles of what legalisation for personal use of recreational cannabis in New Zealand would entail: “Do you support legalising recreational cannabis in accordance with [published policy document]?” A ‘yes’ vote would result in the duly elected government and Parliament having some moral imperative, but no obligation, to enact law changes consistent with that policy document;
  • A question referring to draft legislation that outlines the regulatory model for cannabis: ‘Do you support legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis in accordance with [published draft legislation]?” Similar to option 2, a ‘yes’ vote would result in the duly elected government and Parliament having some moral imperative, but no obligation, to enact the legislation.
  • A question referring to legislation already enacted but conditional on an affirmative vote on the referendum: “Do you support legalising recreational cannabis in accordance with the [Drug Reform] Act 20XX?” A ‘yes’ vote would trigger the legislation coming into effect.

A leak of a Cabinet paper is rare and serious, and national are playing it hard.

Paula Bennett has been invited a number of times to work together with Government parties on cannabis law reform, but National has chosen to try to spoil and disrupt the issue as much as possible, in this case aided by a leak.

It’s very disappointing if Cabinet are seriously considering any but the last of the above options.

It’s also disappointing to see National trying to make a mess of the issue. Paula Bennett has handled this appallingly, presumably with the approval of Simon Bridges.

Labour, NZ First and National are all at risk of letting the majority of New Zealanders who support cannabis law reform down by playing petty politics and possible trying to get out of fronting up properly on this issue.

If Labour yet again fails on a key policy due to not getting NZ First support, and if National mess things up by not working positively on this, then they will piss a lot of people off.

Andrew Little vague on timing and form of cannabis referendum

I am seeing increasing uneasiness about what form the recreational cannabis referendum might take, in particular whether the vote is on confirming legislation already decided by Parliament.

The commitment from the Labour-Green Confidence and Supply Agreement:

19. Increase funding for alcohol and drug addiction services and ensure drug use is treated as a health issue, and have a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis at, or by, the 2020 general election.

That’s unfortunately quite vague, leaving the decision up to Labour and NZ First Ministers in Cabinet.

Yesterday on Newshub Nation:

Okay, let’s talk about the referendum on the personal use of cannabis. You confirm you’re taking a proposal to Cabinet next week?

No, look, we’re still going through a process with our coalition and confidence-and-supply partners. We will make announcements on the issue about that hopefully very soon.

So not happening next week?

Look, I’m not going to say exactly where we are in the process, but we have been in a process, negotiating this through. I think we’re at a pretty good point. Eventually, we’ll get to the point where Cabinet will make a decision, and once that happens, we’ll make announcements.

Could we have a timeline?

I would hope sooner rather than later. I would expect in the next few weeks as opposed to, you know, too much later than that.

And have you got all your coalition partners on board on this?

I’m very pleased with where things are at. In the end, what—

Is that a yes?

Well, in the end, what is most important is Cabinet gets to make a decision. Once Cabinet has made a decision, then we’re in a position to announce—

Have you decided the wording of the question?

Look, I don’t want to go into a whole lot of detail. This has been, obviously, the subject of discussion. it’s been very intense discussion; I think very constructive discussion. I’m pleased with where things are at. Cabinet will be poised to make a decision fairly soon, and once they do, then we’ll make those announcements.

Cabinet. NZ First. No Green MPs.

I think there is cause for concern.

Robertson ‘surprised’ by reaction to CGT capitulation – yeah, right

Minister of Finance Grant Robertson has belatedly tried to defend the decision of Cabinet to drop any plans for a Capital Gains Tax, and the decision of Jacinda Ardern to rule out trying to bring in a CGT at any time under her leadership.

A CGT had been a prominent Labour Party policy, and was the main focus of the Tax Working Group led by ex-Labour Finance Minister, Michael Cullen.

It has been justifiably been noted that Ardern and Robertson did little to promote or sell the CGT after the release of the Working Group recommendations.

NZ Herald: Finance Minister Grant Robertson leaps to defence of PM Jacinda Ardern over Capital Gains Tax ‘leadership’ claims

Finance Minister Grant Robertson said he was surprised that the capital gains tax decision was getting such a strong reaction and he said claims that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had shown a lack of leadership over it was “ridiculous.”

“I’m not surprised that there are people who feel strongly about the importance of getting better balance back into the tax system.”

He understood they were disappointed, as he was.

“What I am a bit surprised about the extent to which people are defining the Government by this decision when I believe we have done a lot to be proud of in terms of making New Zealand a fairer and better place, including within the tax system by closing GST loopholes, extending the brightline test and ring-fencing of rental income losses.

Ardern and Labour have been blasted by people on the left who had been sold the idea that a CGT was a significant policy that would help create ‘a fairer and better place’.

“I feel that we have done a lot that is progressive and important, so I am a little bit surprised by that reaction,” Robertson told the Herald.

Robertson shouldn’t be surprised (and I doubt that he is surprised much if at all).

“It would have represented a shift at the core of our tax system so I understand why people see it as significant but there are other ways of achieving fairness and that is what we are focused on.”

Are they focussed on standing up to or sidelining Winston Peters?  If they want to deliver the sort of ‘fairness’ and transformation that Ardern has sold the political left then they should be dealing with their biggest problem.

“In the end, we cannot beat the maths of the Government and that’s the reality of where we are.

Robertson and Ardern and Labour were there as soon as they formed a coalition government with NZ First in 2017. But they have strung everyone along with their Tax Working Group for fifteen months. They can’t have only just worked out the maths of their Government.

“The Prime Minister has shown immense leadership over recent months on a number of topics. It’s just on this particular issue, the Coalition couldn’t find consensus.”

It’s not just on this particular issue, but it is a significant failure for Labour.

Robertson said the Labour Party’s New Zealand Council were consulted about taking the policy off the table.

“I’m sure many of the New Zealand Council were disappointed in the same way I was that we couldn’t get it over the line this time,” said Robertson. “But they were certainly consulted and were part of this decision.”

A part of the decision? It’s hard to see this involving any more than being told that Winston said NO. Perhaps the Labour Council was a part of Ardern’s decision to rule out any CGT under her leadership in the future – but what about the Labour members who thought that CGT was a big thing?

“There will be plenty of ideas inside the party around how we can create the fairest possible tax system. It’s just it won’t include a capital gains tax.”

“The fairest possible tax system”, minus whatever NZ First don’t agree with. But more than that, minus any possible future CGT, with a good chance NZ First won’t be around to stop it.

“I know most members of the Labour Party understand the importance of being able to be in Government and make change and every now and then there will be something we don’t do that we would like to do but we are achieving a lot alongside that.”

What a lot of unconvincing waffle.

Robertson was largely silent when the CGT needed to be promoted. This is far too late and too unconvincing.  This just reinforces the suggestion that he and Ardern had given up on getting a CGT long ago, probably as soon as they signed the coalition agreement with NZ First.

I’ll ask again whether this was a done deal in the coalition document that Labour have refused to make public.

The left lambasts Labour’s CGT capitulation

Labour didn’t just limit what the Tax Working group could include in any Capital Gains Tax, they didn’t just water down the subsequent TWG recommendations, they didn’t just drop any changes to capital gains taxing, Jacinda Ardern ruled out doing any CGT while she remains leader of the Government.

It wasn’t just a capitulation to Winston Peters. Ardern back down from a policy she said she supported. She ruled out going to the next election with any sort of CGT proposal as she had previously promised, presuming she is still leader then.

And the left, who wanted so much to have a ‘fairer’ tax system, and who wanted the Government to live up to it’s own labelling as transformative, are pissed off.

From Political Roundup: Progressives despair over the CGT decision

Danyl Mclauchlan argues that the CGT programme was one of four key policies agendas for this Government – the others being KiwiBuild, the Carbon Zero Act, and the Wellbeing Budget – and there are clear problems now in delivering them – see his column, Four months in, Labour’s ‘year of delivery’ is a disaster.

He despairs that Labour axed the tax after first initiating “one of the most bafflingly disastrous public policy debates imaginable, making John Key’s flag-change campaign look like the Normandy landings”.

He says any strategic wins from ditching the tax, will come “at a cost of one of Labour’s most important, long-term policies, and it was their failure to control their coalition partner or even attempt to make the argument for taxation reform that forced them to pay such a bitterly high price.”

Mclauchlan argues that Ardern could have won the debate and got a mandate for the changes, but simply didn’t bother.

That’s how it appears. She appeared to do nothing to fight for the CGT she proposed. It also appears she left James Shaw and the Greens out in the cold. Shaw has tried to paper over the cracks but sounds unconvincing (see James Shaw on “do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?”)

No Right Turn…

…is now calling for a leftwing boycott of the Labour Party: “If you want change, don’t vote Labour, don’t donate to Labour, don’t volunteer for Labour. Give your vote, your money, your time and effort to another party, any other party that promises change, than the one who betrayed you. Because if you don’t, Labour will continue to treat you like a fool, and continue to promise change while delivering none” – see: Don’t get fooled again.

They also argue the decision means the Government won’t have the money to afford many of their future policy goals: “Effective policy costs money, and this government has just robbed itself of that vital tool. Remember this next time they plead “poverty” as an excuse for not doing something: they chose to be poor. They chose to have a government which could not afford things. They chose to not be able to do the things they promised” – see: The cost of cowardice.

Inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke…

…argues that many other Government priorities will now be hamstrung by the lack of future revenue: “building more state homes, eliminating introduced predators, and repairing mental health services, among others – also require significant funds, again well above what will be generated under existing tax settings” – see: Capital gains tax shutdown threatens govt’s other plans.

In particular, “Consider the Prime Minister’s pledge to halve child poverty within a decade, possibly the political priority closest to her heart. It is very difficult to see how that can be achieved without the $3.4 billion a year that the capital gains tax was, according to the most recent estimate, going to raise.”

Some loyal Labourites had tried to put some spin on the backdown, like at The Standard (currently down so can’t link).

And former Labour Party President Mike Williams…

…suggests that although there are “elements of, particularly the unions and the extreme left of the Labour Party, which would be annoyed”, he “did not think the wider Labour Party base would be too worried about the CGT rejection”.

But Newshub’s Anna Bracewell-Worrall reports that…

…”Labour is facing a massive backlash from its base for ditching any hope of a capital gains tax (CGT) – even Young Labour and the ever-loyal unions are fuming” – see: Young Labour furious at capital gains tax backdown, leak reveals.

“Newshub’s been leaked a discussion from a secret Young Labour Facebook group revealing they’re frustrated with the decision. The Labour Party faithful say they’re ‘mighty disappointed’ and ‘exponentially angry at New Zealand First’s role’, and complaining of ‘unfulfilled promises’.”

And media are asking questions too.

Thomas Coughlan asked the very pointed question of Ardern: “Are you worried you now lead the party of capital, rather than labour?” And now he’s followed this up with an article suggesting that rather than Ardern and her Government implementing transformation, it’s actually them who are transforming – into a cautious and weak government not willing to make the hard and necessary decisions – see: Capital gains tax: Let’s not do this.

The Dominion Post asked if the decision came out of “cowardice or pragmatism”, but suggested the two are indistinguishable anyway. The editorial suggested more debate and leadership had been required for the CGT proposals to get off the ground: “Labour voters were evenly split on the pros and cons of a capital gains tax. It is a situation where brave political leadership and persuasion were required but for whatever reasons, a deep and thorough debate about fair and unfair tax failed to eventuate” – see: Capital gains tax: Political capital but for what gain?.

The newspaper says that Ardern had a “a failure of nerve”, and laments that an opportunity has been missed: “If there was ever a moment when significant change to the tax system could have happened, as the fairness and transformation her Government promised, that moment was now.” And there’s the question of “if the Tax Working Group was merely an expensive waste of time with a predetermined outcome.”

Likewise, according to the New Zealand Herald, “The decision has the hallmarks of pragmatism rather than strong leadership”, leaving “little evidence so far that Ardern will make tough but unpopular decisions to deliver on her convictions” – see: Capital Gains Tax surprise raises doubts on coalition.

It is going to be a challenge for Ardern and Labour to recover from this. They may survive in Government, but they have lost a lot of credibility from the left.

Ardern’s ‘pragmatic realism’ doesn’t sit well with political activists and idealists who thought that with Labour and Greens in  Government there would be substantial changes.

NZ First on the Capital Gains Tax capitulation

NZ First have prevented the Government from proceeding with any changes to capital gains taxes, despite a CGT being a core policy of Labour, backed by Jacinda Ardern, and despite it being something Greens have wanted for a long time (and James Shaw stated earlier this year that the Government didn’t deserve to be elected if they didn’t introduce a CGT).

New Zealand First Leader media release:

Tax Working Group Report

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters has welcomed Cabinet’s decision not to implement an extension of capital gains taxation, following the Prime Minister’s statement in response to the Tax Working Group Report.

“This decision provides certainty to taxpayers and businesses. We in New Zealand First wanted first and foremost for New Zealanders to have time to discuss and debate the contents of the report,” stated Mr Peters.

“During that time we have listened very carefully to the public.

“There is already an effective capital gains tax through the Bright Line test brought in by the last National Government and New Zealand First’s view is that there is neither a compelling rationale nor mandate to institute a comprehensive capital gains tax regime,” said Mr Peters.

“We also welcome the announcement that the coalition government will be urgently exploring options with the Inland Revenue Commissioner, in concert with central and local government, for taxing vacant land held by land bankers and reviewing the current rules for taxing land speculators. Tightening these rules was a priority for New Zealand First.

“Current tax policy, rigorously enforced by an Inland Revenue Department properly resourced will by itself 1) improve the administration of existing tax policy, and 2) target those multi-nationals not paying their fair share of tax,” Mr Peters said.

There was nothing about a CGT in the Labour-NZ First coalition agreement. This was the only reference to tax:

  • Increase penalties for corporate fraud and tax evasion.

Peters via Twitter yesterday:

Despite the claimed hearing and listening, Peters has done what he has said he would do for a long time.

During the 2017 election campaign (Politik): Peters ready to throw spanner in Labour’s capital gains tax plans

Peters says he is not ready to support any moves labour might want to make to extend capital gains taxes.

Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson has arrived at a neat compromise. Labour would set up a Taxation review once it got into Government.

Phil Twyford (on The Nation): “In the first three years we’re going to do a taax working group that will redesign the entire tax system”.

Robertson (on NZ Q&A): “We will have a working group that will have a look at getting a better balance into our tax system between how we tax assets and how we tax income”.

Peters though is adamant.

“I am not for an extension of the capital gains tax” he told POLITIK.

Peters is critical of the review and Labour’s plan to provide details on it’s water levy policy after the election.

“How many times can you get away with this sort of nonsense” he said.

So why did Labour insist on going ahead with the Tax Working Group that had an aim of recommending a capital gains tax?

It seems to have been a wasted exercise, unless the intention was to provide Peters with an opportunity to say NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX.

Reid Research party support poll

A Business New Zealand Reid Research poll on party support slipped under the radar this week. It was taken from 15-23 March, the day of and just after the Christchurch mosque attacks, so it should be treated with more caution than normal.

  • Labour 49.6%
  • National 41.3%
  • Green Party 3.9%
  • NZ First 2.3%

Labour are up from 47.5% in the RR February poll (which was up 4.5% from the previous poll). It isn’t surprising to see an (small) increase in support for Labour at the  time of a major adverse event. Jacinda Ardern’s adept handling of the attack aftermath has been rewarded in the poll.

National have hardly moved, down just 0.3% from the February poll, but had dipped 3.5% to a record low in the previous poll. They may struggle to hold even at that after Simon Bridge’s performance since.

Labour’s gain has been Green’s loss.

Greens have dropped from 5.1% to 3.9%, which must be a concern to them. James Shaw was largely unseen after the Christchurch killings, with Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman being more prominent, and they tend to be polarising – popular in part but also annoying many.

NZ first have slipped 0.5% to 2.3%, after dropping by the same amount in February. Winston Peters and NZ First fully backing the Arms Amendment Bill happened after the poll period so they could easily slip further. They have disappointed a lot of their 2017 supporters.

The Business NZ Reid Research poll of 1,000 voters was taken from March 15-23 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 per cent. 750 were interviewed by phone and 250 online.

Source NZ Herald – Claire Trevett: Poll puts Labour support up after mosque attacks but tax is back in debate

 

Labour’s bob each way CGT petitions just double barrelled contact harvesting

With the ease of setting up ‘petitions’ they have become a farce, none more so that Labour’s latest bob each way effort, two petitions with opposite questions.

Yes, I support a Capital Gains Tax

The independent group of experts our Government asked to review New Zealand’s tax system has released their final report. The Tax Working Group (TWG) found that our tax system is simple and efficient – but in some places, it’s unfair.

The TWG has recommended the introduction of a Capital Income Tax – sometimes called a Capital Gains Tax.

If introduced, it would mean people who make money from selling assets like rental properties or businesses would have to pay tax on their profits.

Do you support a Capital Gains Tax?

Alternatively, if you don’t support a Capital Gains Tax – sign here instead.

No, I oppose a Capital Gains Tax

That doesn’t even make sense.

The independent group of experts our Government asked to review New Zealand’s tax system has released their final report. The Tax Working Group (TWG) found that our tax system is simple and efficient – but in some places, it’s unfair.

The TWG has recommended the introduction of a Capital Income Tax – sometimes called a Capital Gains Tax.

If introduced, it would mean people who make money from selling assets like rental properties or businesses would have to pay tax on their profits.

Do you support a Capital Gains Tax?

Alternatively, if you do support a Capital Gains Tax – sign here instead.

What’s the point of this farce? They are trying to harvest names, phone numbers and email addresses, with a poor opt out option in fine print:

This is what they hope you won’t notice:

That’s not being open and transparent. It’s an unfair  attempt to deceive people into signing up to a contact list.

Petitions are pretty much stuffed as a means of people power, political parties have trashed the concept (it’s not just Labour doing it, but this is the first double barrelled farce that I’ve seen.

UMR and other polls – Labour and National even

Note – at best polls are just an approximate indicator of a snapshot of political support, especially individual polls.

Here is some anecdotal and it appears actual poll information.

Matthew Hooton in Capital Gains Tax debate shows Jacinda Ardern’s weakness

National insiders say their polling has NZ First consistently below the 5 per cent threshold, the Greens dicing with death by bouncing around it, and Labour and National locked in a tight battle, both above 40 per cent and within the margin of error of each other.

Care has to be taken with ‘insiders say’ anecdotes, but this is much the same as the last two published polls:

  • Reid Research 24 January-2 February: Labour 47.5%, National 41.6%, Greens 5.1%, NZ First 2.9%
  • Colmar Brunton 9-13 February: Labour 45%, National 42%, Greens 6%, NZ First 3%

The Reid Research poll was very early in the year, before politics cranked up, so favouring Labour is not surprising.

James Last yesterday on Twitter – The latest UMR poll for its corporate clients:

  • National up 5 to 45%
  • Labour down 1 to 44%
  • Greens down 2 to 5%
  • NZ First no change on 4%

While unpublished and verified this looks quite believable, with National back virtually level pegging with Labour.

National haven’t been particularly impressive but Labour have handled the Tax Working Group and CGT poorly so may have eased a bit because of that – but it could be too son to take much from it. If we get polls in the next month they may add too the picture, unless other major issues or events take over influence.

What this means is that hal way through the term (18 months before the next election) there is little in it between Labour and National. I think we can expect ebbs and flows in their support somewhere in the forties depending on timing of polls and margins of error.

Perhaps of more significance is NZ First remaining stuck under the threshold. When NZ First was last in government from 2005-2008 they polled mostly under the threshold and ended up getting 4.07 in the 2008 election, getting them dumped from Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2008_New_Zealand_general_election

Greens look a bit safer staying just above the threshold, but are still at risk. They will be keen to be seen to be achieving significant gains on climate, environmental and social issues. They have time for that, but need to start delivering.