Open Mike 15/09/25
Open Mike 15/09/25
Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, September 15th, 2025 - 75 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
CommentsOpinions
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360823165/hyperbolic-and-dangerous-councillor-responds-post-comparing-her-charlie-kirks-shooter
Better wellington group fronted by an ex whaling lobbyist!! who back Chung for mayor go lower than low, why are right wingers so ugly on the inside
Tut tut wags, you know they're not bad people, it's just that they really, really love freedom of speech, right? I'm sure this fine gentleman was probably thinking – "what offensive and untrue thing can I say today about the respected Ms Davies that might test 'the left's' commitment to freedom of speech?"
Joking aside, I think it's actually better for everyone to have this crap out in the open so that we can judge the character of the person saying it, rather than have it muttered in the darkness. Getting so offended that we try to stop similar things ever being said, is a mistake.
[deleted]
comment deleted, as per the site Policy,
https://thestandard.org.nz/policy/
Was in jest , but fair enough
$70 million to attract acts to NZ.
Bread and circuses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
You are right, but think of the photo opportunities.
Shoring up the Auckland vote.
As Gareth Hughes just said on Radio NZ, we build these massive expensive white elephant stadiums that nearly always stand empty (Christchurch-almost $700 million) then we have to spend even more money to attract events that take place in them.
The Auckland University has already invested hundreds of millions in state-of-the-art training facilities for international teams to use. It’s a no-brainer to spend a wee bit more taxpayers’ money to build a few stadiums to complement it; it’s a win-win.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2025/07/04/french-rugby-team-training-at-Hiwa.html
How on earth do you think we got to host the Rugby World Cup 2010, or co-host the Rugby Womens World Cup in 2022, or any of the America's Cup, or the Sail GP races, or any other major international sporting fixture, or even the 1990 Commonwealth Games?
Do you think the private sector is going to pay for it?
The government is simply reinstating a fund that every other state in Australia already has, and they are our core competitors.
Get a grip.
It's a result of this.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/28-08-2025/brown-and-luxon-clash-over-bed-levy-as-major-events-slip-from-aucklands-grasp
This after they cut government funding for Matariki events. And the choice not to provide any money for Auckland to host the return of the Americas Cup.
Why?
Risible growth in the local economy and with an election year coming up.
The underlying factor is appropriate domestic incomes and spending policy, at the personal and government level.
We need a working economy.
In the meantime they could restore money they cut in food bank funding.
There's no doubt they've made a mistake and are trying to fix it. Tourism as sporting event is one of the best ways to accelerate this economy as it has been in the past.
Functioning food banks would be great but they aren't the answer for more and better jobs.
A heartbreaking column from a young writer about whether to stay in New Zealand and 201 people leaving on average per day:
New Zealand is broken – and you’re dumb to stay | Stuff
hard to take someone seriously who starts off with this,
Likewise her mates,
Worse,
Well guess what Verity, NZ has had many, many people in that situation for decades. The difference now is it's reached your class.
The numbers of people leaving is an issue, as are the seriously sociopolitical issues facing NZ. Hard to see how it's any better overseas in the medium and long term. I feel incredibly fortunate to live in NZ and I'm part of the underclass. I'd be much worse off in the US and UK and probably even Australia.
The people that can leave but choose to stay will continue to try and make things right here, and if Verity wants to come home she can.
A failing economy will impact on all those in business.
From tradies off to Oz, or those still here struggling with costs and incomes like employed workers are.
"Budget" fixated Ministers of Finance are novices.
time people started to organise politically then, or even just at the community level. For every low income person who is really struggling, I see middle class people who are having their disposable income constrained. Leaving the country won't save us collectively, it just defers the crisis for a while. It's global crisis that NZ is in.
It's primarily a New Zealand crisis.
There's no shortage of political organisation. Very is pointing to a crisis driven by economic paralysis not to political paralysis.
Our nearest medium economies Australia and Indonesia are doing just fine.
what's the political organising around the housing crisis?
how would economic growth solve the housing crisis?
can wages ever catch up to housing costs?
what about benefit rates?
Benefit rates will always go backwards. That's what the people vote for.
nevermind Kay, we're not allowed to spend much time overseas anyway 😉
Yep. Remember when it was 42 days, then dear Paula slashed it to 28 days, since it was a bit tricky even for her to introduce sanctions on the sick and disabled?
If you are not aware of the groups organising around housing, time you acquainted yourself.
If there were good NZ businesses to invest in and the ability invest in them if they weren't listed, there would be lower investment in rental housing. If your investments are mostly in Kiwisaver, your provider will be able to list for you exactly where your money is going.
Housing is more affordable now than it has been in years – check out the value loss in Wellington of over 30% in 2 years.
lol. You'd make a good politician Ad.
Affordability of housing in NZ is dependent on the relationship between income and house prices.
Not that simple.
Sure, people are priced out from either owning or renting in some/many areas by lack of income.
But for ownership, there is the variable of mortgage rates.
Thus the 2020-2021 rise and 2021-2025 decline in house prices.
And rent cost rises whenever there is a shortage of supply then falls back when there is not.
Yes, but I was offering a definition of affordability because Ad’s comment implied it was about cost. It’s not, it’s the relationship between income and cost.
someone with a high paying job is going to ride out this variations better than someone on a low income. Someone in a low income with a mortgage free house is going to be ok too assuming they have enough income for rates, maintenance etc.
We need to get rid of unearned income like interest and ground rent which add to production costs without actually producing anything. Perhaps we should emulate China, where the banking system is owned by the state. This allows the state to ensure that credit is used for productive purposes only, instead of merely being used to push up asset values.China is one of the more successful economies these days and I feel that its progressive monetary policies are one of the reasons for its success.
Too much money splashing around in the economy , and being wrongly used, is one of the reasons we have so much inequality: Those with access to bank credit can enrich themselves b y investing, unproductively, in housing and company stock.
State ownership of all NZ land would also help.
how would that work? Some examples?
Heard of Evergrande?
In 2020 China acted to control bank lending for property development …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_property_sector_crisis_(2020%E2%80%93present)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67191262
[how would that work? Some examples?]
I'm only guessing of course, but banks would be prevented from creating money – probably by legislation which provided penalties for doing so – and credit could then be created by RBNZ, or by some other government agency set up for that purpose, and lent to the government and to the private trading banks. All such credit would of course. be earmarked for productive purposes only.
Housing loans would probably made by a separate institution, similar to the State Advances Corporation of yesteryear. If the trading banks wished to advance money for non productive purposes such as housing, it could do so only with money borrowed for fixed terms from the general public. The government would also borrow monies on fixed deposit from the general public.
All of this of course is just idle speculation on my part.
The initial clean-up was based on the three red lines rule for the property companies.
Companies had been borrowing against the rising value of their properties. Evergrande went beyond even that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67191262
Its end occurred in 2025
Heard of Evergrande?
In 2020 China acted to control bank lending for property development
Yes, I have heard of Evergrande. I understand they were a Chinese construction firm. Clearly they were engaged in productive activity, even if they produced too many houses. These things happen of course, but such activity is different from purchasing houses that already exist: I don't think they would have been able to borrow from the government owned banking system if it was for the latter.
No.
New Zealand is lagging as per economic growth.
Why, well the government is either macroeconomic policy averse or lacking in intelligence as to implementation.
Otherwise just acting to
1."budget down the cost of government" and choosing dependence on foreign investment (old industry – exploitation of resources at the cost of the conservation estate and environment)(high rise rental accommodation)(investor holiday homes)
2.the interests of a class (private schools – sending children off to foreign universities, health insurance – transferring funding to private hospitals, landlords and those who can assist their children into home ownership here – thus no estate tax/gift duty).
the current government is a shitshow. But we're in a longer crisis than these three years. The Key government used large scale immigration to fundamentally change society. One result is we now have a permanent housing crisis. No-one can explain how economic growth is going to change that.
Immigration was part of an effort at suppressing wages and this incarnation of dumb National (business not the working people first) is continuing with that policy (also risible MW increases, neither FPA nor pay equity and below inflation level wage increases in health and education).
Housing.
Their constraints on Kainga Ora mean not enough income related housing.
But the private sector market is correcting from being over-valued. Also rents are not going up any more. This is largely the result of less demand for housing, emigration.
Given new consents are down, this would not last once job growth returns and immigration rises.
I may well have said something similar, decades ago, when I knew everything and I was gods gift to not just New Zealand but the entire creation. Unfortunately for me when I got to London I quickly realised that I was another unsophisticated kiwi country yokel, with average talent and ability….
Well, yes, she's young. She doesn't know how far back this story goes. At my first job out of school in 1980 there was a guy busy emigrating his family to Australia and telling us all we were mad to remain on this obviously sinking ship. I was horrified to discover I'd left school just in time for the country to descend inescapably into poverty and chaos, but age brought wisdom (or at least, less ignorance).
Yeah, it's a recurrent aspect of our economy, and we're much, much poorer because of it. I can remember similar times in early 70's, like you the debacle of Muldoon, Ruthenasia, and the GFC / key years. There's a common thread there.
The waste of our economy loosing a large proportion of our workforce, generally the more outward looking who could grow the economy, and society, is incalculable. Like with alternative historys where we had Labour's 1975 superannuation scheme, where would we be if we managed our recessions to maintain employment and capital.
This current one is almost deliberate vandalism.
why were people leaving during the Muldoon years?
I remember once Lange's Labour came in there was a whole thing about how now we could buy margarine (whoopee!)
The issue is covered here.
Peak migration to population was in 1979.
https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-contradictory-stance-on-immigration/#comment-1980650
do you know what the drivers were in the 70s?
Loss of confidence in the economy (the UK into the EEC, OPEC oil price increase and declining terms of trade). Oz had its minerals, oil and gas.
Net migration 1976-1982. House prices flat-lined in the 1976-1981 period, despite high inflation.
Muldoon resorted to a wage-price freeze and Think Big.
Then Douglas opened up our market to imports.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/history-of-immigration/print
New Zealand has become an outlier on fishing industry practice.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/360816644/why-new-zealands-most-famous-fisherman-telling-people-order-chicken
Sealord deal means we cant even do anything about it, cant even get the sanctuary in the Kermadecs done.
The MSD is to continue with its tech upgrade.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/573080/ministry-of-social-development-to-go-ahead-with-billion-dollar-it-system-overhaul
One wonders whether the new Minister of Health has looked at IT cutbacks made for cost saving reasons – that in retrospect were counter-productive.
As for helping clients to find and sustain jobs meaning that more New Zealanders are able to financially support themselves and their families. Here is some food for thought:
https://www.manamokopuna.org.nz/publications/media-releases/were-failing-on-child-poverty-reduction-but-its-not-too-late-for-action/#:~:text=More%20than%20half%20of%20children,New%20Zealand%2C%20August%202024).
While it's lovely to get essentially corporate advice via Radio NZ to get out of property and into investing in business, it would be great for them to admit that the banks have and continue to lend about 22% of loans to non-farm business in total.
New Zealanders urged to break up with property – Newsroom
Other than via Sharesies, very few will be going back to investing in specific companies in the NZ Sharemarket which has been stale for decades and for very good reason.
I think the core NZ opportunity for shifting away from property (for those who still wish to stay in New Zealand withtheir retirement) is for Kiaisaver providers to generate some more useful options.
Did you happen to see this report below Ad?
Ed McKnight puts forward a bit of a counter to getting out of property.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/568627/property-investors-it-s-not-time-to-break-up-yet
IMO, we need to grow our export sector to grow our wealth. But instead of inviting offshore interest to invest, we need to invest in ourselves. And when I say we, I'm talking about the government.
As for getting investors out of housing and into businesses, you're right. Banks favouring housing investment is a big hurdle to overcome that is often overlooked.
It's very, very hard to pull out of housing when you know it's the only sure way you've got to protect your children and grandchildren from this world. Provide them with shelter and equity for their own ownership.
If National and Labour could agree on a new version of the 1999 Growth and Innovation Framework that Helen Clark got to at the Knowledge Wave initiative, we might have a base of local investments to have as much faith in as housing.
1999 was 7 years after Hawke and Keating started their compulsory super – and that's the thing that's made all the difference for Australia growing local capital for local businesses to invest in.
Thanks for the Newsroom article. I hadn't seen it but agree we need to stop seeing property as an investment. If we could have a period of at least 5 years of residential housing slowly falling in value it might break the habit.
Be careful of what you wish for.
The vast majority of New Zealand's wealth is invested in housing.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/hub/publications/financial-stability-report/2024/november-special-topic-1/update-on-the-housing-market
“While most economists agree that rapid house price growth isn’t necessarily desirable, many also acknowledge that a broader recovery will be harder without it.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/134263/stagnant-house-prices-may-be-slowing-economic-recovery-economists-say-%E2%80%99s-not
"While most economists agree that rapid house price growth isn’t necessarily desirable, many also acknowledge that a broader recovery will be harder without it.”
Wrong. We would better off if house prices were to fall to about 25% of their current level. The more that people have to pay for rent or mortgages the less they have to spend on other things: such expenditure would lead to more employment opportunities and higher wages in the real economy. Property prices above their real value is just phony wealth, and pushing up prices is a "ponzi" scheme.
You are effectively calling for a 25% drop in the vast majority of New Zealander's wealth.
Making New Zealanders poorer won't encourage them to go out and spend. In fact, IMO it will do the opposite. Resulting in more tightening their belt.
While I agree the cost of housing compared to incomes is far to high, a further fast drop in house prices will create carnage for some.
To avoid that carnage, the goal is therefore to slow the increase in house prices while increasing incomes. This could be achieved via tax changes. Yet, I don't see you calling for that side of the equation (increasing incomes). Which will give more people money to spend.
Further, with rates and insurance costs soaring, it is unlikely a 25% drop in house prices will be fully passed on to tenants.
Why encourage Kiwis "to go out and spend" – retail therapy? Imho, it's past time to consider that consumption is driving civilisation relentlessly towards global ecological collapse, and that a just transition to sustainable lifestyles is one way, perhaps the only way, to avoid or at least soften that collapse.
A(t)las, most of the 'sorted' will resist transition with every fibre of their being.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/04/30/anne-salmond-is-the-ets-an-environmental-ponzi-scheme/
You asked: why encourage Kiwis to go out and spend?
Because consumer spending plays at vital role in the economy. And in one way or another, we all rely on the economy to survive.
Humanity did OK before social media & smartphones – even the current iteration of the financial economy is a human invention / convention.
Some see the economy as a global Ponzi scheme that is 'leading' our civilisation towards collapse – time will tell. Imho, a prudent govt would be focused on long-term planning, and a decent govt on food and housing security. But our self-serving CoC is govt by the sorted, for the sorted – simply a machine for the relentless upwards redistribution of wealth.
I was told by an Oz fund manager in the 90's our NZX was too small and poorly regulated to be bothered with. Leave them to it were his words IIRC.
I largely agree.
3 mid-field backs down.
In squad options
Woodman or Miller.
The alternative is to play Brazier and Demant.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/09/15/midfield-crisis-hits-black-ferns-world-cup-campaign/
Didn't Ayesha Leti-I'iga sub in for Theresa Setefano against South Africa?
Yes.
Probably due to having more of the Brunt at 2nd 5 style (who would have started with Setefano on the bench if she was available) than Woodman.
Woodman played centre for the Blues in Super Rugby Aupiki (but Waaka is a specialist centre, so they may not move her in)(and Woodman lacks experience at 2nd 5).
With Olsen-Baker back the Ferns have spare loose forward depth and Miller has sevens player utility.
It'd be great to have both Miller and Kennedy Tukuafu on the field at the same time.
Woodman has the muscle and heft to front to those big mobile Canadians. Not easy given the speed they are playing at.
Yes. She does tend to roam into the centre a bit when playing on the wing, and use her muscle for tackling, etc.
As an aside, a learned colleague told me the the wave of CTEs coming for the make players in the next two decades ==as the early professionals from the beginning of the collision era early professionalism in the 1990s hits their 40s and 50s… is going to be dwarfed by the tsunami of brain problems for women rugby players. Hits are nearly as hard but the female skull bones are different bone density/thickness to male.
I doubt it. For two main reasons – protocol has changed since those earlier days (as has tech to identify concussion) and women play less games.
More generally.
Is there any research as to relativity of impact of hits to skull thickness as a determinant (within males groups or male to female)?
Does he know of any research as to the number of concussions suffered by male and female players?
The phrenologists return.
A paper:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9544534/
And another:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11230945/
Agree its not so much bone thickness as the brain bouncing around with the force of rhe collision. Womans rugby is much lower impact at least currently.
While they are also using cards to sanction any blow to the head (reducing the incidence) there will still be tackle issues regardless – head to knee and hip etc.
And as you note, there is the abrupt stop at speed, not necessarily cause by any blow to the head.
I don't trust the protocols (discussion this year with a boy… he got concussed but the coach intervened and sidetracked the ref after the game so ref would forget to document the HIA= played the next week). I don't trust the NZR and their pathetic choir song inflight ad about concussion. Head injuries in rugby happen outside of head collisions (falling badly in a lineout & scoring a try). My neighbour is an old ex All Black … he said he was relieved to hear his mokos were playing soccer.. he limps terribly and his hand is &&^%.
Don't tell him about your learned colleague.
AI
Oz study.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2025/06/19/caution-required-when-heading-soccer-balls.html
I've just been listening to Geoff Bertram speak on RNZ about the energy sector in Aotearoa. Demystify the subject.
He's an economist and writer with decades of experience looking at the energy sector.
No link up yet but well worth a listen. The korero finishes with reform being a vote winner.
Here 'tis.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2019004317/expert-feature-let-s-talk-energy
Thanks for the link, gsays. Will have a listen later today.