The Bugle of Liberty has worked in tandem with statements from the Spokesperson for Finance from the Opposition, Gregor_The_Beggar, to break this story to you.

The Government presented their Term 11 Budget with a large degree of fanfare and ceremony involved. Seen as a celebration of the new virtues of the Labour Party and the productive work ethic which the Labour Party showed (compared to previous Alliance Government’s dodging budget responsibility until just before an election), the Budget was heralded as a new wave of reform tackling the issues effecting New Zealand. It saw increases in spending on welfare and other crucial areas of Government finance while seeing massive overhauls in the taxation regime, particularly in the field of corporate taxation where the Government adopted an Estonian-esque distributed profits tax model.

However, upon further analysis of the different Government declarations for the funding mechanisms for each department, we can see that there is a large degree of untracked spending which hasn’t been acknowledged. Even worse for the Labour Party, there appears to have been massive cuts in particular fields which haven’t been declared in the Budget Statement itself.

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development sees an annual expenditure of $4 billion in the August 2020 fiscal cycle, $4.1 billion in the September 2020 fiscal cycle and $4.2 billion in the October fiscal cycle. While this exponential improvement of $100 million per fiscal cycle seems impressive, it appears more questionable when compared to funding laid out for the Ministry by the previous Alliance Government budget.

This represents a slash of $983 million in the August 2020 fiscal cycle, $813 million in the September 2020 fiscal cycle and $734 million in the October 2020 fiscal cycle. This was all spending changes which went unexplained by the Minister of Finance until recently, where Government officials claimed that the change in spending was due to adjustments where the 12,500 new state houses policy was completed. While The Bugle of Liberty respects this explanation and doesn’t find much fiscal fault in much of it’s reasoning, we still believe that it should have at least been disclosed to the New Zealand public in the Budget Statement or in a speech by the Minister in question.

The Government has claimed $3.4 billion worth of spending for August 2020, $3.5 billion worth of spending for September 2020 and $3.6 billion worth of spending for October 2020 with no further explanation from the Minister.

This means the most recent Budget has budget cuts for the Ministry of Transport of $693.33 million in August 2020, $490.36 million in September 2020, $422.7 million in October 2020. This is without any further explanation from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport and with no declaration from either of the Ministers involved as to whether such spending cuts relates to any finished Governmental projects in the field of transportation. The Bugle of Liberty fully expects the Government to answer as to why such spending cuts have taken place and to stop dodging public accountability in how the budget calculations such as this, especially for a large amount of taxpayer funding, was allocated and for what reasoning.

The Ministry for Primary Industries saw $1.4 billion allocated in the August 2020 fiscal cycle, $1.6 billion allocated in the September 2020 fiscal cycle and $1.4 billion in the October 2020 fiscal cycle

This represents cuts of $223 million in August 2020, $197 million in September 2020, $169 million in October 2020 from the previous budget in Term 11. Again, this has gone without any public explanation as to why these cuts have taken place and have been largely hidden to the back of the budget books.

From a directly libertarian standpoint on the issue, it is strange how the accountability of direct Government financing for different ministries has been lackluster, resulting in Government’s feeling free to not care to explain why particular sums for different departments were reached. The Bugle of Liberty believes this record would be better corrected to achieve better outcomes in New Zealand society.

The Bugle of Liberty believes in the accountability of Government, especially in the field of Governmental finance. We will continue to cooperate with the Opposition in ensuring that Governmental finance can be adequately held accountable, with the Spokesperson for Finance Gregor_The_Beggar, expected to question the Ministers in question directly about their budgetary arrangements.

What is expected to be further brought into question is the Government’s Distributed Profits Taxation scheme, how much it will continue to raise and how it achieves the best outcomes for New Zealand businesses.

The Bugle of Liberty will fully welcome any public statements of explanation by the Government in response to these spending cuts which have been hidden to the backpages of the budget books.

Marcus Lockheart, The Bugle of Liberty

OP-ED: Government MPs and members of Mana Hapori have taken to the streets at Auckland Airport in protest of the arrival of Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla. This directly places the Government in a position of direct endorsement of these forms of protest, with a key Government MP leading the attendance of the protest.

This comes as Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, arrives in New Zealand with interest in competition for the Wave Energy Prize. The Wave Energy Prize, passed by Parliament recently, is a prize set out for innovation in the field of Wave Energy. Through the Wave Energy Prize, New Zealand could have a more diversified and cleaner energy supply and cleaner methods of energy generation. The Wave Energy Prize was entirely designed to be for competitors from the private sector to directly compete for this goal and achieve competition in the market, allowing for innovation as a by-product and better outcomes for New Zealanders.

So why then has the Government chosen to go against this and refuse to speak out as TheOwOTringle, a Government MP with a previous history of racially targeted comments which faced a lack of condemnation from the Government, and Mana Hapori have chosen to turn out against Mr Musk? Mana Hapori and TheOwOTringle from Labour have directly chosen to pick and choose those who they wish to seek the prize, prioritizing ideology over people by trying to stand against Mr Musk on arrival rather than seeing the long-term goal of achieving better energy outcomes for New Zealanders. The lack of Government condemnation of these activities seemingly implies a direct endorsement by the Beehive, with radio silence acting as a form of assent from the Government as to this behaviour against the interests of New Zealanders.

It makes you question the commitment of the Government and Mana Hapori when such policies appear to be common-place and out in the open, as the Government and Mana Hapori both seem to agree mutually that intervention in this field is necessary. Rather than welcome Mr Musk and other private entities and firms wishing to enter the competition as the Wave Energy Prize is intended to incentivize, Labour and Mana Hapori have chosen to go directly against this and place their own personal beliefs over the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Especially in a country where energy generation has a history of inefficiencies and which leads to a direct cost on many New Zealand households while do not have access to good supplies of energy through location or circumstance, it is especially clear that Labour and Mana Hapori lack the focus of will for the people of New Zealand.

They’ve chosen to protest private entities entering into a competition which prevents the innovation the prize was intended to produce.

Therefore, I am proud and I am proud to stand by the National Party who has elected to take the common sense approach on the issue. We’ve chosen to support welcoming individuals like Mr Musk and other private entities who wish to compete and we hope that Parliament and the Government can show the force of character to enter good, serious negotiations with parties involved to ensure the best outcomes for New Zealanders. Rather than be motivated by personal hate, we wish to have our public policy motivated by the people and what leads to the best outcomes for New Zealand earners and ensures that the taxpayer money being spent into the Wave Energy Prize produces the best result. Anything else will result in negligent spending and protests against private entities will directly lead to worse outcomes for the same amount of taxpayer dollars. That is why National is proud to stand as the side of reason in this debate.

Gregor_The_Beggar, National Party Deputy Leader, The Bugle of Liberty

So long, New Zealand.

From Southern, to Manukau and everything in between, my political career in this country cannot continue due to health issues.

I don’t know where to start, since a lot of my career is just being a loyal Nat minion following the lead of Porp, Fresh, Gregor, Winston, or whoever managed to rule the right.

I started just before the fifth general election that happened post-reform that made us have elections every 3 months. I lost Southern, an electorate Sir Fresh3001 sent me to. I had no experience in politics, but I did however had parts of my life in all kinds of lifestyles (urban, surburban and rural).

There was a friendly rivalry between me and Youmaton, who was also someone new and was just sent by Labour to run in Southern back in GEV.

I’ve always felt like an odd one out in the Nats, with our website at one time listing half the party as a liberal caucus, the TVC as it was called then the conservative caucus, and myself as the only one in “other prominent members of the party*.

I kept losing Southern, eventually winning it only when Ms. Youmaton retired for the first time if I remember correctly. That win came mostly from name recognition and nothing else.

What did I really accomplish as a list MP anyway? Some motion about seafishing or whatever that was written to me completely by Porp? Probably add other bills the strong Fresh/Porp team sent me.

When Sober_King_Robert came, I felt like I was in big trouble. She crushed me in debates, despite me not wanting to admit it then, because I had a track record of just “vote with the whip”. Although she was clearly a lunatic, she was passionate and was way more charismatic than I was on the campaign trail.

I still won, as I did against Labour leader lieselta, who if I’m getting it right was a nobody back then. I won against SKR mostly just for the fact that I’m not an extremist, though I will say I did kinda sympathize and want to do something about immigration in this country.

(SKR eventually won Southern, the last MP before the EC axed it altogether. I wonder what a BloodyChrome Southern MP would’ve looked like?)

Then there’s the WW thing, or maybe it was after Gregor took control of the right-wing? I don’t exactly remember, but that was actually a pretty sad moment for me. That was when, if I’m not wrong, FinePorpoise had all but resigned, PM_ME_CHRETIEN had no skills at suddenly managing a government party, and WW3 was pushing for a disastrous Muldoonite bill that would allow a Minister to dictate if a housing projecr gets built. Though once again, I was completely silent, hoping that staying united, that could’ve been our chance to win Government again.

Somewhere along the Nat collapse and subsequent Green surge, Gregor offered me the position of Leader of ACT, which sounded great at first but then…

He pulled me through ridiculous hair-brained schemes with the left! First the Green-Labour-ACT left-wing budget, which I believe would probably count as one of my accomplishments, then the ACTL attempt which I hated but never spoke out on, (I even tried justifying it on Twitter with the circular argument “ACT supported it 100%, because it’s good for ACT, because ACT supported it 100%* or something like that)

(If I ever fail to remember the correct order, my brain must be lost in Japan.)

Then what? I went through terms serving as Leader of the Opposition for an ever-popular government, that is, near the Lib-Nat merger, Gregor went inactive due to personal issues I think. I started whipping MPs myself, and from then on, I took a more active role in the party. When Toastin asked to be included in the whip, I whipped hard to limit the number of Liberal MPs failing to vote (mostly to little effect).

But that only gets better. When I suddenly submitted a VONC at the request of Saturn and the Feminists (ironically now controlling government party Labour), I almost got that PootisPower backbencher from Kiwi to vote aye! If only I had whipped earlier – it was only a matter of time before the division went and they weren’t able to go to Wellington in time.

(On a sidenote, a rumour came that my application for the Electoral Commission was going to be accepted. It wasn’t, but that didn’t stop Gregor_The_Beggar from delivering some of the kindest words I’ve ever heard.)

Then WW4 came and went with an assassination. Gregor and Winston decided to merge since WW had brought with him politically young, energetic conservatives that led to us having more resources than ever before.

With Nelson at the helm after his assassination, we thought it was gonna be great. He was, after all, the other brain behind that amazingly engineered Shadow Budget – first of its kind in recent NZ politics.

And now as he struggles with his personal life, I’m once again at the helm. For once, I did something else other than whipping (which I feel like I’m really good at), which is write some bills for myself and my friends. I already did once – the Regional Amenities Amendment one that’s been sitting in the biscuit tin since late June – but it becomes a habit when you do it a second time. So I did write and format one with the help of former MPs, and I submitted it – a Youth Justice Demerit Points system.

I was going to write two for Riley (who roleplayed as a communist candidate to split the left vote, before being a Nat but that’s a story for another day), and one for BestinBounds, but then, this unfortunate accident happened.

So, with me basically unable to do anything properly, I thought maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to keep serving as, as a colleague said, an MP for the electorate of List.

If not resign now, when? I sacrificed my business and my non-politics career for joining politics, and if I don’t retire now, will I be a pollie til I die? What’s Holding Me Back?

My career is basically wrapped up to “serving too much while doing too little”, a feature of New Zealand’s MMP system which rewards loyal party backbenchers with eternal list seats. I had a wild one and a half year, going from Nat backbencher to representative for New ACT to ending it seemingly with a whimper, losing my feature in the PPM to witnessing what may look like a rising movement again.

But part of me still believes I could’ve done more if I actually led a party. Who knows what could’ve happen…

But please, when you look at the list of bills and motions I submitted below, as taken from parliament.nz records, remember the good and the bad – including that time when I celebrated on Twitter when Shawn Mendes won at the Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards.

And imnofox (not the current lunatic one) hearted it.

Legislation submitted

No one can deny that the Green movement has always occupied a special place within our politics, more often than not on the far left of it, using climate change to justify agenda that many would consider extreme and when it comes to economic policy – a grave infringement on economic freedoms. From the carbon tax, which is more than even IMF recommendations to a 45% income tax it is clear that during the government the Green Party and its Labour partners have made no strides to appear as moderate or even left of center.

With the current trends in polling and a strong campaign being put out by both the National Party and Forwards, the Green Leadership would be wise to at least make the effort to appeal to moderate voters with a manifesto. However as the doubling of the carbon tax shows economic competence isn’t exactly the party’s strength. 

This is proven by the party’s boldest economic proposal, the total nationalization and universalisation of utilities paid for by top income earners. A proposal that is economically impossible.

An average yearly electricity bill in Auckland is around $2100-2300 per year. This makes the cost of providing electricity alone would well over $3.8 billion. Furthermore an average broadband subscription costs around $120-140  per month, which if we are to assume that every man, woman and child is to receive such a subscription would cost up to an extra $6.7 billion a year if the costs of fibre rollout and the provision of such internet to every user is accounted for. Water is another problem for the Greens as the average households spend anywhere between 660 to 1000 dollars on water per year constituting another $1.2 – 1.8 billion cost.

In total a realistic cost of such a program would be in between 11.7 and 13.1  billion per annum plus the costs of nationalising these industries in the first place, which would in all likelihood total another $20 or even $30  billion in year one. Of course, this depends on the exact definition of what a utility is as if we are to include phone service that figure would increase by about $800 million. For comparison this term the entire income tax revenue was around $25 billion for those within the income brackets the Greens claim will pay for it, the bracket over $140,000 a year. Even an income tax of 100% being levied on anyone earning over $140,000 would not pay for this ambitious project. Put simply it is mathematically impossible to tax the higher earners to pay for universal utilities even if all of their earnings were taken away

In reality, a 100% income tax is impossible due to human nature. None of us want to see our money taken away from us and as such, we respond to higher taxes by trying to work around them and that is why extremely high-income taxes may cause a drop in revenues as happened in France.

These behaviour changes that would most likely sandbag the increases in revenue at around 50% according to studies carried out by the United Kingdom treasury in 2010 and the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2019  so just increasing the income tax on the “rich” will not work. Such a program would require the income tax to be increased on all brackets with the current bracket of 48 to 70 thousand looking like the most likely target.

Furthermore, looking at the serious employment within the $140,000+ bracket, we’ll be seeing some of our hardest workers and most valued workers lose the entirety of their income. The Greens are proposing that most experienced specialized engineers such as electrical and environmental will see the entirety of their income taken by the Government or face a paycut of tens of thousands of dollars. The Greens are proposing most psychiatrists will either take a between $10,000 to $100,000 paycut or have their entire income taken by the Government. Same with Gynaceologists, Anesthesiologists and other highly skilled or highly specialized medical professionals who actively save lives will have their entire incomes taken by the Green Government.

A realistic approach would be a combination of temporary cuts on some departments and tax increases on indirect taxes like the GST and the carbon tax to pay off the nationalisation over a prolonged period,but this approach would ruin any prospective benefits of such a program of providing financial relief to the poorest Kiwis.

All of these estimates also assume that this policy is being implemented in a vacuum, high income taxes also tend to decrease indirect tax revenue as consumption is generally discouraged.

There is also a question of long-term sustainability. Most state-owned enterprises aren’t renowned for their efficiency nor innovation and it is highly possible that such a national utility conglomerate would face similar issues such as other major State-Owned Enterprises that would be heavily exacerbated by its size and the sheer amount of sectors it would operate in. 

In conclusion, the proposal of providing universal utilities to every Kiwi is just economically impossible and even if it was it would be prudent not to do so. The Greens have brought forward one of the most cruel policies imaginable and will implement a far too large spending program with the expectation to fleece our highest skilled engineers and medical professionals who save lives of the entirety of their income. The Greens have no fiscal sense and no fiscal ability and this policy should show they’re not considering the real costs of leading this nation and their policies.

Walter_Heisenberg, National Finance Spokesperson

1/07/2019 – Tuvalo Dulakala

TheOwOTringle has been a political figure in and out of the news recently, being heavily involved in numerous scandals and having been the centerpiece for the Vote of No Confidence, as their parties vote would ultimately decide the outcome of the Vote of No Confidence (Future Bugle of Liberty articles will come out detailing an analysis of the legacy of the Kiwi Party and the Great Lie at the heart of their recent actions).

However, TheOwOTringle has chosen to renew old grudges and old issues when they chose to bring forth an amendment to a Labour Party sponsored bill. This bill would establish a Parliamentary framework for Parliament to be able to legislate on matters of National Recognition and protection for National Sovereignty, primarily to be used in incidents where there is contest as to the borders or lands of a nation. TheOwOTringle, currently serving as a key Labour Party frontbencher and an influential voice in the direction of the modern Labour Party, chose to submit an amendment which many experts state may fan the flames of past conflicts.

On schedule 2, add item 4 which says: Sovereign State: Tonga Territory: Minervan Reefs 

TheOwOTringle, Supplementary Order Paper B.296-A

The Minerva Reefs Crisis dominated much of the conversation behind the previous Government and TheOwOTringle took a place within that argument, calling for UN-based approaches to the conflict and urging neutrality. That line seems to have been completely dropped, however, when it comes to the modern day Labour Party as they seek to formally recognize the contested Minerva Reefs as Tongan territory.

The Minerva Reefs is a region contested heavily by both Fiji and Tonga, with the Fijian argument being that the land lies within the ancestral fishing grounds of the people of the island of Ono-i-Lau and the Tongan argument being that Tonga rightfully laid dominion to the reefs and that the reefs fall under their national sovereignty. The conflict saw the two sides come to blows with three Fijian sailors being unfortunate casualties to the conflict. The conflict managed to be negotiated into a white peace with the land still being controlled by Tonga and Fiji backing off out of respect and deference to New Zealand.

Now this amendment to a Labour Party bill by a Labour Party member threatens that peace. This amendment, forwarded by a Frontbencher and therefore with the consent of the Labour Party, would seek to firmly pick a side in the conflict and side with Tonga. This violates any tenant of New Zealand neutrality and sides our nation with the Tongan perspective in the conflict and could incite the conflict to come to blows once again. It alienates Fiji, a nation which has already complained about the Government choosing to ignore them and their recommendations, and breaks off a large degree of diplomatic goodwill and diplomatic ties with the nation. This could result in Fiji once again laying claim to the Reefs and a conflict starting once more. If this is the case, Labour would be at the helm of leading New Zealand into another foreign affairs crisis.

As this supported and sponsored by a Labour Frontbencher, the assumption by experts has been that Labour backs the bill and backs the recognition of the Minerva Reefs as being Tongan territory which Jack Ryan, an expert in Pacific Foreign Affairs, has called “A dangerous precedent to set which will see guns fired and foreign relationships worldwide torn to shreds if the Labour Party continues this path.”

Furthermore, the Labour Frontbencher was forced to withdraw racist remarks they made before the House where they named Gregor_The_Beggar, an MP of Indo-Fijian descent, as “The Member for Fiji”. They claim that Gregor has “interests in Fiji” and that he is inherently compromised by the debate due to his Fiji-born status. This is in line with earlier rhetoric by the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and TheOwOTringle in the past which has expressed the exact same claims in the past. By using the term “The Member for Fiji”, the Labour Party continues to show a dangerous history of racism which has permeated the modern day party and which the new leader, Youma, has shown no indications towards solving.

Speaking to a leader of the Girmit Society within New Zealand, a Mr Shayam Chand, he articulates his thoughts on the comments as “Deeply hurtful and genuinely toxic to the Fiji Indian community living in New Zealand, a clear indication of direction for a potential Governmental Party to show a continued history of racism towards Fiji Indians with the implication that being born in Fiji doesn’t entitle us to talk about issues in the Pacific which may involve Fiji. This rhetoric has been used in the past against Chinese legislators, why do we tolerate it against Fiji-Indian legislators?”

The question now is whether Labour will drop the amendment to the bill and drop TheOwOTringle from the frontbench and whether there is any indication at all that the Labour Party will take action to address the horrific actions of racism through action, rather than talk.

Tuvalo Dulakala, The Bugle of Liberty

Government commitments have been shown to flounder recently in the lead-up to the newly announced Vote of No Confidence (It is believed that a special Opposition report on the VoNC will be issued shortly). Many experts have analysed the pieces of legislation which have gone before the House and some startling revelations make themselves obvious upon closer inspection.

The Opposition has been shown to consistently ask questions before the House and have a consistent debating record across many debates. However, the main point of clash which has been identified is on the issue of business before Parliament. Quite simply, the combined forces of the Opposition and Crossbench have submitted more pieces of legislation and more motions than the Government has. Even alone, the Opposition has had more pieces of legislation and motions before Parliament than the Government.

This is an extraordinary circumstance, a circumstance where the Government has failed to even govern in their own term. The Bugle of Liberty spoke exclusively with leading policy analysts on the subject and Hank Smith, Political Commentator, had the following to say;

“Yes well, this doesn’t come as much of a shock really. The bills which the Government has proposed have been fairly rubbish overall, with some rather appalling pieces of legislation which have received little to no justification from the Government such as the Public Works (Compensation and Notice) Repeal Bill. I don’t think it will come as much surprise to Kiwi’s to find that the Government has not only had less business before the House than the Opposition, but that the Government hasn’t had a single bill or motion before the House in four cycles!”

The Bugle of Liberty is continuing the monitor the ongoing scene and will be reporting live the latest developments from the Vote of No Confidence in the Government.

Tuvalo Dukalakala, The Bugle of Liberty

The Government has achieved something which honestly is a first in the history of New Zealand. They have passed and backed the very first bill in our Parliamentary history without a commencement date, the Online Gambling Amendment Bill, and have blindly supported the bill despite it. This means that if the Online Gambling Amendment Bill was to pass third reading, it cannot practically have an effect as no measures are within the bill to specify when the bill will actually apply. This represents a major backtrack from the bill which was a key policy commitment to the Kiwi Party and many within the political sphere have called it a “nightmare”, “an incompetent hit job on Kiwi” and “a disgrace for New Zealand legislative history”.

The Context of the Bill

The Bill in question, the Online Gambling Amendment Bill, was proposed and pushed forward by the Government as a scheme to ban online betting on the results of the lottery. This was a practice where individuals could place bets surrounding what they thought the results of a particular event left up to chance would be with potential payouts being the incentive. This bill is commonly considered to be the flagship policy of the Kiwi Party, a policy position which the Kiwi Party has fought for with determination and which has commonly divided and alienated them from others within the political sphere.

However, the Bill itself passed through first reading and the committee stage with only Liberal, Feminist and Forwards! voices in opposition to the bills passage. The Bill now resides in the third and final reading stage which allows for Members to debate the bill one last time before their final vote on whether the bill in its current form should pass into the New Zealand statute books and be considered law.

As of the time of writing, only Feminist and Liberal voices have come out hard against the bill in Third Reading.

A Broken Pledge to Kiwi

This bill comes forth as one of the flagship policy areas agreed upon in the agreement between the Alliance Government and the Kiwi Party. The Kiwi Party has stated a strong opinion in favour of the new bill and have consistently supported its passage.

Which comes at such a surprise as the lack of the commencement date betrays nothing more than an utter betrayal of this pledge to the Kiwi Party. When the Government is so willing to fail Kiwi in this field, many speculate as to how Kiwi can continue to trust this Government to deliver good bills to let their pledges and policies be passed. Discussion with political expert Michael Braedon revealed that he believes that this move is a “direct snubbing of Kiwi by the Government who seemingly expects their support, unless the Government will own up to incompetence on their part in regards to this policy then they clearly had to have come at this with malicious intentions to snub Kiwi.”

The Bugle of Liberty reached stranger195, the leader of the Opposition, for comment on the matter and he described it fully as “A failed political hit job on Kiwi, truly a sad time for New Zealanders who do believe in this bill but found themselves betrayed by Labour and Green incompetence.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, many state that this proves the Government’s continued failure to really offer a solid legislative platform and framework for their proposals. The consideration therefore that this bill could either highlight Government lawmaking incompetence, many of whom compare this to the blind support by the Government for the Public Works (Compensation and Notice) Repeal Amendment Bill, or highlight a particularly malicious attack on Kiwi voters and the party.

Tuavolo Dukalakalaka, The Bugle of Liberty

OP-ED: The Green Party and various Ministers have taken a hardline stance against the Reserve Bank within New Zealand, with Minister MerrilyPutrid in Social Development taking a particularly aggressive standpoint. Today, I was hoping to analyse the Green Party’s response against the empowerment of the Reserve Bank and how much of it is motivated by a large degree of irrational hatred and how much of it is actually something worth considering.

What’s the Reserve Bank?

The Reserve Bank is an independent institution managed by a “Governor” which is tasked with controlling New Zealand’s financial systems through a concept called “Monetary Policy”. Monetary Policy is used to help control your interest rates, control the costs of your goods and services via inflation and other important fields such as bringing down unemployment a sustainable level.

In the past, the Reserve Bank didn’t exist in its current form. Our Monetary Policy was controlled by the Government and led by the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. This meant that the Government could intervene directly into our nations interest rates, cash rate, inflation and other fields. What this eventually ended up creating was a power structure which allowed for a Government to make decisions which would be popular in the short-term but ruin the economy economically to help get them elected. Famously, lack of independent control in this field meant that Prime Minister Robert Muldoon caused a constitutional crisis as he refused to use this power to devalue our economy against all suggestions from the experts.

This was eventually changed by the Reserve Bank Act 1989 which established an independent Reserve Bank and gave it the powers to manage our monetary policy. The only say the Government and the Minister of Finance has in this field anymore is that they can sign a mutual agreement with the Governor of the Reserve Bank on some preferred Government targets at the start of the Government’s term.

What’s the Issue?

The Liberal Party proposed a new law to give more power to the Reserve Bank, to allow them to negotiate the terms of their annual funding from the Government, require 75% of Parliament to agree to amend the bill and other provisions which would have changed our legal framework to give unique powers to the Reserve Bank.

This was met with harsh criticisms by the Government benches predominantly with the Labour Party calling the bill “unrepealable”. One of the most prominent voices against the bill was MerrilyPutrid, the Minister for Social Development, who came out with a hardline stance against the bill which evolved into a hardline stance against the Reserve Bank.

What does this imply?

When key Government Ministers and MPs come out strongly against the Reserve Bank, naming them “unelected bureaucrats”, “Bankers”, “Corporate Interests” and expressing hardline stances against the organization, then we have to consider the Reserve Bank as an organization under threat and attack by this Government.

The Prime Minister and many other members on the Government benches have stayed silent to this vocal section of their party which could imply a silent endorsement of these types of viewpoints. This is a major shift and return to Muldoonist-era policies against the independence of Monetary Policy which sets a damaging precedent. The economic management of our country must firmly be in the hands of the experts rather than partisan political figures who will take drastic measures to boost their own popularity at the expense of the New Zealand economy. This comes alongside the Government’s seemingly wider stance generally in a history of lack of economic and political accountability for their actions.

The real question for New Zealanders therefore is simple. Do they trust an unaccountable Government with control of our financial markets and tools and do we trust them to pick the right economic path above the popular economic path to try and save their own skin?

Marcus Lockheart, The Bugle of Liberty

Recently, I took it upon myself to question the Government on their key policy proposal which has existed for two terms which they are acting upon now. That proposal is to repeal the Public Works (Compensation and Notice) Amendment Act 2019 and attacks have been launched on the Act calling it “confusing”, “archaic” and describing it as a poorly drafted piece of legislation. So I thought I’d take it upon myself to examine the bill and explore it and explore the Government response.

Context

The Public Works Act 1981 is a law which sets out the principles by which the Government can lay claim to your land for the purposes of a Public Work. While the provisions of the bill are vast as it controls those public works as well, the most commonly contested sections of the Public Works Act comes in the field of compensation for your land. Whenever the Government or Council wants to start a new project, say in the field of Infrastructure, then they have legal permission to seize your land with compensation and notice for that land to utilize it for this project of theirs. It is an important piece of New Zealand land and property law and is a subject of much debate.

There have been historical issues and concerns with compensation dating back since the start of the Act’s provisions. These date back to efforts by the Clark Government to reform the Act to the Key Government introducing caps on compensation in many grounds. Many of these issues effect the amount of compensation you get for your land.

Historically, issues have arisen over concerns surrounding too little compensation being granted to issues of the consent to the right of seizure which many have stated they have not explicitly given. The Public Works Act therefore poses a unique issue in the case of how we as a society view and analyse property rights and the rights you have to consent over your own land and property. Proponents of the Act argue that the Act protects wider New Zealand interest and allows for our economy to be sped up as Government projects can go through relatively unimpeded. Critics state that the rights which you have over your land should be absolute and the compensation payable and notice given do not reflect the costs which come with moving or the potential loss in capital revenue from such pieces of land. The Bugle of Liberty has always lent on the side of good compensation and on removing restrictions such as the blanket exemption to payable compensation if it improves the value of the land which causes absurd situations where 40% of your land could be taken but if the council places new fibre broadband posts in the area then your compensation entitlement could be lower or next to nothing.

The Bill itself

The Bill is question and is the topic of discussion is the Public Works (Compensation and Notice) Amendment Act 2019 passed and given Assent in the Chretien Ministry and written and sponsored by the, at the time, Minister of Infrastructure Gregor_The_Beggar. The Bill itself sought to increase compensation and notice as it’s intention was and past it’s final reading with reforms which eliminated sections of Section 72 and 72C with the aim of making the legal code fairer.

The Bill’s contents are broken down as follows:

Section Five lays out the definitions of the Act, clearly defining the Act as having an individual “Claimant Notice” given in direct writing to a claimant (affected landowner) prior to the public announcement of a Public Works project. This requires the Government to plan ahead and help claimants pack up and move prior to the public announcement to allow for the process to move swiftly and efficiently.

Section 6 lays out the first tenant of the Act by increasing the date to a generous 8 weeks prior to the public announcement. This requires the Government to plan, as they should, way in advance for projects such as these and allow for the full time for them to move. Reforms to this section could be warranted but the total repeal of such a section is something which seems highly unprecedented.

Section 7 repeals Section 61(1) of the Principal Act. That section lays out that compensation is not payable when it comes to land reserved for roading for the Crown and land from territorial authorities or councils. The previous section meant that councils would not be entitled to compensation for their seized land. Issues arise then when the Crown can claim total dominion over Council land which was invested in or which had already been previously claimed, utilized and invested in for the purposes of the Government. A form of compensation should be payable, especially when Councils could have invested millions of ratepayer dollars into that land.

This is the first area which supposedly has major issues behind it. Section 8 proposes to end the wording of the cap to be up to $50,000 and instead solely be $50,000 compensation. This furthermore removes Section 72 (1B) which capped all compensation at $50,000 regardless of amount of land owners. While this bill isn’t perfect, it’s a good first step towards a better program for New Zealanders and a more flexible system. It meant more fixed compensation for your land if you lived there as your primary residence and it meant that the amount of owners in a property had some say in how much compensation was given due to how much investment could go into the property and how the money would be shared among them. It was intended to lead to flexibility as well as straight fixed compensation.

Finally, Section 72C is amended to boost compensation for undeveloped land up to 20% of total land value in a specific section as well as removing restrictions and caps which could inhibit compensation immensely. If you had undeveloped land which was incredibly valuable and worth more than 25k when ratio’d to 20% of land value, then you would have been left shafted and out of money. Already the current scheme leaves New Zealanders out for the fair and due compensation for their land and The Bugle of Liberty has exclusive coverage that the Liberal Party plans to scrap it completely to let you get the amount which your land is worth regardless of caps or restrictions by the Government.

The Government Response: Do they even know what they’re voting for?

Considering how important this bill is and how important it will be for the hundreds of New Zealand families who are effected yearly by the Public Works Act, I questioned every single MP of the Green Party and the Minister of Infrastructure to ask them about their opinions, thoughts and justifications. The pattern was alarming.

I firstly contacted the Speaker of the House, Bhjr132 or Madison, to discuss the issue. This is the results;

The Speaker of the House declined to comment beyond stating that the bill was broken and the repeal fixes it and referred me to the Minister of Infrastructure.

I questioned the MP for Aoraki, MerrilyPutrid, on the subject and received little justification beyond that the bill was broken and that the payment of $50,000 in additional compensation doesn’t make sense because the next section mandates how the payment is distributed. This is a reasonable concern which could have justified either amendment to Section 72A to remove section 1(c) which mandates funding as discretionary and instead expand the earlier parameters or introduce new ones. Rather, the Government instead chose to scrap the entire Liberal policy entirely and all of the good provisions they have refused to argue against on notice and instead spout the same lines.

The Prime Minister gave me no response

The Minister of Justice refused to justify their support

Adding onto that, the Minister for Education and the Environment referred me to the Minister of Infrastructure and stated that she found it “gave her a headache” to read

A proper response was finally gotten from the co-leader of the Green Party who stated justified criticism of the notice time period but offered very little rebuttal on issues of compensation. Concerns about the minimum of the notice being extended and flexible were raised which could be countered with the point that a high minimum is still needed to help set a barebones minimum time period for notice to prevent the potential for organizations to give notice by an insufficient amount of time.

The legislation passed only had issues with Section 72A, namely subsection 1(c) which could be subject to amendment rather than scrapping the whole original bill and all of the positive clauses within it. Furthermore, the claim that two thirds of the Act is nonsensical and the other third unnecessary is a strange comment especially with latter context. The Minister for Infrastructure therefore states firmly that the expansion for the minimum of notice is unnecessary despite it functioning as a solid baseline to give no reasonable doubt that the time for individuals to pack up and move is a long enough time to not force them out the door. Sometimes, searching for a good property can take weeks of time and the Liberal Party reform recognizes that people can’t just snatch up a house in two weeks and expands it to a generous eight weeks to help people find new homes or invest in new land.

This is a section where the Minister makes a statement which shows complete ignorance of the very Act they are talking about. While complaints about the constituent parts of Section 72A are justified and justify sole amendment on it’s own, the Minister makes absurd claims regarding Section 72 and the Liberal Party amendment which states that it means that undeveloped housing can get more compensation than an owners primary place of residence.

Prior to amendment, the Bill read as follows. The Liberal Party amended two clauses in this overall section. They amendment section (1) to make the cap of $50,000 instantly payable at $50,000 rather than up to $50,000 which would let you keep a guaranteed amount of additional compensation. The Liberal Party also scraps 1B which ignores the number of owners in the land or “the nature of the estate” which are two important factors to consider in the payment of additional compensation for fairness and equity for investors. However, the Minister for Infrastructure clearly hasn’t even read the bill they’re amending as subsection 1(c) specifically states that the additional compensation is on the primary place of residence. Therefore, the Minister is actively lying by stating that you earn more for your undeveloped property than primary place of residence as section 72 applies specifically to the primary residence with some flexibility.

When questioned, the Minister still states that the main opposition is to Section 72A and it being contradictory due to being made up of conditional parts. However, this is still not a valid justification for why they need to scrap the entire bill to achieve this goal over a single amendment.

A slight glimmer of real intention comes out when the Minister reveals they fully oppose the Liberal Party intention for setting the flat payment of $50,000 compared to the previous situation where you were paid up to $50,000. This reveals the Minister is against a fixed increase in compensation on this field directly and seems to be a clear cut policy pledge in the field. The Labour Party therefore reveals they are against additional compensation for primary residences and land.

This is an interesting moment in the interview with the Minister as they have failed to consider two aspects. Firstly, the transcripts above reveal that his main source of opposition was that section 72A was contradictory to the law set out by the Liberal Party which brings into question their first point. Secondly, the Minister claims he never stated that this applied to land not containing a dwelling that is not the primary place of residence. As seen in the screenshot referring to the exact same comments, both of these statements are proven wrong as the Minister did say both of those statements directly. An interesting moment when a Minister claims to have never said words when he did a few minutes ago.

Eventually, I ask a direct question to fully clear up the confusion on their stance for Section 8 of the original bill. They were asked a question about section 8 of the bill and instead answered about section 9.

When asked for a straight answer, the Minister refused. To put this on the record, they refused to answer why they referred to section 8 as being part of compensation for undeveloped land and therefore making stuff up about the Act. The only answer we got which wasn’t confusing or talked about other sections of the Act was the statement that they opposed additional compensation for the primary place of residence.

Eventually, the interview ends when questioning on Section 9 began. The Minister referred to the Liberal Bill as potentially compensation undeveloped land more than compensating developed land. The Liberal Bill actually introduced flexibility and recognized how the land and property market works by recognizing large parcels of undeveloped land in prime zones could be worth more compensation than a dwelling hypothetically. Furthermore, the number of owners in a land is relevant as investment in the land might be returned in a far diminished and unfair state due to compensation caps. Furthermore, the actual amount payable is still capped somewhat at 20% of the land value which makes it unlikely the amount payable will be more than additional compensation paid to a property. Unless 20% of a land value is more than $50,000 which would make the value of the land closer to $2-3 million worth of land to reach close to those levels. For the rare few times that occurs, it makes sense to give such adequate compensation for such a valuable piece of land.

Conclusion

The Green and Labour Party have proposed a bill which is completely unjustified with their only leading justified cause of criticism being that there is too much additional compensation for seizure of a primary place of residence and that too much notice is given. Otherwise, many of their other concerns are disproven or negligible at best.

The fact so many Government MP’s blindly would support such a bill is an outrageous situation which people should be rightfully angry about. The bill is doing nothing more than taking away the right to higher compensation for your property and eight weeks of notice rather than two weeks over dealing with the singular issue of section 72A which requires a smaller amendment.

Either we can take the criticisms as face value, that this Government believes you deserve less for your primary place of residence and less notice for that land or we can take it as having an ulterior motive. The bill in question was Gregor_The_Beggar’s first piece of legislation written and proposed by himself. This seems to be a massive experiment in legacy erasing, petty partisan politics intended to deal a blow to Gregor_The_Beggar’s legacy over any meaningful lawmaking.

The ultimate conclusion is that every Green and Labour MP should read the bill and stand against it in the final vote at third reading.

Alex Hughes, The Bugle of Liberty

Major support from SnecBoi and stranger195

Authors Note: I’ll be honest here and state that my original assignment was to do a piece on Capital Gains Tax but I had to cover this area first. I will still be doing a piece on Capital Gains Tax for our regular readers information.

The Minister of Business and Deputy Prime Minister, Boomfa_, answered in Question Time before the House that he sees “no reason to justify the actions of a big business lobbying group”, suggests listening to them is part of the Opposition’s job and then refused to take responsibility for the Capital Gains Tax and refused to answer how it would effect businesses.

“I see no reason to justify the actions of a big business lobbying group that opposes government policy. As the Liberal Party is (finally) part of the Official Opposition, I believe that is your job. I would also note that the implementation of the capital gains tax is not under the purview of the Minister of Business.”

Boomfa_, Minister of Business

The Bugle of Liberty investigated the cause of the Ministers comments and saw that he was asked a question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition surrounding the movement of business leaders against the proposed Government Capital Gains Tax. The Minister appears to have read that as utilizing the findings of Business NZ, the largest business advocacy group in New Zealand, and seemed to interpret their recommendations against the program as being from the mouths of big business lobbyists.

Well, Business New Zealand is a lobbyist organization. They are a lobbyist organization for all business in New Zealand and particularly have a focus in regional business representation recently. For a Government with big plans for regional development and moving the Ports of Auckland to Northland, they have to actively consider the advice of industry experts like Business NZ and the fact the Minister in charge of Business is so easy to dismiss them as a big business lobbying group they shouldn’t listen to shows a deeply toxic environment to New Zealand businesses within the Government cabinet. If the Government wants to take any action for Regional Development, then they need to have the consultation of business and actually listen to the experts rather than their own party advisors.

Business NZ was reached for comment on the matter and their comments will be published desperately as an addendum to this piece.

Furthermore, the Capital Gains Tax proposed by the Government would have a massive impact on business as they are the ones being effected the most. There is a reason why Business NZ chose to release their objections to the Capital Gains Tax and that is due to the fact that this program would have a massive impact on them. The fact that the Minister in charge of Business believes that doesn’t matter or that it doesn’t fall under his purview when they directly are in charge of the affairs of business again highlights this Government’s lack of commitment and preparation for the management of the New Zealand economy and New Zealand’s business environment. Furthermore, it shows a lack of accountability for their own actions and their own portfolio and shows a lack of commitment towards any actual work to promote or uplift business. This comes as no surprise as the Government’s entire package has not a single program to actually uplift New Zealand business or the New Zealand economy despite millions of New Zealanders relying on them for their very livelihoods and their jobs. That is a dangerous precedent to set.

This is apart of the wider War on Business by this Government it appears and this shows how even the Minister in charge of Business affairs, the one set to manage the implementation of Government programs and listen to business leaders and their objections towards policies that could be deeply destructive to their very livelihoods, would so openly ignore and not consider the viewpoints of the largest Business advocacy organization in New Zealand is fundamentally wrong. If the Government was contacted by the largest unions in New Zealand, they would bow head over heels for the chance to please them. The Bugle of Liberty believes that you need to look after business and union interests equally rather than wage a blatant War on Business and assault the livelihoods of thousands if not millions of New Zealanders.

Marcus Lockheart, Business Correspondent, The Bugle of Liberty