Printing money doesn’t create jobs

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Printing money doesn’t create jobs




“Directing the Reserve Bank to focus on employment ignores the basic fact that printing money doesn’t create jobs”, says ACT Leader David Seymour. 

“Monetary policy doesn’t affect employment in the long-term. 

“Jobs are created when we have a world-class education system, a flexible labour market, and a sound welfare system, none of which is related to monetary policy. 

“If central banks were able to increase employment by printing money, Zimbabwe would be a thriving economy. Instead, it is a basket case.

“Forcing the Reserve Bank to focus on both inflation and employment will put it in an impossible situation.

“When inflation starts to increase as a result of the Government’s massive spending plans, the Reserve Bank will face a difficult choice: raise interest rates and therefore short-term unemployment, or accept higher inflation with all of its damaging consequences.

“New Zealand’s employment rate is high compared with other developed countries. If we want to keep it that way, fighting inflation should be the sole focus of the Reserve Bank. Low inflation is an absolutely necessary condition for strong economic performance.

“These changes are economic vandalism of the highest order”, says Mr Seymour. 

Minister using taxpayer cash for political gain

Source: National Party – Headline: Minister using taxpayer cash for political gain

Labour’s coalition partner NZ First has threatened to withhold regional development funding for an important economic development project in Rodney unless local National MP Mark Mitchell ends his advocacy for it and stops criticising NZ First ministers.

In an extraordinary request over the weekend, NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft – who said she was under instruction from a Minister – also requested that National pledge to not ask Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones questions about the project, should it go ahead.

“Ms Marcroft said she had been sent to tell me that the Mahurangi River Restoration Project would be considered for funding from the Government’s Provincial Growth Fund, but for that to happen I would have to end my involvement with it as a local MP.

“Ms Marcroft told me this was because the Government was unhappy with me revealing the illegitimate use of Defence Force aircraft by Defence Minister Ron Mark.

“She also said if I ended my involvement and the money was granted, that they did not want National’s Regional Economic Development spokesperson Paul Goldsmith asking Shane Jones questions about it in Parliament.

“Finally, she implied my work as an Opposition MP would be a factor in funding any projects in my electorate I was involved in.

“I immediately told Ms Marcroft this behaviour was unacceptable, and that she had been put in a very compromised position by her colleague. She refused to name them so I said she had two hours to have the Minister call me before I took the matter further.

“She sent a text message an hour later asking me to forget the conversation.

“But this is rotten politics. It goes to the core of our democratic processes and the National Party will not let such behaviour stand.

“This billion dollar Provincial Growth Fund is taxpayer money and should be used to benefit New Zealanders, not buy an easy ride for the Government nor to try and convince local MPs to stop supporting local projects, because they have annoyed the Government.

“The Prime Minister needs to find out which of her Ministers is attempting to use public money for political gain and she needs to quickly explain what she intends to do about it.”

Speech to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group on Land – Christchurch

Source: Green Party

Headline: Speech to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group on Land – Christchurch

Kia tau te rangimārie o te Rangi e tū nei

o Papatūānuku e takoto nei

o te Taiao e awhi nei

ki runga I a tātou.

Tīhei mauri ora!

Ki nga kaumatua o Ngāi Tuāhuriri, tēnā koutou.

 Ki nga rangitira o te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, tēnā koutou.

Me ki nga manuhiri I konei mai i te IPCC, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

To the 120 scientists and experts, from 59 countries, who are gathered here, welcome to Aotearoa New Zealand and welcome to Christchurch

The work you are doing on climate change and land is obviously of critical and even existential importance to our common future.

But from my perspective, as New Zealand’s Minister for Climate Change, your timing couldn’t be better.

Because the questions around the relationship between climate change and land use, forestry and agriculture are central to the work you are doing here right now.

CLIMATE POLICY

The Paris Agreement obliges every country on Earth to achieve net zero emissions in the second half of this Century.

Our new Government has made the commitment that we here in New Zealand will hit this target by the very beginning of the second half of the Century, in the year 2050.

Across Government we are setting targets for different sectors consistent with this commitment.

For example, we aim to be producing 100 percent renewable electricity generation by 2035, or sooner.

We’re almost there now at 80 to 85 percent generation from hydro, geothermal, wind and solar, but we can go further.

Over the coming months we hope to make other announcements about transport emissions, electric vehicle uptake, and so on.

It’s an ambitious programme. It has to be.

We live in a part of the world where sea-level rise, coastal erosion, cyclones, and droughts are happening with the kind of increasing frequency and force that hasn’t been seen before.

One recent estimate suggests that $19 billion of assets are at risk from sea level rise and flooding events – including 5 airports, 50 kilometres of rail, 2,000 kilometres of road and 40,000 homes.

Another report estimates that “the costs of weather events to New Zealand’s land transport network alone have increased in the last 10 years from $20 million a year to over $90 million annually.”

Flooding in 2011 in the upper South Island – about 5 hours north of here – cost nearly $17 million.

And there have just been two more major storms in that general area over the past month, by the way, which will add millions more to the region’s bill.

Then there was one of the worst droughts on record in New Zealand in 2012-2013.

It affected the entire North Island and the west coast of the South Island, and is estimated to have cost the country $1-and-a-half BILLION in lost agricultural exports.

Quite literally – we cannot afford to ignore climate change and do nothing about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

That government report (Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group) I released last year explains why, because, the report says, “Overall, the cost to New Zealand of climate change impacts and adapting to them are expected to be higher than the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” 

In other words, it’s more cost-effective to transition to a net zero emissions economy than pay for the repairs and clean ups.

So we plan to lock that commitment into law with the Zero Carbon Act.

In addition to putting net zero by 2050 into law, the Act will establish an independent Climate Change Commission, roughly modeled along the lines of Britain’s Climate Committee but suited to New Zealand’s needs.

We’ll be leading a major programme of engagement with the public and with experts on the design of the Act in June/July this year and introducing it to Parliament in October.

We’re also in the process of revising our Emissions Trading Scheme.

Simply put, the scheme as currently designed hasn’t worked. In the decade or so since it was introduced New Zealand’s emissions have increased, rather than decreased, and more forests have been cut down than planted.

LAND USE

Which brings me to land use.

Specifically agriculture.

We are a small country with a big reliance on agriculture.

It means that unlike – say – the United Kingdom, almost half of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture.  47.9 percent.

That presents challenges.  Should agriculture be included in an emissions trading scheme? And how, or how much?

No other countries include agriculture in their emissions schemes so we’re considering largely uncharted territory here.

But when I was at COP23 in Bonn last November, a number of countries, who are starting to realise they’ll also have to deal with agricultural emissions soon, asked me what we’re planning.

Just as the Dutch are now exporting their expertise in urban adaptation to sea level rise, developed over centuries, so New Zealand has the opportunity to develop and export our expertise in net zero emissions agriculture.

Given New Zealand has such significant agricultural emissions, and given we have a long history of agricultural innovation and adaptability, we need to look at the issue and look at it as quickly as possible if we want to catch the crest of that particular wave.

So, we will establish an interim Climate Change Committee to begin work on the agricultural emissions question until we’ve established the full Commission under the Zero Carbon Act around the latter half of next year.

The Interim Committee would pass on its advice and recommendations to the Climate Change Commission to follow through on.

Land is a critical part of the climate change puzzle for so many countries – as this IPCC Working Group well knows.

For us in New Zealand land is the point where the majority of environmental pressures are borne.

TREES

Which is why a massive and ambitious key initiative in the New Zealand Government’s action plan on climate change is trees.

We intend to see one billion trees planted over the next 10 years.

Part of the challenge – beyond the issue of such large scale planting –  is making the right choices about which are the right types of trees to plant in the right places at the right time.

It’s about getting the right mix of slow-growing indigenous tree plantations combined with much faster growing exotic species.

The right mix and locations will bring a number of benefits:

  • There’s carbon sequestration. NZ indigenous trees are incredibly efficient as carbon sinks, but they’re slow to get there.
  • Another benefit is restoring biodiversity with the right planting in the right areas.
  • Water quality can be improved and sedimentation run-off controlled.
  • And forestry can stabilise erosion-prone land. Currently we lose 200 million tonnes of soil to the sea every year.
  • Plus, it promises a lot of jobs in parts of New Zealand that need them.

 The work underway now is to map out land, both government-owned and private holdings, where forestry will be a good option.

 CONCLUSION

New Zealand is embarking on the kind of reform and transformation we haven’t seen for more than 30 years.

Choices around our land and how we use it will be critical in our overall climate change strategy.

Everyone gathered here today knows the severity of the challenge we face as a global community.

As Minister for Climate Change, I am proud that New Zealand is hosting you, and I am proud of the work New Zealanders do in the IPCC and other international climate forums.

30 years ago New Zealand took a moral stand against nuclear weapons and has worked internationally since then for international non-proliferation and disarmament.

Our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has called climate change the nuclear free moment of this generation.

If we want to help lead the world towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, we must create a moral mandate underpinned by decisive action at home to reduce our own emissions.

And, as a country, we must contribute our best and brightest people to the IPCC and UNFCCC prrocesses.

The science and evidence base that you people in this room build, and the very important work you do to communicate it to policy-makers is fundamental to what I and my political colleagues must do.

When I first grasped the enormity of the climate challenge about 20 years ago, I was working at Pricewaterhouse in London and I read an insurance industry report that said that the global insurance industry itself was going to collapse by 2050 under the weight of climate change related claims.

Almost every discussion about climate change then degenerated into arguments where people questioned the science.

I am so pleased that, in most discussions now, that no longer happens.

The science is settled; largely thanks to the work of the IPCC; both in collating the evidence and in communicating it.

It is now up to politicians, business leaders and communities to make the hard decisions about what to do to reduce emissions and to adapt to the changing climate.

Our decisions should always be underpinned by the evidence that the IPCC brings to the table.

And that evidence should always be updated and re-assessed when new data becomes available.

As the IPCC marks its 30th Anniversary, it feels like we have reached a time of new realisation and new resolve around climate change.

As chair, Hoesung Lee, noted in his address at celebrations in Paris a couple of weeks ago:

“30 years of IPCC assessments have concluded that anthropogenic climate change is real, its threats will increase, and we have the means to stop it cost effectively.”

I agree with him, and I am grateful for his organisation’s vision and commitment.

To you all here today, for the work you do collectively, I also say thank you.

 No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

 

END

Article Type

Intro

The question around the relationship between climate change and land use, forestry and agriculture are central to the work you are doing here right now.

Health Minister must clean up his own mess

Source: National Party – Headline: Health Minister must clean up his own mess

Health Minister David Clark needs to walk the talk and work with DHBs to ensure they can successfully negotiate a pay increase with nurses before strike action is taken, National’s Health Spokesperson Michael Woodhouse says.

“It comes as no surprise that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation has rejected the DHBs’ offer of a 2 per cent pay increase given the very high expectations created by this Government.

“Labour spent years talking about how the health sector was underfunded and as a result created the expectation that nurses were in for a big bump in their wages.

“Yet the first thing it does when it comes into Government is throw $2.8 billion at tertiary students leaving little money to invest in health and other important areas.

“Health Minister David Clark must at the very least make sure that DHBs have the confidence to make a higher offer to nurses by signalling future funding.

“And he must do it quickly, before nurses go on strike for the first time in decades. Strike action just as we’re approaching winter would cripple our health system and put lives at risk.

“This is a mess created by the Government and an example of the dangers of over promising and under delivering.

“It’s simply not good enough for the Government to sit on the sidelines and leave it to the DHBs to clean up its mess.”

Petition launched to improve school reporting

Source: National Party – Headline: Petition launched to improve school reporting

A petition to improve the quality of school and parental reporting has been launched today by National’s Education Spokesperson Nikki Kaye.

“Labour’s dismantling of National Standards without having a system of standardised reporting to replace it with demonstrates a complete disregard for parents and the needs of children across the country,” Ms Kaye says.

“National believes that parents should be able to see how their kids are doing at school and that schools should be accountable for lifting achievement.

“National Standards were a key part of ensuring that. Scrapping National Standards without a replacement system means that parents will be left in the dark about where their child is at in their learning and children will have at least a year’s gap in their achievement records.

“That’s not good enough and that’s why National is launching this petition today.

“In August last year, National announced a policy to develop National Standards to report across more of the curriculum beyond the core competencies. However, we recognised this would require years of investment and implementation. That would mean we’d have to retain National Standards in the meantime so parents could still track their child’s progress.

“In scrapping National Standards without having a replacement, the Government changed the National Administration Guidelines to remove the requirement for schools to report achievement information to the Ministry of Education.

“This means that schools can use any system they choose for reporting to parents and, while there are international reports to compare to, there will be no nationwide picture of achievement.

“That will make it much more difficult for parents to challenge a school if they have concerns about how the school has assessed their child, because there’s less ability to compare against other schools.

“The petition also calls for investment in online tools to ensure parents and teachers can have confidence in the data that’s being reported, but also have greater frequency of reporting in the future.

“We are confident that thousands of New Zealanders will come on board to restore the basic concept that parents have the right to frequent and reliable school reports.”

The petition can be signed here.

Robertson’s RBNZ changes no compensation for poor policies

Source: National Party – Headline: Robertson’s RBNZ changes no compensation for poor policies

Finance Minister Grant Robertson should explain why New Zealand needs to change its monetary policy objectives when under the current settings he inherited one of the best performing economies and employment rates in the developed world, says National Party Finance Spokesperson Amy Adams.

“When our Finance Minister justifies change on the basis that this is what happens in other parts of the world, and yet we have performed better economically than many over the last few years, then questions must be asked,” Ms Adams says.

“He should be looking more at the policies he can directly control. Labour’s policies in a whole range of areas like employment relations, investment, immigration and tax will only take job creation and prosperity in New Zealand backwards.

“In fact, the new Policy Targets Agreement signed by Mr Robertson today specifically removes reference to economic growth which puts him at odds with a number of the other countries he says he is seeking to emulate.

“In relation to the maximum employment criteria in the PTA, New Zealand already has the third highest rate of employment in the OECD.

“On one level this change means nothing as the Reserve Bank has always been required to consider growth, incomes, and standard of living – and therefore employment.

“However monetary policy can’t deliver strong employment on its own. It must be applied in parallel with government microeconomic policies that boost employment, as has occurred in the last few years.

“We’ll be watching closely to ensure Grant Robertson doesn’t point the finger at the Central Bank should job creation and employment slow.

“With regards to committee decision making, National is on record as supporting formalizing the current committee structure operated by the Bank.

“However we have reservations that the move to make a significant proportion of the committee ministerial appointed external members, and enabling a senior Government official to be part of all decision making meetings (albeit not voting), creates a real risk of unwarranted political influence over Monetary Policy settings.”

Bill lodged to introduce second-tier patent system

Source: National Party – Headline: Bill lodged to introduce second-tier patent system

A Member’s Bill has been lodged by National MP Parmjeet Parmar to better support New Zealand innovators by providing intellectual property rights to advancements that may not qualify as an invention for the standard patent.

“Protecting ideas and advancements helps New Zealand innovators and businesses to stay competitive and stand out on the international stage,” Ms Parmar says.

“My Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill will introduce a more accessible and cost-effective second-tier patent system that will protect novel creations that don’t qualify for the standard patent.

“Providing an innovator monopoly over the use of their creation through a second-tier patent system will provide an opportunity for them to further advance the creation with reduced risk.

“It will also provide them with the ability to commercialize the creation, just as the standard patent system would, without the fear of it being copied. This will enable them to contribute substantially to research and development and to the economy.

“My bill will help ensure that New Zealanders continue to benefit from their creativity and innovation with a system that better supports the development of new and forward-thinking ideas.”

New Zealanders deserve honest appraisal of Government housing failure

Source: ACT Party

Headline: New Zealanders deserve honest appraisal of Government housing failure




“New Zealanders deserve better than Phil Twyford’s ideological comments this morning on Q+A about a ‘market failure’ in housing”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“The Government’s own officials have said that, in Auckland, land use regulation could be responsible for up to 56 per cent, or $530,000, of the cost of an average home.

“ACT has revealed from Written Parliamentary Questions that Cabinet hasn’t even decided whether to consider reviewing the Resource Management Act – rules that determine what can be built where – after 150 days in the Beehive.

“New Zealand does not have a free market in housing. It is a market created and manipulated by government. 

“The Government – whether central or local – controls the Resource Management Act, zoning, consents and other factors that influence the market. 

“Our housing market isn’t a case of market failure but an example of regulatory failure. New Zealand has planning rules which mean that the market is not able to increase the supply of houses in response to increases in demand.

“New Zealanders deserve a Housing Minister that is willing to acknowledge that our planning rules need to change. 

“Mr Twyford should seek urgent advice from his officials about replacing the Resource Management Act as a first step towards making housing more affordable”, says Mr Seymour.

Twyford all smoke and mirrors on Unitec project

Source: National Party – Headline: Twyford all smoke and mirrors on Unitec project

Housing Minister Phil Twyford needs to stop re-announcing housing projects and get on and do something new in his portfolio, National Party Housing Spokesperson Judith Collins says.

“Mr Twyford has become the Minister of re-badging housing projects and today’s announcement of the Unitec redevelopment is another example,” Ms Collins says.

“The previous Government signed off on Unitec’s investment plans to consolidate their campus and develop the spare land for housing.

“The plan change has already been through Auckland Council. We know that because various local councillors were opposing the development.

“All that has happened here is that a land development that was owned by one part of Government is now owned by another arm of Government. A pure re-badging exercise.

“The development at Unitec has already been factored into the plans and predictions for housing development in Auckland.

“All that seems to have happened here is that Mr Twyford wants to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise the building and selling of homes that were going to happen anyway.

“If Mr Twyford wants to be known as someone that actually adds new housing stock rather than re-badging existing plans he needs to come up with something new. Not just re-hash something that’s already happening.”

Middlemore a prime example of public sector incompetence

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Middlemore a prime example of public sector incompetence




“So far, $11 million of operations, doctor’s appointments, and prescriptions have been lost thanks to incompetent government management by National and Labour”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“Leaky building issues at Middlemore Hospital shows the problem with governments owning assets – they are poor managers of capital.

“This is a good lesson in property rights.

“Private owners of assets have strong financial incentives to maximise their value because they get the benefits from doing so.

“By contrast, when the public owns an asset, the bureaucrats and politicians that manage those assets have little incentive to take care of them. Instead, problems are swept under the carpet until they are leaked to journalists.

“We have seen health budgets increase year after year, while patient satisfaction is at its lowest level since 2006.

“The issues with our health system are structural.

“We need greater competition and private sector involvement in our health system to ensure that New Zealanders get the best bang for their health dollar” says Mr Seymour.