Labour – NZFirst deal details announced

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 3:54 pm, October 24th, 2017 - 60 comments
Categories: election 2017, elections, labour, nz first, Politics - Tags:

NZF coalition agreement with Labour, at a glance:

• Regional development: A $1 billion per year Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund

• Rail: Significant investment in regional rail.

• Forestry: Re-establish the New Zealand Forestry Service, and planting 100 million trees per year in a Billion Trees Planting Programme.

• Auckland Port: Commissioning a feasibility study on moving the Ports of Auckland to Northport

• Biosecurity: A funding increase to Biosecurity NZ and a select committee Inquiry into biosecurity

• Irrigation: Honour existing Crown Irrigation investment commitments

• Monetary policy: Review and reform the Reserve Bank Act

• Minimum wage: Increase to $20 an hour by 2020, with the final increase to take effect in April 2021

• Tax: Increase penalties for corporate fraud and tax evasion, and introduce a tax on exports of bottled water

• KiwiBank: Investigate KiwiBank’s capabilities to become the Government’s banker when that contract is next renewed.

• Foreign ownership: Strengthen the Overseas Investment Act and create a comprehensive register of foreign-owned land and housing

• Research and development: Increase R&D spending to 2 per cent of GDP over 10 years

• Health: Re-establish the Mental Health Commission, annual free health checks for seniors with the SuperGold card, free doctors’ visits for all under 14s, increasing the age for free breast screening to 74

• Education: Restore funding for gifted students and Computers in Homes, pilot counsellors in primary schools, free driver training for all secondary school students, restart Te Kotahitanga teacher professional development

• Defence: Re-examine the Defence procurement programme

• Housing: Establish a Housing Commission

• Law and Order: Work towards 1800 new police officers over three years, investigate a volunteer rural constabulary programme, increase funding for Community Law Centres, establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission

• Social Development: More funding for family violence networks, including Women’s Refuge and Shakti, pilot a Youth Education, Training and Employment programme and provide 800 extra places for the LSV scheme, introduce Ready for Work programmes

• Superannuation: Keep age of eligibility at 65

• Environment: Move to an emissions-free government-vehicle fleet by 2025/26, introduce a Zero Carbon Act and independent Climate Commission, which will consider including agriculture into the ETS, establish a tyre stewardship fund, piloting alternatives to 1080, work towards a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary

• Conservation: More funding for the Department of Conservation

• Democracy: No new parliamentary building this term, an independent review of electoral processes and enrolments, and a review of the parliamentary processes, and pass a ‘Waka Jumping’ bill

• Immigration: Ensure work visas reflect skills shortages and cut down on low quality international education courses, and take action on migrant exploitation, particularly international students

• Pike River: Commit to re-entry to Pike River

• Other: Build a Maori Battalion museum at Waitangi, review retail-power pricing, allow a conscience vote on a NZ First euthanasia referendum bill, a Public Inquiry “a decade after Shand” to investigate the drivers of local government costs, support NZ First’s racing policy, work towards a Free Trade Agreement with the Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan Customs Union, record a Cabinet minute regarding the lack of process followed prior to the National-led government sponsorship of UNSC2334, concerning the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967

NZ First ministerial portfolios will include:

• Foreign Affairs
• Infrastructure
• Regional Economic Development
• Internal Affairs
• Seniors
• Defence
• Veterans’ Affairs
• Children
• Forestry
• State Owned Enterprises
• Racing
• Associate Finance
• Associate Education and an Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Regional Economic Development

Update: Full text of the agreement is here.

Share this:

Related Posts

• The new cabinet
• Labour Green confidence and supply agreement released

60 comments on “Labour – NZFirst deal details announced ”

• Comments are now closed

“record a Cabinet minute regarding the lack of process followed prior to the National-led government sponsorship of UNSC2334”
What is UNSC2334?

Regarding Israel settlements in Palestinian territories. – a Meh.. although some people will get excited one way or t’other about it.

ianmac asked a question – i answered it and provided my opinion of the in coming governments action point.

Thanks Stunned Mullet. Probably the first of many times that UN lacks the power to insist on decisions being enforced. Sad really.

A lot of Israel enthusiasts were outraged that NZ sponsored a UN resolution pointing out that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal. I presume that’s where this has come from.

Well said, I agree. Also too much stuff here, I suspect a lot of it will not get done in the first term or indeed at all. A.

Wow just think back a few months ago when this coalition could barely even be conceived – well done to everyone. Now adding the Greens in is so good – strength through diversity and difference.

As I am listening to Radio NZ at 4pm I hear that National cling-on idiot Jim Mora is sounding very confused about the policy agreements signed at parliament today between Labour and NZF. When it came rail as below he asked “is this for passenger light rail or north rail or port rail?” Well Jim Mora. Here is one of the Regional Rail policies NZF have promised on their transport policy which you can see easily iof you just click on the NZF site you will be informed. One regional rail investment policy NZF has promised is for the restoring of the Gisborne Napier Port rail freight and passenger services that Winston has been comming to this region for years offering us all. http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/transport RAIL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY “Develop Railways of National Importance (RoNI) backed by full electrification.
Build a rail spur to Auckland International Airport connecting it to the main trunk line.
Complete the rebuild of Northland’s rail network and build a spur to Northport.
Reinstate the Gisborne to Wairoa rail line and upgrade other lines.” MODERN PORTS AND SHIPPING
Legislate for the Port of Auckland to relocate to Northport by the end of 2027.
Require KiwiRail to purchase purpose built road and rail ferries and not cast-offs.
Boost New Zealand’s mercantile marine fleet with tax and fiscal incentives.
Integrate our Ports, roads and Railways of National Importance. • Rail: Significant investment in regional rail.

The agreement looks to be great news for the regions which have been allowed to run down for the last thirty years. And Forestry, very good news re opening up the Forest Service.
Old grizzle guts Prebble will be on his high horse again.

Pretty substantial Cabinet haul for that team. • Foreign Affairs
This enables Ardern to concentrate on the domestic agenda • Infrastructure
Because Twyford is going to need all the help he can get. Presumably however it also includes irrigation and slides into …. • Regional Economic Development
$1 billion , even over three years, will keep a lot of those smaller councillors very, very keen to be good to this government and not bite their hand. My only question is: can they spend that inside three years? It’s not as easy as it looks. • Internal Affairs
A great mix with Seniors, Veterans Affairs, and Defence. A smart and patriotic trio, with uniforms, Governors-General, and national anthems. Best of luck trying to review the procurement process there Ron. • Children
Very interested to see how this works in with the Prime Minister, since it is front and centre of her policy agenda A total gift to bring this in with the Regional Economic Development fund. The Gisborne, Kawerau, Otago, Rotorua, and central plateau local governments and businesses will be a great playground. • State Owned Enterprises
How a Minister might operate the levers of the 51% of the electricity generators when they are seeking a review of electricity pricing will be very, very tempting. My bet is the Electricity Commission gets fully replaced, but the officials there bamboozle any attempt at real change, with regular sprays of analytic fog. • Racing
OMG • Associate Finance
Will do absolutely nothing. • Associate Education and an Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Regional Economic Development
Associate Education will need a really meaningful delegation letter to have any meaning at all. Surely Chippie is prepared to take on the education union pay claims himself Under-Secretary Foreign Affairs really does sound like “hold my bags sonny”. There’s some very nice packaging of portfolios there, and also looks like the $1 billion Shaw wanted for his fund got sucked away to get the NZF deal done.

It’s finally good to see that Kiwi Rail gets a leg up and the re-opening of the NZ Forest Service. Would’ve like to see the Mines Dept brought back in wake of the Pike River, might have to wait after the re- entry then? Only thing I hate is this “Re-examine the Defence procurement programme” What the heck does this mean?

Natz promised $20B over some years (forget how many) to buy new toys for the military, so I am presuming it’s to do with this as Peters has said there is something suspect in it. For a country of 4+M it’s far too much to be spending when we have other concerns.

$20B is just the bare minimum to maintain current outputs, as someone who has done peacekeeping (2 tours to ET 99-00, 2006 and 1 tour to South Sudan. I’m not incl my tours the Middle East Area Operations which were in a support role) for real. You won’t get much change out $20B for a well prepared, well equipped and trained Defence Force for UN peacekeeping for Chapter 1 to Chapter 7 missions comes with a big price tag than most people here realise. That’s before you throw in Climate Change, HADR effects etc.

That $20 billion over, IIRC, 15 years wasn’t anywhere near enough. You probably don’t like the idea but Trump is right when he says that a nation should be spending ~5% of GDP on defence. For NZ that would be about $15 billion per year. And most of that would go on R&D.

That’s some serious cash that you are proposing there, geez I’m happy with just around 2.5% of GDP and I probably could push it to 3% of GDP at a stretch.

For defence against whom? North Korea? New Zealand would be smarter to put some money into a non-aligned movement, and try to pull other countries out of these pre-World War I mentality alliance blocs. You can’t decrease military conflict by building bigger military machines.

You can’t decrease military conflict by building bigger military machines.

There is no evidence to support the argument that building up the military results in peace. Quite the opposite occurs. History is full of factions building up a military response to the other party that makes conflict inevitable — politicians use the tools they have, and a viable war-making potential ensures war. However, there is considerable evidence that restricting the access to war as a means of dispute settlement does work. Throttling militarism is a requirement if you really want to avoid military conflict. Doing so requires other means of dispute settlement to be available and effective. Again: who is New Zealand defending ourselves from that requires a military buildup? Nobody. Our military gets used as a tool of other alliance blocs seeking to impose their will by force. That strategy is not feasible in the modern world, as even a little understanding of present military conflicts makes clear.

There is no evidence to support the argument that building up the military results in peace.

I note that those with a good war machine don’t get attacked even by those who also have a good war machine. Meanwhile those without a good defence capability are readily attacked with those with an over abundance of one. The US didn’t even hesitate against Iraq but doesn’t seem quite so willing against North Korea. Probably has something to do with China and Russia willing to step in with their own war machines.

However, there is considerable evidence that restricting the access to war as a means of dispute settlement does work.

Again: who is New Zealand defending ourselves from that requires a military buildup? Nobody.

Wrong. The answer is actually: Anybody who decides to attack. Just because we don’t want war doesn’t others won’t bring it to us and it’s far better to be prepared for such an eventuality even if it never happens than be caught unprepared when someone decides that attacking us is easy because we can’t defend ourselves.

I note that those with a good war machine don’t get attacked even by those who also have a good war machine.

Meanwhile those without a good defence capability are readily attacked with those with an over abundance of one.

The problem is the “over abundance”. If all that you have is a hammer… Speaking of idiots with hammers but no ideas:

The US didn’t even hesitate against Iraq

but doesn’t seem quite so willing against North Korea. Probably has something to do with China and Russia willing to step in with their own war machines.

Russia and China are not interested in going to war on behalf of North Korea, so that has little to do with it. Even the US State Department aren’t stupid enough to imagine some positive outcome from war with North Korea.

[Citation Needed]

Every conflict between states (or between factions within a state) without access to a viable ‘military solution’ is resolved without war. Even ‘terrorism’ isn’t particularly effective if suitable weapons are not easy to come by. The UN can do effective work if there isn’t a huge military conflict taking place. On the other hand, any simmering conflict that has weapons and mercenaries pumped into it by a third party will inevitably turn into a bloodbath. You are using the same reasoning that pro-gun idiots trot out for everyone being armed ‘because being armed makes you safe’ (from the other armed people). It is quite the opposite.

Wrong. The answer is actually: Anybody who decides to attack.

Just because we don’t want war doesn’t others won’t bring it to us

Who would attack us, and why? You have no answer because there is no answer. Putting resources into preventing conflicts is a better approach than arming to the levels that the US want us to.

Did you completely forget about both World Wars?

How about most other wars before and since?

Iran won that war. Oh, and ISIS was spawned by it.

ISIS started a long time ago when the US funded the Muhajedeen as a proxy to attack the USSR. And I don’t see how Iran won a war they weren’t a part of.

Every conflict between states (or between factions within a state) without access to a viable ‘military solution’ is resolved without war.

That’s nice. Now, how would you propose to resolve an invasion of NZ by a country that has a viable military?

On the other hand, any simmering conflict that has weapons and mercenaries pumped into it by a third party will inevitably turn into a bloodbath.

You are using the same reasoning that pro-gun idiots trot out for everyone being armed ‘because being armed makes you safe’ (from the other armed people). It is quite the opposite.

And you’re making the same false equivalence that economists and RWNJs make in assuming that countries are identical to individuals. And you still didn’t provide a citation.

Who would attack us, and why?

Putting resources into preventing conflicts is a better approach than arming to the levels that the US want us to.

You can’t provide an ‘enemy’ that justifies building up a large military, and you don’t understand history at all. Nazi Germany wasn’t concerned about attacking Poland even with numerically superior French forces at their back, nor were they deterred from invading the Soviet Union, and they declared war on the US. Japan, similarly, gambled on taking on a military superior while already mired in occupation of vast swathes of Asia. The First World War was an even clearer repudiation of the ‘enlarge the military for peace’ gambit. When war broke out it was simply made worse due to the scale of the military forces that had been built up. New Zealand has no resources worth enough to make an invasion economically viable, and the only potential adversaries would have military resources that we would never be capable of matching in any case. You seem to be coy about what foreign powers could be a threat, but I’m not. If Trump decided that we’re a clear and present danger then there is no way to prevent the USMC from rolling in. In such a scenario you can only escalate the amount of bloodshed and destruction, a large part of which would get visited on noncombatants (your family, for example). Even if Peters did his trade deal for Russian missiles, and we bankrupt ourselves arming up with them, we’d run out of those weapons pretty fast against the US. There is no way to win militarily, just worse ways to lose. War is stupid, and spending more resources to build a bigger military to ‘avoid war’ is demonstrably the best way to ensure that war becomes inevitable.

You can’t provide an ‘enemy’ that justifies building up a large military

Building up a military is a precautionary measure. Like having the ability to respond rapidly to ships grounding themselves on reefs is a precautionary measure. We don’t know which ship or when but do know it’s likely to happen at some point and having the ability to respond will better than not having it at the time. It’s not a question of knowing who or when but simply being prepared for if anyone does.

Nazi Germany wasn’t concerned about attacking Poland even with numerically superior French forces at their back, nor were they deterred from invading the Soviet Union, and they declared war on the US. Japan, similarly, gambled on taking on a military superior while already mired in occupation of vast swathes of Asia.

France wasn’t going to go to Poland’s aid. The Soviet Union actually didn’t have the military capability to defend themselves when Nazi Germany invaded. As for their declaration of war on the US – well, Hitler wasn’t exactly stable and it probably just preceded the US declaration by a few hours anyway. Japan did try to avoid war with the US but, with that failing, took the only option of trying to hit them hard enough that the US would choose to stay out of the pacific. And then there’s the big question: Would any of those invasions have taken place if the countries being invaded could have defended themselves?

New Zealand has no resources worth enough to make an invasion economically viable

A few billion tonnes of iron sand that contains a huge amount of titanium just off the West Coast.
A large amount of fertile land to grow food.
Largish bauxite deposit in Northland.
Largish thorium deposits in Te Wai Pounamu.
Rare earth deposits around Taupo and Rotorua.
Good strategic location for getting at the mineral deposits in Antarctica. And there’s probably more. And that doesn’t even take into account the most likely – that some dictator is using war to maintain their own power and is simply picking off any one who looks weaker.

and the only potential adversaries would have military resources that we would never be capable of matching in any case.

You seem to be coy about what foreign powers could be a threat, but I’m not.

If Trump decided that we’re a clear and present danger then there is no way to prevent the USMC from rolling in.

We could stop their first strike and use the time gained to ramp up production of weapons to try and stop their second. You’ll note that I’m a firm believer in producing our own weapons systems and this is a large reason why. And producing our own system from our own resources ensures that it won’t bankrupt us.

War is stupid

boggis the cat, “Nazi Germany wasn’t concerned about attacking Poland even with numerically superior French forces at their back, nor were they deterred from invading the Soviet Union.”
The French Army was largely a static Army,
The French Military planning at time was based around the Maginot Line,
About 80% of the French Army was largely non- motorized/ mechanized,
The French Army wasn’t at its full wartime strength by the time the Wehrmacht had conquered Poland,
The French Airforce and its Motorized/ Mechanized Forces were in a such symbolic state one could hardly say they were fit for War.
The Brits were playing for time though poor Mr Chamberlain’s appeasement towards Hitler while at the same trying to build up Great Britain war machine,
The Germans also had the Siegfried Line and if anybody here is a student of the Wehrmacht military tactics would know they were masters of the offensive and defence. They knew from their Military analysis/ CONOPs, their Military Appreciation Planning (MAP) they could knock off Poland and hold the West very easily. As for Russia they knew from Finland, that the Russian Armed Forces were at a similar state to the French and British Forces if a even worst state from Stalin’s Purge’s of the officer class (Hell even the Great Zhukov somehow manage to avoid the bullet in the head),
If wasn’t for Her Hitler’s constant meddling in the East. The war in the East could’ve been very different for example sending Guderian’s Panzer Army south instead of heading for Moscow as the German Army High Command (OKH) knew that Moscow was the Russian Military’s Centre of Gravity (CoG) take that out the whole bloody thing falls down and remember most of the Russia Military Forces still had a large number of White Russians in it which Hitler fail to capitalise on due his racism (read his book: My Struggle). DTB is right on this NZ current resources:
few billion tonnes of iron sand that contains a huge amount of titanium just off the West Coast.
A large amount of fertile land to grow food.
Largish bauxite deposit in Northland.
Largish thorium deposits in Te Wai Pounamu.
Rare earth deposits around Taupo and Rotorua.
Good strategic location for getting at the mineral deposits in Antarctica.
And there’s probably more when pours over a NZ Geological Map. I have a copy of the Geology of the Greymouth Area and the Book that goes with the Map. (I just need the Nelson and Haast one now for own my research) Had the Japs attack Peal when the US Carriers (which was the whole idea behind the attack at Peal from the start) were alongside the Pacific War could’ve had a very different outcome. Had the second attack had taken place as planned on the Bulk Fuel Farms and Dry dock/ Repair Facilities at Peal would’ve add anywhere between 6 to 24 mths (maybe more depending on what book you read) to Japs war effort regardless weather the carriers were at Peal or not. “War is stupid”
“Yes it is. That point has been known for millennia. Hasn’t it stopped it yet.” It will never stop no matter how hard we try to limit the means to start war. Anyone up for fist fight because i’ll bring spear and my axe. Logistics wins wars, so if NZ ever faces a direct threat. The invading Forces would need to secure the South Pacific Islands before they head South and NZ is Australia’s Backdoor which a number of people here seem to forget, if one wants to Blockade Australia.
Anyone up for a Convoy run from the US to Oz at 40Deg and 50Deg South? I sure as shit won’t be doing it after talking to the Old Matelots who did the run to Russia in the Arctic Convoys during WW2 and hats off to those Gentleman to both RN and MN.

You don’t win wars by mutilating the land scape. The Soviet Union proved that by attempting to keep pace with the expanding technological sophistication of the Pentagon. Now Washington is doing its best to widen the gap between the Pentagon and the technological sophistication of 3rd world countries. But that strategy hasn’t worked against ISIS or the Taliban. So what happened? Well before Iraq mk2 under Bush the Pentagon was developing an Upgraded package for its Humvees to do with its new Command and Control network (military Internet, C4ISR) which was supposed to light deplorable forces capable of being transported via C130’s. But halfway through the programme 9/11 happened. Meaning pre 9/11 upgrades were caned in favour of disparately needed capability creep, up armoured vehicles, initially with scrap metal, leading to the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle we have to day that can’t be deployed on C-130’s making it difficult for the Pentagon to exploit C4ISR to its fullest by having superior communications, moving light deplorable forces via C-130. Bringing maximum force to bear in order to blunt any brake out before adversaries can bring in reinforcements. On a tactical level any time the Pentagon orders a combat deployment the Army is shot in the foot before they even get started. U.S army lost half there Humvees in Iraq mk2 and the MRAP’s they’ve got now can’t be deployed. So the Pentagon has been boxed in with a hotel of heavy capabilities (Tanks and the rest) which are good against peer to peer adversary but totally suck against the $5 bombs being employed buy the groups they’re facing now, ISIS ect. And that’s why the U.S keep falling back to Air Power and other dodgy, low down geopolitical shenanigans that they’ve been doing the whole time. So meddling with procurement processes is a really bad idea. Unless you’ve got the brains. And this was a purely political decision. The pretext for invading Iraq was totally false. There were no WMD’s. The 9/11 commission cleared Suddam of any connection with 9/11, I mean not totally they just said the Saudis didn’t do it. Result is a Middle East in Civil War with the Kurds now replacing ISIS as every ones favourite shooting gallery and a U.S with out any moral integrity or the brains to even make a decision wether to pull out or come up with a plan. And this is our number 1 strategic ally by the way. 5i’s bosom. Whose Nuclear Arsenal has suppressed the Likes of Beijing and Russia from retaliating after the Korean and Vietnam war leading to an ASEAN that is the most heavily militarised region in the world. For the last thousand years they’ve been a great war in each century that effected the world. It’s been 73 years since the world has seen a Great War and I guarantee it won’t take another 73 years. And most of the hardware is on our door step. Now I’m not saying we go full retard with 5% GDP funded NZDF because we don’t have an interventionist foreign policy. Nor should we. Current NZDF funding structures is enough (if you really want to penny pinch) 2% would allow for a more appropriate recruitment and training. In order to give the Government an appropriate response to geopolitical instability. Consisting of an escort capability ( RNZN ocean tasking) EEZ patrol, Combat search and rescue (Peace-Keeping) and cyber security. And if you’d look into NZ1st foreign affairs and defence policy you’d see it too.