Just over a week on my thoughts constantly turn to the people of Christchurch. I am thinking particularly of those who have lost loved ones. For many this is a time of unbearable heartache as they wait for news, any news, of their nearest and dearest, knowing all the while their likely fate. I have been close to two of these situations in the last week and it is truly testing the friends and families to endure the hurt, frustration and uncertainty. I also think of those who are homeless, or in wrecked homes or in streets, especially those in the eastern suburbs still without power, water and sewerage.
The people of Christchurch and their well-being is the chief concern of all in politics right now, whatever party we are from. In this past week we have all tried to pull together, as communities all around New Zealand have, to do our best for them. Government Ministers are working incredibly hard, as are local MPs of all parties and I want to acknowledge them all for that.
Part of the passing days is that discussion inevitably turn to matters that are more political. We had our first taste of that with the story about Bill English refusing to rule out cuts to Working for Families and changes to the interest free student loan scheme. John Key followed up today saying there was an ‘opportunity’ to look again at these policies. Phil Goff has responded saying that cutting incomes for families and increasing costs for students and graduates like this is not the correct response, and that there are other choices the government can make.
The mere fact of this debate has caused anguish for some. I accept that this is a sensitive area. As I said there are many people still waiting to learn the fate of their family members, and thousands of people doing it really tough every day. But the discussion about the future of Christchurch and what will be done is now in the public arena as likely costs are released by the government, and questions asked by the media and others. It does not, and should not stop the focus on rescue, recovery and ensuring the immediate health and safety of residents.
In fact it is important for our democracy that the debate is held. These are important decisions about the future of our whole country, especially Christchurch, but for all of us in the end. The choices that are made, and the priorities accorded to future spending need to be the subject of debate. There is need to hold the government to account, and to oppose and propose where necessary. This is not disrespectful to the people of Christchurch, it is in fact to support them and take further steps to recovery.
We must strive to work together for the people of Christchurch. We must be sensitive to an emotionally charged situation. But there will be debate and disagreement. That is a healthy part of our democracy. That is part of politics. And politics need not be a dirty word. It should be the mechanism by which we go about about finding the best outcome for the people and the future of Christchurch and the rest of our great country.
Big suprise. Whos the first to pay for the quake under National? Students and vulnerable families.
No they can’t raise the top tax bracket, take from those who are being forced to borrow so they can learn get a high skilled job in the future economy and families who rely on government help so they can raise their children properly…
I see three distinct budgetary issues.
I have no problem with the $1Bpa funding the Kiwi Saver tax incentives being axed. That raises $5B over 5 years for the government cost. After the 5 years are over the money saved can be tagged to increase the Super Fund each year (unless we find another way to fund this – say by tagging the employer contribution into the Fund).
The GST take on the rebuild provides the revenue to oversee urban planning costs and to subsidise the private rebuild to the standard required.
A $5B loan re-finances the EQC fund and enables it to cope with any new disaster. The loan can be paid back by increasing the levy.
Nice try Grant but the right doesn’t have a problem with debate what we have a problem with is the complete lack of respect from the hard left…
In my opinion The Standard has been an absolute disgrace this past week…
They started playing politics while we still had no idea how many people had died or the extent of the damage and chillingly didn’t even seem to pause before doing so…
For the blogging community – except the hard left – it seems to me any respect The Standard had left has evaporated and they’ve displayed to all what a bunch of morally bankrupt control freaks the right always knew them to be…
@Jeremy of course you have chosen not to play politics by treating a very thoughtful contribution by Grant with an attempt to start a flame war about the Standard on a completely different site …
‘Rebuilding communities’ is a great way to look at Christchurch, as it is for the rest of the country. In the political debates to come, how one defines ‘community’ will be seriously put to the test.
I Hvae to agree that the standard has been very incensitive with the comments it has allowed through. HOWEVER, its authors HAVE refrained from posting politically charged posts.
So while its authors have not gone political until now, its commentors have. It is a shame that these comments were not more carfully moderate until after the intial tradgedy.
It is true that you cant hld off politics forever though.
I notice that Key has ruled out interest going on to interest-free student loans.
I do think however that BOTH sides are pushing ideologically driven ideas to pay for the clean up and rebuild.
eg:
Nats/Act: Cuts to services and programmes etc etc.
Labs/Greens: Increase taxes on the wealthier people (Some would call this a “rich prick tax”).
My point being, that if people step back and look at what both sides are suggesting, BOTH sides ideas are ideologically driven.
You may not think your position (right or left) is ideologically driven…..reality is though that they are.
I hope that all can work TOGETHER to come up with a solution.
Would people be opposed to those on say $70k plus having the WWF payments cut? (these were the ones that were taxed at 39% at one point).
Lets work together anyway and not throw the baby out with the bath water,
That’s a very classy post. Thanks for not politicising the quake, while acknowledging that there is debate to be had on other issues.
I hope MPs across the board can agree with the sentiment in there.
@Fureongo
A thoughful contribution.
As my namesake said “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. This is a mantra that drives the thinking of many on the left.
When you apply it to this situation this suggests that the recent tax cuts to the wealthiest should be reversed because they have the greatest ability to pay. It is not an envy tax, it is a realisation that over the past couple of decades they have done very well and that things should be wound back a bit so that the country can get back on its feet.
I am someone who benefitted hugely from the recent tax cuts. For the sake of my country I am willing to have those cuts reversed.
YES PHIL!
NO INTEREST ON STUDENT LOANS, NO ATTACKING WFF!
!
So Spud – balance deleted this is not a chat room – if you want one start your own blog. Trevor
Any rate of interest under inflation does not create “real” interest on the student loans.
There must be concern over funding on the right as the frothier the attack dogs are the greater the indication as indicated by the frothing Jeremy.
As every person in NZ will be affected by the Christchurch disaster, every person will now or soon will be interested in how best to rebuild and how to fund it. After all, who will be next?
It just seems wrong to me that for example, the Student Volunteer Army get “thanked” by the government (potentially) by getting extra interest added to their student loans. Its just nasty and stupid. You guys have to oppose this stuff all the way.
MJWKiwi “It just seems wrong to me that for example, the Student Volunteer Army get “thanked” by the government (potentially) by getting extra interest added to their student loans. Its just nasty and stupid. You guys have to oppose this stuff all the way.”
Or you could just say that any tax payer that has helped is going to be “thanked” by the government by an additional tax? Is that nasty / stupid? Does that seem wrong to you?
What about the 10′s of 000′s of students who havn’t helped? Should we not look at them simply because some other students are helping?
@ JMH: lack of respect? please let us know what is respectful about the PM and Blinglish so soon getting into the nitty gritty about what should be cut to fund dealing with the tragedy.
Why mention anything in detail yet? It is coming back to me now…
John Key referred in 2005 to WFF as “communism by stealth” so it is no coincidence that is in the media as a ‘choice’ rather than say withdrawing SCFs $1.6 $bill or reversing tax cuts to the wealthy. Who knows what might happen eventually on those scores, but the tories sure as hell want to get some clawbacks out of this awful situation it seems on their current performance.
Great point mjwkiwi!
Espiner said on Breakfast that hacking stuff won’t pay for the quake anyway!
Where is the Ministry of Works now we need them? Oh that’s right; sold. The Ministry of Works was a giant nationwide organisation with designers, engineers, office and ground staff, and piles of equipment, and a government behind them that could borrow money more cheaply than others. The MoW attitude would be to build for Christchurch and New Zealand, not for profit. And don’t tell me they would build ugly, the beautiful art gallery so featured in tv coverage is a government building (ok CCC but still government). These earthquakes have exposed the Friedman market-driven experiment for what it always was – an utter con. The mantra that we need less government is a smoke screen for the privatisation of government which, when disaster strikes, is unable to respond in any other way that rave about where the money will come from. Government for all the people gets it’s hands dirty and starts practical help immediately.
And by the way, those who fling about the ‘be respectful’ faux sympathy are deeply resented amongst those of us who have survived these two disasters. Talking about how we’ll rebuild our lives is of immediate importance to the hundreds of thousands of survivors.
Fureongo – the fact that Key will come up against in trying to reduce WFF for those on higher incomes is that if it is cut to exclude them there will have to be a very high rate of abatement at a lower level. Such high rates are associated with people hiding income in trusts and the like.
Usually National opposes such high rates on abatement on workers (except where they support them on beneficiaries work income) as a “disincentive” to work (or to declare income).
If National try to reduce the higher ened cost without a higher level of abatement they will reduce support to those on middle incomes and cause hardship to families (impacting the most when mortgage rates go up during any recovery).
I personally find it bizarre that National would support cutting back income of higher income earners with children but oppose across the board cuts at higher incomes that include those without children. These would either raise more money (being across the board) or be less per higher income household.
Frankly this idea from Key, and others on the right, places ideology and politics above the practical.
Stop trying to pretend that Bill English is playing politics. He did not raise this issue at all. He simply gave a non committal response to the insensitive question asked by Kim Hill. Phil Goff on the other hand did not wait to be questioned. He jumped in with politics like he has been doing for 40 years……
The Standard has gone beyond the pale. I did not think it could stoop so low. Sadly it will only get worse as we approach November.
I don’t disagree with much of what you said Grant. Of course there must be a debate about how to pay for the rebuild of Christchurch but timing is important.
To use a weak analogy, it’s a bit like humour. You can joke about a tragedy some time after the event (after 18.2 years according to Southpark!), but it is pretty appalling to do so before the bodies are buried.
I genuinely was appalled that an MP would have asked the parliamentary library to do costings on a tax increase within two days of the earthquake, and would then blog it on day 3. That was cart way before the horse.
I’m happy to enter this debate, because this post has been done thoughtfully and respectfully. That is the difference to other blog sites.
If 10% of income earners already pay 75% of tax revenue to the government, can we ask for even more from these citizens, who anyway offer much more to the country than just tax revenue to the govt? When it gets to the stage that your govt is taking more than half of what you earn (which is what will result if Labour gets its way), that goes beyond income tax, and into the realms of theft.
Wealthier families who qualify for WFF, and students (who at the moment get a free ride) are able to pay their way a bit more. If you want to share the burden, cast the net wider than just the “rich pricks”.
David Farrar
The problem is your comments made it sound like Labour politicians were engaged in what can only be decsribed as appalling behaviour. You had the dog whistle out when you said [b]ut politicians on the left are also to blame.
There was only one, Russell Norman. And a debate about how to fund assistance for Christchurch is not a bad thing.
I take it that you do not disagree that Labour politicians have conducted themselves with dignity?
I agree with Jeremy at 1:31pm. The Labour Party cannot take the moral highground on public debate and, frankly, Grant’s comments border on hypocracy. The Labour frontbench is full of ex-Ministers from the the previous administration (the only exception in Robinson who was a Parliamentary staffer for Helen Clark) and no one really thinks they would change their approach to politics if they were elected in Novermber.
David: Didn’t Bill English then John Key set off this debate? It was certainly the first I heard of it.
Would you mind setting the right day for considering rebuild and costing? D-Day +5? +7? +14? +30? +365?
And would ask the aforementioned to not talk about it until you give the all clear.
The trolls are about – equating the Standard with Labour. Then calling Labour MP’s of a former government partisan and suggesting the current governments MP’s are somehow governing for “all of us” in raising the idea of taking the axe to WFF as the way to pay for some of the rebuild costs.
I’m calling this the new higher standard in hypocrisy – where government float their balloons and anyone discussing them in a critical way is somehow being inappropriate.
jimmy
Key and English have already said they will continue interest free loans – it was probably only mentioned earlier to get their supporters excited about their government breaking another of their promises.
As for WFF cuts proposed.
It won’t reduce WFF cost much if as specified.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-savings-in-wff-cuts.html#links
It cannot be done in the way suggested.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/03/key-commits-to-wff-cuts.html#links
Espiner of breakfast did a fine job of pulling National’s ‘budgeting’ plans to pieces.
Dismantling WFF and charging interest on student loans will only bring in cents when the bill for the will be hundreds of dollars (so to speak)
As I said on the herald pages – willingness to pay a levy for the fixes is inversely proportional to the ability to pay such a levy. The masses are reasonable and are willing to do so; the uber rich are all threatening to run to Aussie or bleating about the unfairness as it didn’t happen in Remuera or the north shore….
The right is presently in government, and so the ball is in their court. If they think it bad taste to indulge in political arguments with regard to Christchurch’s recovery, then it is up to them to create the conditions for genuinely bipartisan input regarding the solutions. It just is not good enough to cry “You can’t talk about politics at a time like this,” while proffering narrowly political answers themselves.
Who will announce when its ok to debate where the money will come from to pay for the quake?
I find nothing offensive about discussing the obvious, before or after the last body is found. Our politicians are paid to run the country for now and the future. They can do it respectfully but they need to do it.
As for the 10% paying 75% of the tax comment, surely that doesnt make it ok to say to the people who cant afford to pay more, to pay more?
national will have worked out the demographics, which is why there has been NO suggestion of raising the top rate to pre borrowing rates. They will have done their polling (David???) to work out if students of WFF recipients are more or less likely to vote for national. If this is not true, why no mention of raising the top rate, just till Christchurch is back on their feet.
MS: That is a fair point. Unlike with Pike River, Labour MPs have been appropriately restrained in the early days of the quake. My post was primarily directed at Russel Norman, and I accept I could have not used the more general term of “the left”.
Cheers DPF
Here’s what the Jackal has to say:
http://thejackalman.blogspot.com/2011/03/asshole-of-week-award.html
Now there’s been a bit of talk lately by right-wing bloggers that the Greens were insensitive to propose a way to pay for the Christchurch earthquake so soon after it happened. Personally I think the faster a financial solution is found the better.
An observation … it never ceases to amaze how DPF comments as if he is some kind of respected oracle or authority on politics.
“Look everybody, sit up and listen a moment. I have something really important to say.” From what I glean from his exposure on Jim Mora’s panel, he is nothing more than a National Party hack.
…”unlike with Pike River, Labour MPs have been appropriately restrained…” what a load of patronising bs.
DPF seems, no matter what the point of a discussion might be, to be trying always to score political points and the sad thing is that Mora doesn’t appear to have the nouse to counter it – (unless of course he approves.)
What exactly is appalling about an MP raising the idea of a levy to pay for the public cost?
An extra-ordinary means to pay for an extra-ordinary cost is not playing politics with the issue.
It specifically avoids issues of tax rate changes and inter-party dispute about the worth of existing party programmes.
Interesting, in the opinion of someone who perceives rugby as stupid, that the media can speculate and debate whether the RWC should still happen in Christchurch, but debating the rebuild and funding it is sacrosanct. Sums up NZ really!
Good point Ian!
Yes Ian. Mr Key was expressing his great interest in saving RWC for Christchurch. Rugby trumps Portaloos any day.
I just dont see how anyone can consider these calls not politicising. The PM made comments about the RWC within days of the earthquake.
To be honest it may be better to move it now to reassure those coming for the cup and ensure they dont cancel their trips.
Politicians are paid to make the hard decisions during hard times.
Yeah, we don’t want them cancelling on us!
According to the Penguin only the left are playing politics – don’t you love it.
The Prime Minister says “Realistically I didn’t have time to visit everyone” in the troubled eastern side of town today. Probably because he was playing politics up in the irrelevant issue that is Botany Downs. Photo op there as well of course.
National is floating trial balloons all the time – Richard Long in the Dom again this Tuesday and (Hooton and) the NBR editorial again this Friday campaigning for National to break their election promises, now citing the earthquake as their latest convenient excuse.
Gerry Brownlee, Bob Parker and John key have been showering daily and toiletting since day 1 of the quake. I know of one family in the eastern suburbs (Bexley) who cannot dig a long drop because of silt, have a minimum of 500m (now) to get to a portaloo and havent showered. The first non resident they saw in their area was Thursday (the day after they all began to speak out). The portaloo also arrived AFTER they spoke out. So, DF and others, is this political point scoring or a valid complaint being ignored, patronised and downplayed (wrongly)?
NO they cant be everywhere but demographically it’s been fascinating to see WHERE they have been able to get
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/author/grant-robertson/
The Christchurch earthquake and the recovery represents a huge call on government accounts.
As Grant Robertson mentioned in this Post one way the government will attempt to fix this drain on the accounts, is with cuts to social spending, like Working for Families, or the Student Loans Scheme.
However there is a way of returning millions of dollars to the Earthquake hit region without costing the taxpayer a cent.
Over at The Standard the question of a Mortgage Moratorium is being debated.
This approach of appealing to the banks to grant mortgage relief is not enough. As you say Marty, some banks are doing this already.
As well as being time consuming and no doubt a bureaucratically complicated process, when people’s energies could be better concentrated elsewhere, the big danger of this approach is that it risks seeing those with less influence and/or time and energy to be wasted, being shoved to the back of the queue, (as always).
To meet the need and cut through all the paper work and red tape, what is needed is some visionary leadership in the house of representatives to forcefully demand that the government immediately enact the necessary circuit breaking legislation.
The Christchurch Emergency Mortgage freeze enabling Act – should state, “That for the duration of this emergency that a Moratorium on Mortgages shall apply. Specifically; all mortgage payments in the Greater Christchurch Area; public, private and commercial, will be waived with no accrued penalties or interest to be payable to the banks.”
Further: “That the need for this emergency enactment shall be reviewed at a period of no less than every three months from it’s implementation.”
To have any chance of influencing the government, As well as the opposition parties, the coalition parties should also be challenged to support the “Moratorium”.
It is by raising such demands that an opposition party is judged. And by opposing them or sitting on the fence, are all other parties judged as well.
So let’s see some forceful visionary leadership from the opposition benches that is prepared to promote policies which by alleviating some of the financial pressures of those affected will be of direct and immediate benefit to those suffering in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake.process, when people’s energies could be better concentrated elsewhere, the big danger of this approach is that it risks seeing those with less influence and/or time and energy to be wasted, being shoved to the back of the queue, (as always).
To meet the need and cut through all the paper work and red tape, what is needed is some visionary leadership in the house of representatives to forcefully demand that the government immediately enact the necessary circuit breaking legislation.
The Christchurch Emergency Mortgage freeze enabling Act – should state, “That for the duration of this emergency that a Moratorium on Mortgages shall apply. Specifically; all mortgage payments in the Greater Christchurch Area; public, private and commercial, will be waived with no accrued penalties or interest to be payable to the banks.”
Further: “That the need for this emergency enactment shall be reviewed at a period of no less than every three months from it’s implementation.”
To have any chance of influencing the government, As well as the opposition parties, the coalition parties should also be challenged to support the “Moratorium”.
It is by raising such demands that an opposition party is judged. And by opposing them or sitting on the fence, are all other parties judged as well.
So let’s see some forceful visionary leadership from the opposition benches that is prepared to promote policies which by alleviating some of the financial pressures of those affected will be of direct and immediate benefit to those suffering in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake.
Categories.
By definition anyone with a home mortgage should have insurance (a condition of the mortgage).
Mortgage relief until they resume employment (some rebuild workers are still in work) or just while they have no house to live in and related to helping them afford accomodation out of the mortgaged home residence?
Homeowners with the home intact and a job excluded.
Homeowners with a home intact and without a job included? (what about other unemployed people in New Zealand)
Homeowners with a damaged home, but still liveable – awaiting insurance – and with a job excluded.
Homeowners with a damaged home, but still liveable and without a job included?
Homeownwers with a destroyed home and with a job included until the home is rebuilt.
Homeowners with a destroyed home and choosing to take the insurance money rather than rebuild excluded once they receive the money.
Homeowners unable to rebuild their home because of ground conditions – only compensated for the building rebuild value when this may be below the mortgage because of land value? (see above as to when this voluntary not to rebuild).
There is another factor. Those who live in their holiday home until the rebuild don’t need the mortgage relief to cover their accomodation costs.
SPC, a rather long list of flimsy quibbling rather than reasoned objections.
By imposing a mortgage freeze for the greater Christchurch area, this will release tens of millions of dollars into the Christchurch economy which would greatly help the recovery of this area.
The other main benefit is that it will end the savage war going on in Christchurch between landlords trapped into paying mortgages, who in turn are demanding that tenants continue paying rent for smashed homes.
This is just lunacy and unfair.
Why shouldn’t the banks share some of the pain of the people of Christchurch?
What is Mortgage Relief Legislation?
This is such a simple and obvious solution.
Mortgage Relief Legislation would provide immediate relief for landlords and tenants and not cost the government a cent. (And as well would keep tens of millions of dollars in circulation in the Christchurch economy, that would otherwise be repatriated to the Aussie owned banks.)
Why aren’t the opposition Labour Party calling for this?
The Christchurch Earthquake has been described as New Zealand’s worst natural disaster.
Surely the scale of this emergency and the on going problems justify this emergency measure?
Are Labour even in opposition, frightened to offend the banks?
Labour’s founding leaders had no such qualms about putting their constituency’s needs above that of the banks.
Is the modern Labour Party’s concern for the welfare of the bankers, over riding their concern for the welfare of the people of Christchurch?
There is a need to categorise, it’s not quibbling or objection to anything to say that.
And sure there os also a need to categorise the landlord tenant circumstance. But as with homeowners these situations also vary.
Some rentals are intact and the only issue is whether the tenant can pay the rent or not if they are on less than their former work income. But at some point they can access accomodation supplements to help.
As with homeowners circumstances the situations vary and
because of this banks seem to be operating on a case by case basis – just as any legislative regulatory interevention would also have to do – category by category.
SPC trying to categorise and imagine all possible exceptions is a patently transparent method used as an excuse to do nothing.
I am well aware of the many different and exceptional circumstances in Christchurch resulting from the Earthquake – from people and houses, where nothing even fell from shelves, and with all amenities and services untouched – to at the other extreme, the direst need, where people ill or infirm or with young children are living with wrecked houses flooded with filth, with no clean water or any other services, including the means to leave.
By releasing these funds into the greater Christchurch community those more fortunate will be better able to help those less well off. Which to the credit of the people of Christchurch has been their major response to this disaster.
That the banks are still demanding their pound of flesh from this ravaged city threatens to break down this good will, as landlords and tenants are forced to turn on each other.
This disaster has been declared New Zealand’s worst ever natural disaster, yet while a nation wide moratorium on mortgages has been used before in this country, for some reason SPC you try and find all sorts of excuses to rule it out in this case.
SPC I am sure back in the 30′s there would also have been all sorts of spurious reasons dwelling on people’s differing circumstances as to why a moratorium on mortgages should not be brought in.
Genuine question, how is the “worst ever natural disaster measured”?
I’m happy to sacrifice the holiday highway for Christchurch.