top of page
Search

Last year's election was a "cost-of-living" election. National's Chris Luxon was elected on the basis of his promise to reduce it. When New Zealanders are asked, "What are your biggest concerns?", top of the list is cost-of-living, followed by crime, inflation & health-care. Regards the PM's trip to Japan, barely a single Kiwi says their current concern is not enough foreign trade. Luxon's business trip there is not even to do a free trade deal. The deal we did with Japan & other Pacific nations, The Comprehensive & Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership, was signed by the then Labour Minister for Trade & Export Growth David Parker, in 2018. NZ'ers now care about the cost-of-living, not trade. Being happy to see the bosses of ANZ Bank, part of the Big Bank Oligarchy ripping us off with big fees on a daily basis, open more branches in Tokyo is not something we are about to celebrate at the moment. Yet that is what PM Luxon wants out of his trip.


The PM should instead be focused on the causes of our high cost-of-living. A major reason is a lack of competition across a swathe of NZ's industries. From the banking oligopoly, to our limited number of International Airports that enjoy significant monopoly powers, to the supermarket duopoly, a construction industry dominated by a small number of firms, to our State-backed national airline with a near-monopoly on domestic routes, our Universities that come with government guarantees due to being "too-big-to-fail", and more, nearly every part of the NZ economy is now characterized by rip-off prices & greed-flation, not inflation. When Republican President Roosevelt came to power in the US, industry was dominated by “trusts”, whereby a group of affiliated firms handed their shares to a board of trustees to manage. In practice it meant any virtual monopoly. Roosevelt enacted anti-trust reforms that he saw in moral terms. He believed the greatest evil in the US was too much power in the hands of corporate America. His reforms were designed to avert a radical leftist reaction. Roosevelt battled JP Morgan, who had monopoly powers in rail-roads, and lectured him how he should support his reforms if he did not want a takeover of Wall Street by “the mob, the mob, the mob”. Unless the public believe the free market system is fair, legitimate, and not rigged in the favor of the few, it will be replaced with socialism by popular demand.


Meanwhile, back in NZ, our PM has taken a different path. Had Luxon been around in Roosevelt's times, would he have cosied up to J.P. Morgan, called him an "A-list", "senior" figure, wanted to be his mate, and invited him on state business trips? Probably. Luxon has revealed his preferred type of guest: CEO A-listers from the most concentrated industries in the land. They are the ones with whom he chooses to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. The folks with whom he travelled to Japan represent NZ big business at its worst - the cause of our high domestic costs. Who cares about their deals? How will they increase local competition We need many of the big outfits Luxon invited on his trip to disappear; not be strengthened by snuggling up to poiticians and lauded for being "A-listers" who know how to do a deal, unlike the rest of us. The PM didn't insult the folks who went on trips when Labour was in office by calling them "C-listers" - he insulted 5 million Kiwis by labelling us all losers. Our true business champions are not the CEO of Air NZ who crawled to the government for a bailout during Covid. They are not the bosses of NZ Super, Christchurch Airport, Auckland Savings Bank & Fonterra. They don't include the lawyers & accountants, many of whom are, or have been, partners in big law & accounting firms, who populate our corporate boards as CEOs & Chairs, yet know next-to-nothing about the industry. Whether it be building, telecoms, you name it, typically you'll find an accountant or lawyer as the big boss in NZ. These are the A-list non-producer, keep-our-monopoly-power, types embraced by our PM. National better get real or there will be a takeover of NZ by "the mob, the mob, the mob".


Sources:




What has been the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in NZ these past six years? The CO2 expelled in hot air from the Greens & their travels to and from Wellington, and around the world? Has the Green Party contributed next to nothing in terms of reducing NZ's contribution to global emissions, yet added significantly to poverty & poor local environmental outcomes (like sewerage going into our harbors) by wasting resources on irrelevant projects, with small pay-offs to NZ? Here's some evidence - it comes in the form of this pie-chart of our emissions profile:

NZ's emissions are nearly three quarters from farming & travel. Electricity generation adds a tiny 3.5%. Farming is our largest export, along with overseas tourists, many of whom arrive on long-haul flights. Yesterday, Air NZ announced it "will add 30,000 seats to its Tokyo route .. The move is part of an increase in capacity to key destinations in Asia, adding more than 55,000 seats across Singapore, Tokyo & Taipei between Nov 2024 & March 2025". So the vast emissions associated with such flights are greatly rising. It's impossible to see a future for NZ with farming & tourism shrinking. Are the Greens against this increase in tourism? No, they're embracing it. Air NZ has a "sustainability advisory panel". Who's on it? A guy called James Shaw, "a former NZ Minister for Climate Change & Green Party Co-leader, & Associate Minister for Environment". Where was he when Air NZ made this announcement? On one of its' long-haul flights?


What's more, there's a backlash going on at present against fully electric cars. That technology is out of our hands, in any case. Other than these two primary sources of NZ emissions, agriculture and transport, which are both set to continue regardless of who's in power - there is not a whole lot more to talk about in terms of NZ's influence on global warming. Given so, what is the Green Party's plan? To talk endlessly about how to cut NZ's electricity-generation emissions? From 3.5% down to 2.5%? That's immaterial. When you look at it this way, what has the NZ Green Party ever achieved, apart from being career loafer politicians? As for the Green's other claimed aim - reducing poverty - its contribution in recent years has been to divert vast funds away from the poor to help fund the current budgetary allocation of $1,083,409,000 to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions". That is the single biggest item of "environment protection" spending in NZ. The Greens have starved those in desperate immediate need, smack-bang in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, by choking them of scarce national resources to pursue an objective that is out of our hands.


Swarbricks' Greens should've never focused on the global-warming issue. The party should instead have put its influence solely toward improving domestic environmental concerns that directly matter to us and which we can directly influence - like sewerage flowing into our harbors. Prioritizing global climate change over our own poorest & our own local issues is unconscionable. And when it comes to raising awareness of climate change, we don't need Swarbrick to do that job - the world already has Greta Thunberg, who does it better.


Sources:



Home: Blog2

SUBSCRIBE

Thanks for submitting!

CONTACT

Robert MacCulloch

bottom of page