…some vested interests fear New Zealand First…
They are clearly worried about the role New Zealand First will play after the election. How else to explain the recent systematic campaign of hysterical allegations against myself and the party?
We were warned some time ago that big money was being spent to “get” New Zealand First. Those responsible for this dirty campaign against us don’t want to be seen with their own hands all over this toxic garbage, so in Parliament they’re using the proverbial canary in the coalmine to test out some of their more outrageous allegations. They have a problem – the allegations are unfounded and the canary is twittering away in the dark. We welcome the Privileges Committee inquiry and the opportunity answer the complaint.
It is little wonder that the usual suspects should be scared of New Zealand First. Recent revelations have shown that National’s 1990s agenda has never truly gone away. New Zealand First would never accept those sorts of policies because of the social hardship and economic damage they cause.
Take superannuation for example. New Zealand First is the only party that has consistently committed to not just keeping the level of superannuation steady, but actually increasing it.
The National Party’s record on superannuation is appalling. In 1990, NZ Super was worth 76.8% of the net average wage. By 1999 it had fallen to 64.9%. That’s scandalous!
The New Zealand Superannuation Act 2001 requires net NZ Super for a married couple (both qualified) to be between 65% and 72.5% of the net average wage after tax. When we agreed to give the Government support on supply and confidence in 2005, we demanded that the lower limit be lifted to 66%. But we still don’t think that’s enough. Average wages in New Zealand have increased 77% since 1990, but NZ Super for a married couple has increased only 52.7%. Yet our senior citizens still need to eat, pay their rates, their power bills and the rising costs of everything else.
New Zealand First policy is that after the election we will be demanding the lower limit for NZ Super be set at 68%.
No amount of smear campaigning will change that fact!
The link to my speech on increasing superannuation is: http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/content/display_item.php?t=0&i=2790)
August 10th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Being concerned that in 2005 NZ First as the most superannuitant friendly party lost the most parliamentary seats, we should have an explicit policy with more universal appeal, such as proving how the delivery & sustainability of higher superannuation can also be the engine of an accelerated economic growth rate through a higher NZ Super Fund accumulation rate (with increased investment potential in needed NZ infrastructure) - and the first step towards this becoming more popular as a long term visionary policy would be an energetic campaign for allocation of the NZ Super Fund to Personal Accounts, as a permanent institution, and not just for the benefit of Baby Boomers. It will certainly be more easily understood and popular than the unnecessarily complex 1997 universal super savings scheme, and more so, since the controversial universal or compulsory aspect of the idea is in action already.
However - why not have open debate and comparison with other good election ideas and associated possible “selling points” or slogans? We should never be suspected of suppressed ideas or “hidden agendas”.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am
when NZ1 was formed in 1993 it was calculatingly decided that large groups should be targeted to get their block vote. Worked well give them what they want and guarantee a return to power.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The canary is desperate for attention! poor wee soul!
August 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I am seriously concerned that a party identified through a particular sectional interest priority, might be sensed by the public as not putting New Zealand first.
Therefore I strongly appeal to Winston and the NZ First policy team to announce the economic steps (not only intentions)to make all the desired goodies deliverable on a sustainable basis.
There should be no doubt that we put welfare of the whole of New Zealand first, and for the best outcome of this election, open debate on this is the sooner, the better.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
Totally agree that superannuation should be at a higher level than presently available. But we also need to make sure the funds are there to do this. The recent credit debacle in the USA shows the folly of the “Cullen” fund investing there.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Sam, in support of your argument with which I agree, that super funds should be there to keep better super sustainable, we still have to comply with economic realities, a most basic one of which is for successful investment - diversification, and territorial spread, not all of it at home!
So, while we (I believe) agree, that a substantial proportion of our NZSF could be VERY PROFITABLY FOR THE COUNTRY invested in LOW INTEREST COST INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING, a fair proportion invested overseas is only prudent.
Actually - while I doubt there is much NZSF invested in dubious finance in America, at present might be a good time to acquire valuable assets there at bargain prices!
Some losses in investment are a natural inevitability, but the benefits of diversification on a large scale are illustrated by the $100 million loss of the NZSF in an Italian Dairy Company collapse, which affected NZSF earnings by only a fraction of 1% in that year.
Instead of in the 2020s for the benefit of Babyboomers, benefits of the NZSF helping to fund our NZ Super could be experienced by all of us from the moment of NZSF Personal Account allocation, which is bound to increase our confidence in the NZSF, especially when noticing its impact opn our economy and productivity.
Then, practically - we could vote for ourselves whatever superannuation we choose, if prepared to VOTE FOR THE NZSF ACCUMULATION RATE TO MAKE IT DELIVERABLE - and that is not just wishful speculation, because the benefits through accelerated investment would be felt almost immediately, not in decades.