…here’s part of our senior citizens policy…
We have just spoken at a GreyPower Superannuation Forum to outline what New Zealand First will do for seniors. We made five commitments:
1. Increase the rate of New Zealand Superannuation.
2. Subsidise winter power bills.
3. Extend the SuperGold Card to include more discounts on more items that make up the cost of living.
4. Make our communities safer.
5. Protect savings and investments.
You can read more here.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Since allocation of the NZ Super Fund to Personal Accounts does not directly deliver anything to present day superannuitants, it can be said it is irrelevant to most of them, who are not concerned with the sustainability of what comes after them.
But for the majority of voters - the working population - sustainable superannuation is very important, especially for the young having to contribute to Baby Boomers’ NZ Super, without any policy assurance, that this will be also sustainable for them without some similar pre-funding as organised for Baby Boomers.
The obvious answer to that is to amend the NZ Super Fund into a permanent institution of personal accounts, to help sustain the improved NZ Super entitlement for post baby boomer generations - and keep up the trend of a higher savings culture in New Zealand, with all its increased and widening wealth ownership benefits.
Allocation of the NZ Super Fund to PAs (Personal Accounts) should not remain a “neglected agenda” with NZ First, but boldly announced the sooner, the better - and it is likely to become the possibly most significant election issue - because it delivers clearly measurable results from its first year of introduction when the PAs
begin to finance NZ Super of the 65 year olds (until consumed), releasing that amount of taxation revenue for spending in other areas.(Perhaps child poverty reduction, which should also be a priority NZ First issue beside superannuitant welfare.)
Also, NZSF PAs will totally demolish the suspicion, that NZ Super might be abated or replaced by KiwiSaving wealth, because there will be a diminishing tax burden in direct proportion to bigger PAs.
More advantages await to be revealed in examining the issue, and if there are any doubts within NZ First before announcing or rejecting it as an election issue, let them be discussed here and now.
(Wonder, if the press might be interested? - They certainly have evaded this theme despite frequent reminders)
August 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
On the subject of law and order. what specifically would NZ First advocate as a punishment for Graham Burton a convicted murder with over a 100 prior convictions who was paroled to murder again? What specifically would NZ First advocate for William Bell who had over a 100 prior convictions and bludgeoned three people to death in an Auckland RSA with the butt of a shotgun? If a terrorist blew up the sky tower and 2000 people died what would be a suitable punishment be for the offenders? It is now acceptable to murder our babies, what would NZ First change so that the Kahui twins murderer[s] would not go free?
On energy, with hydro mostly utilized and wind, wave and solar no good for the supply of base load electricity, the only option for increasing base load supply is expensive and dirty fossil fuel or cheap, clean nuclear power. Which option would NZ First choose?
August 13th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
On law & order, haven’t we got the toughest at present politically realistc line already? And making it tougher will have to be a gradual process, otherwise it may only take longer to achieve.
The same applies to nuclear policy - study & publicity about power problems & alternatives would have to precede any radical change, otherwise NZ First may face a period of reduced rather than increased influence.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
To Jens Meder on law and order. Of course we can get tougher, like Singapore we can execute the worst. Forty years of the touchy feely approach has only made things worse. 2 murders a year in 1952 to over a hundred now. Lets think of the victims for a chamge they didn’t choose to be killed the killers made that choice for them. If it doesn’t act as a deterrent who cares all we will have done is killed a murderer. On the death penalty, if it was good enough for the son of God it is good enough for terrorists and murderers.
On energy Labour are lost in a state of flawed ideological nonsense and National are gutless and only care about political expediency. To ensure security of supply Labour and National will rely on dirty fossil fuels. The civilized world is embracing nuclear power and so should we. Check it out? Which countries do not have or plan to have nuclear power. Bangaladesh is planning two for Gods sake. Over 2 million people a year [WHO] die from air pollution [1100 in NZ] and yet both of the old parties in New Zealand propose more pollution for security of electricity supply. Earthquakes, Japan manages and they have 56 reactors. Waste, by the time we get nuclear power we will probably be sending it to Australia for storage/recycling and it will be a huge industry for them being one of the biggest suppliers of uranium fuel. Let’s get real after all a Kiwi was instrumental in developing the technology, Lord Ernest Rutherford.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I fully understand your sentiments, Peter, but re-introduction of the death penalty by a smaller party at present will deliver it to the fate of Christian Heritage in 1993.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
To Peter McCormack, on nuclear energy:
-we will be dependent on imported uranium.
- will be depending on foreign companies and experts to realise a plant
-building a nuclear power plant takes 10 years from taking the decision until it’s on line. With the present rate of developement in the energy field, a nuclear plant may well be old fashioned by the time it’s finished.
-De-commissionong a nuclear plant at the end of its natural life is prohibitively expensive.
New Zealand homes are very badly insulated, great savings can be made there. In Europe (Germany, Holland) farmers are given incentives to put medium-sized windmills on their property. They supply the excess they produce to the grid, and receive commercial rates for that.
New Zealand has enormous wind potential. The problem is nimby type
public resistance to large schemes. The smaller units will be met with much less resistance by the public, on would be a welcome extra income for often hard-pressed farmers.
In the not too distant future, spray-on solar will be available, much cheaper than the present technology. Our own west coast iron sand will be the main ingredient.
These 2 technologies could make people more independent, make the power companies less powerful (no pun int), and would protect people against price hikes. The “clean green” image will be enhanced, hopefully resulting in more tourism.
We might even sell some of the technology (we’ll never sell nuclear technology).
August 21st, 2008 at 9:26 am
To Pieter Bode. Sir do you often visit the planet earth? Of the 30 countries in the OECD New Zealand, Luxembourg and denmark are the only one’s who do not have or plan to have nuclear power. Denmark imports electricity in times of need [nuclear generated] and Luxembourg imports all of its energy requirements. If decommissioning a nuclear plant is prohibitively expensive why is the rest of the world surging ahead with nuclear plans. Name a list of countries that do not have or plan to have nuclear power? Independent reports from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the UK Academy of Engineers concluded that nuclear is the cheapest way of producing base load electricity from the pouring of the first concrete till the final decommissioning of the plant. Fact. With every price increase in oil makes nuclear cheaper and this was two years ago. Wind does have potential in New Zealand but bear in mind wind, wave and solar are no good for the supply of base load electricity. As for clean green image, France is 75% nuclear powered and people still holiday in France and drink French wine. To ensure security of supply Labour and National have as back up coal and gas, how clean is that? You mention Holland and Germany, Holland in 2006 reversed a decision to close their only nuclear reactor and now plan to have it operating till 2034. They also import nuclear generated electricity from Germany. Germany has 17 reactors and has deferred plans to close them to enable them to meet carbon emission targets. I would much rather New Zealand be dependent on uranuim fuel from Australia than LNG from Russia. Chernobyl was 22 years ago build a bridge and get over it. I have a dream, New Zealand powered by clean nuclear and hydro with electric and hydrogen powered transport and independent of the Arabs, and this could be possible in 10 to 15 years if we had some leaders with some vision and the intestinal fortitude to do what is right. I want Mr Peters to be that leader, no pressure.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Peter, Pieter - You are both enthusiastic with constructively competing ideas - and we can be confident, that before long, technology will make it more easy for us to decide how much to invest in which.
Meanwhile, our priority should be to build up our productivity and capital investment capacity through a preferably all-participative - democratic rather than plutocratic - savings, invesmtent and wealth ownership rate, clearly identified under the slogan “Ownership Democracy”.
Your much appreciated comments, critical or not, please?
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
We do not need the ETS with it new Wellington base bureaucrcay soaking up teh new taxes on power, fuel and food. We need smaller, localised schemes to reduce the demands on “base load” power which today also has to supply the “peak load”.
I would love a small wind generator and solar panels on my property, but the cost is prohibitive.
For 2 people on a pension it is uneconomical. So I have to pay more and more. I cannot afford to become more self sufficient.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Law and order - what is needed is the abolition of the parole system.. There should be mandatory sentences for crime and these sentences served in full at all times. The Parole Boards and their ineptitudes (Graeme Burton, William Bell) are well documented. Also during criminal trials, previous criminal history should be tabled, for all to see.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Sam, I do believe that we support the Sensible Sentencing Trust on that, and have the strongest policy & politician (Ron Mark) on it so far? A very worthy election issue for NZ First.
October 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
A fantastic Law & Order policy paper. Small things make big differences - like greater use of the LSV programme. Certainly the way to go with young offenders, so glad to see a political party recognising the quality and the value of the work NZDF do in this regard. I am interested to understand further the “new measures designed to prevent crime ‘at the source’ to eliminate the reasons young people enter into a life of crime”.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Where is national heading when it supports more prisons more tax costs. Why didnt they support Ron Marks bill on Gangs. They are all talk at election time. I dread whats going to happen if them ACT and United Future rule this country. Winston and NZ first has stopped the PC agenda which was pursued with gusto in porevious years.