fallaciousreasoning

joined 3 years ago
sorted by: new top controversial old
Green Party determined to return to government benches, co-leader says in c/politics
[–] fallaciousreasoning 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not familiar with the US Green Party, but ours cares about the environment, equality and fairness, which people quite like. They do tend to make more unforced faux pas's than they should :D

33
The Craigieburns (lemmy.nz)
 

Ski touring in the Craigieburn Range

Opportunity at 6.5% in c/politics
[–] fallaciousreasoning 3 points 3 weeks ago

Pretty exciting - be a nice change to the current system where we all vote for who we want to be in charge and then Winston Peters decides :D

8
Total MP Running Costs by Party (static3.stuff.co.nz)
 

Interesting Chart from Stuff

The $1000 a week question no one wants to answer in c/newzealand
[–] fallaciousreasoning 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Ah sorry, I don't even notice mostly - I've got the Bypass Paywalls filter in my adblocker so I never see them anywhere :D. Updated with the article content.

9
The $1000 a week question no one wants to answer (www.thepress.co.nz)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by fallaciousreasoning to c/newzealand
3 comments fedilink
 

Andrea Vance is National Affairs Editor for The Post and Sunday Star-Times.

OPINION: If there is one thing that reliably gets under MPs’ skin, it is scrutiny of their salaries, pensions and perks.

Dare to question these entitlements, and you’ll set off a chorus of defensive whining inside the parliamentary precinct accompanied by practised, solemn hand-wringing about the unforgiving hours, the brutal sacrifice of public life, and the great tragedy of stepping away from the private sector to serve the nation.

It’s not just generous pay that they are guarding so fiercely. The state has beautifully designed a cradle-to-grave lifestyle insulation package that completely detaches our lawmakers from the economic realities endured by the rest of the country.

Read more: MPs shouldn’t claim $52k allowance to live in homes they own: Labour Kāpiti-based MP rents back his Wellington flat at taxpayers’ expense 23 MPs rent back their own homes at the taxpayers’ expense From July, thanks to yet another pay rise, a backbench MP will drag home a base salary of $181,200.

Climb up the greasy pole into the Executive, and the numbers hike: standard ministers sit on a comfortable cushion between $276,000 and $327,100, while the Prime Minister will peak at $520,500.

Shane Jones, Nicola Willis, David Seymour, and Chris Bishop celebrate printing their budget with gourmet pies. Bruce Mackay / The Post The Speaker pulls the same cash as a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition sits a whisker below them at $309,000. Even junior under-secretaries pull a tidy $214,800.

But because watching that base salary erode would be far too stressful, they are also handed a tax-free annual expense allowance of up to $19,300 on top.

It’s a little pocket-money to absorb the minor indignities of daily life, like their meals, club memberships, and constituent gifts, leaving their actual six-figure salaries untouched.

Then we get to the real racket: real estate. For politicians who suffer the great inconvenience of maintaining a primary home outside the capital, the state funds their Wellington living arrangements. Common or garden MPs can draw up to $36,400 a year for capital housing, a figure that balloons to $52,000 for ministers.

Here is the tasty part: because this money is paid out as a convenient continuous lump sum rather than a strict, receipt-checked reimbursement, MPs can - and routinely do - funnel this taxpayer cash straight into properties they already own in the city.

It is an exquisite bit of alchemy: struggling renters and mortgage holders hand over their tax dollars so that wealthy politicians can passively service their own capital mortgages or build private equity.

The domestic travel perks nicely expand this protection to the entire family, and ensures no politician is ever exposed to the raw volatility of the market, like the rest of us plebs.

When travelling on business, hotel caps are remarkably generous, featuring automated emergency top-ups of an extra $100 to $120 a night the second a storm or a late night in the House causes a minor booking inconvenience.

Layered over this is a lavish matrix of funded domestic travel for partners and dependent children, who get dozens of free flights a year. For the senior ranked, the perks dissolve into luxury: their families get free travel and discretionary access to a fleet of VIP chauffeur-driven cars. Yes Minister, indeed.

But the best bit of this perks system is how it cushions the abrupt exit from office.

Out in the real world, losing your job or retiring means an unsettling financial time.

In Parliament, defeated or retiring backbenchers continue to draw their base rate for 12 weeks, while ministers enjoy full executive pay until the exact day their portfolios are formally handed over. There is one upside to prolonging those coalition negotiations...

And for the final act, MPs’ retirement is spectacularly leveraged. Through a superannuation scheme that would give a private sector CFO conniptions, the taxpayer matches an MP's retirement contributions at a staggering ratio of $2.50 for every $1 invested.

On back-of-the envelope calculations, this gold-plated set-up would allow a two-term MP (who never elevated beyond the backbench) to walk out of office with a private retirement nest egg worth roughly $300,000.

At the absolute apex, anyone who manages to survive as PM for two years is guaranteed a non-taxable annuity for the rest of their natural life, with spousal entitlements that legally endure even after they die.

The 2026 Budget offered very little cost of living relief. DAVID UNWIN / The Post In the context of last week’s lean and mean Budget that offered no cost-of-living relief and boasted endlessly about restraint, responsibility, and discipline, these perks are now, well, a bit awks.

Especially when Social Development Minister Louise Upston is simultaneously moving to tighten access to the accommodation supplement, lifting the threshold for homeowners from 30 to 40% of income spent on housing before support even becomes available.

Shame the language out of the Minister's mouth about “better targeting” didn’t float across the parliamentary perimeter, where MPs are dodging the question about whether their own generous housing benefits should be slashed.

Because of her policy, $320,000-a-year Upston has become the target of quite reasonable accusations of hypocrisy. (It doesn’t help that while telling low-income families to do more with less she’s bunging millions of dollars to rock stars under the banner of economic growth.)

But she’s not the only trougher banking that $1000 a week. Across the House, 28 MPs are claiming the allowance to boost their assets. That’s up from 23 in 2024 and cost the taxpayer $1,070,473 last year.

To tell homeowners drowning with ever-rising bills that they are too wealthy for a supplement, while writing massive cheques to international stadium acts and drawing taxpayer cash to clear your own Wellington mortgage, makes that fiscal discpline strategy stick in the craw like a $15 gourmet pie.

The transportation rules put a fine point on this glaring double standard. For most households, buying fuel is a live, weekly exposure to global price swings that dictates whether they can afford to drive to work. For MPs, it is a totally blunted and reimbursed cost.

So, while the language of government is increasingly about discipline and telling the public to tighten their belts, the lived reality inside the political system is absolute insulation from the economic frost they are making everyone else survive.

To preach the gospel of a lean budget to people skipping meals while sitting on a leather-lined bench that pays you $2.50 for every dollar you save is delusional. And they wonder why peoples’ rage boils on social media and voters are growing ever more detached from politics?

Yet when pinned on the hypocrisy, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon hits the moral mute button and retreats behind the constitutional firewall of the Remuneration Authority, which is an arm’s-length, independent body that sets pay and perks.

The tired defence for all of this largesse is that these salary packages have to be extraordinarily generous to attract the best and brightest of society to the job.

Looking at the current talent pool on display, does anyone honestly feel like we are getting value for that money?

NZ Topo in c/newzealand
[–] fallaciousreasoning 1 points 3 months ago

Glad you like it - let me know if you have any ideas that'd make it more useful!

NZ Topo in c/newzealand
[–] fallaciousreasoning 6 points 3 months ago

Thanks man, glad you like it! It's all open source if you want to have a look? https://github.com/fallaciousreasoning/topo

The website works offline too, but I've been playing with making a native wrapper on Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nz.topos.twa

16
NZ Topo (topos.nz)
 

For a while I've been working on an offline topo maps site for NZ and its finally in a state worth sharing.

  • mountains and routes from ClimbNZ
  • hut locations
  • slope angle for assessing avalanche danger
  • 3d view
What are the best NZ made and owned alternatives to US brands? in c/newzealand
[–] fallaciousreasoning 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Mostly outdoor stuff from me

Lake Adelaide, from the Summit of Sabre in c/newzealand
[–] fallaciousreasoning 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah, had 4 absolutely stunning days down in Milford last week. It was pretty much the only place in the country not raining (for once).

26
Lake Adelaide, from the Summit of Sabre (lemmy.nz)
 
10
The North Ridge of Sefton (lemmy.nz)
 
14
Copper Point, Milford Sound (lemmy.nz)
 
1
Summit of Barrier Pk, on the way down from Sabre (lemmy.nz)
 
7
Reforms, funding battles and leadership change in store for Christchurch council (www.thepress.co.nz)
18
New Independent Supermarket in Christchurch (www.thepress.co.nz)
50
‘Slightly haunted but manageable’: new signs cause confusion – and delight – in Christchurch (www.theguardian.com)
4
First scan, first swim: Doors finally open at Parakiore (www.thepress.co.nz)
 

Looks like its going to be a pretty sweet pool

Star photographer wins prize with stunning Aoraki Mount Cook shot in c/newzealand
[–] fallaciousreasoning 6 points 9 months ago

Man, that's a sick shot!

Simeon Brown accuses doctors of crossing 'ethical line' with mega strike in c/politics
[–] fallaciousreasoning 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hey mate, agree with the sentiment but the analogy is maybe a bit strong.

Man accused of smashing Winston Peters’ window appears in court, pleads not guilty in c/politics
[–] fallaciousreasoning 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean, seems kinda fair enough that he's being prosecuted for this. We don't really want to be encouraging this kind of thing.

David Seymour doesn't want more houses built near his place in c/politics
[–] fallaciousreasoning 1 points 10 months ago

Article text, as its paywalled: Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he will try to prevail upon the Auckland Council and Housing Minister Chris Bishop to make changes to the city’s new draft plan, which will reshape the city’s skyline, enabling 2 million homes.

He supported changes that would scale back plans to intensify areas of the city with old, poor infrastructure, such as Parnell.

Seymour said the new plan was flawed and has said he will lobby for changes – he told a public meeting last week that he and supporters must “impress” on Bishop “that this plan is not necessary, and will have negative unintended consequences“.

The remarks have echoes of the tiff between Act and National in opposition, when Act opposed the Medium-Density Residential Standard (MDRS), which came about as a result of a deal between National and Labour.

Seymour’s public opposition to those rules saw National’s Auckland MPs put under pressure to also oppose the policy. National eventually changed tack, and in 2023 took a policy to the election that allowed councils to opt out of the rules if they zoned for more housing in other ways.

Seymour told the Herald his opposition to this draft plan was different from the scrap over the MDRS, and that he supported large parts of the new plan, including allowing more development around transit corridors and around train stations.

David Seymour says the Auckland plans "will have negative unintended consequences". David Seymour says the Auckland plans "will have negative unintended consequences".

Where the Act leader does have concerns is with development in areas which he believed had inadequate infrastructure, or in places where development could be patchy: it would make no sense to have three tall residential tower blocks surrounded by villas in Parnell, for instance.

Seymour told the Herald that “Chris [Bishop] has done a good job restoring some common sense to housing policy, particularly by removing the previous Government’s one-size-fits-all intensification rules. That was a big step forward”.

“At the same time, there’s always room to improve policy,” Seymour said.

“As a local electorate MP, I’m helping the Government by conveying my constituents’ concerns, and many are deeply concerned about whether infrastructure can cope with more intensification.

“They’ve seen serious flood damage, a major sewer-related sinkhole, and sewage leaking on to the shoreline. Understandably, they want to know that growth will be properly supported,” he said.

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown pushed back, saying, “If David Seymour was really interested in improving things for Auckland, he would support the bed-night visitor levy, which even most Act voters support.”

‘This plan is not necessary, and will have negative unintended consequences’ - Seymour Seymour made these criticisms known at a community meeting in Mt Eden last week.

Though he did not attend the meeting personally, because he was in Australia, Seymour had a message read to attendees, which said he and supporters “must impress on the minister, Chris Bishop, that this plan is not necessary, and will have negative unintended consequences”.

“Over the next few weeks, I will be transmitting that impression on behalf of my constituents, and I ask for your support in doing so,” he said.

Seymour’s message said, “Zoning more housing capacity well ahead of demand and, more importantly, infrastructure capacity, is a poor way to address housing affordability”.

On Friday, Seymour has a sold-out meeting scheduled in Parnell to discuss opposition to plans for the suburb.

The event description, on Seymour’s personal website, notes that Parnell’s infrastructure “is plainly not up to such intensification”.

“I also believe it will bring a significant change to the character of New Zealand’s oldest suburb.

“I need your support to pressure council to amend its plan to preserve the unique character of our suburb. This is urgent,” it said.

Seymour has another similar meeting scheduled in Remuera next week.

Two million homes claim ‘frankly nuts’ – Bishop The Government has been taking heat in Auckland over the draft plan changes. The plan would allow Auckland to opt out of the controversial MDRS, which freed up large swathes of the city for three-storey townhouses.

Auckland Council was unhappy with those rules, and was particularly concerned it would see upzoning and densification to parts of the city vulnerable to hazards like flooding.

The new proposal has scaled that back, but has upzoned parts of the city further.

The council’s draft replacement plan includes allowance for 10- and 15-storey apartments in 44 town centres and along transport corridors, and will mean a loss of kauri villas and bungalows, to the chagrin of some current residents.

Bishop responded to some of the criticism in an opinion piece published in the Herald today.

The Housing Minister said the reality of the council’s proposal was “much less dramatic” than the desecration of tree-lined suburbs and raw sewage flowing into the harbour envisaged by some of the plan’s critics.

Bishop said the city’s housing was “unaffordable” and the council needed to zone for more housing. He said the new proposal was a “big step forward” from the MDRS and the plan that would have forced those standards upon the city.

The minister noted the council had itself asked the Government to put it back in the driving seat of plan changes, and the Government had agreed to that request.

He also said he wanted the council to think more about expanding outwards – something Seymour told the Herald he also supports.

“[T]he current council has a weird aversion to new greenfield housing – big new subdivisions on the city fringe.

“I am in favour of new greenfield housing, where the infrastructure costs can be recovered from new residents – and in my view, the council should be zoning more for this sort of housing. The new draft plan is a missed opportunity, but it is a draft – and they have a chance to improve it,” he wrote.

Bishop said the concern that the plan change would see two million homes drop from the sky was “frankly nuts”, as many of these homes would not get built or would take some time to get built.

“Almost 10 years later [since the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2016], only around 10% of that enabled capacity has actually turned into new housing. The idea that a plan change that enables two million homes is suddenly going to result in two million homes being built in the short-term is, frankly, nuts,” Bishop wrote.

Next steps The current plan is a draft. A final draft is set to be released in September, and if the council proceeds, there will be further chances for input from the public.

The law change – supported by Act – that made the MDRS optional, and kick-started the plan change process, puts Bishop in the position of being the arbiter of whether what the council was doing was sufficient.

Seymour told last week’s meeting that while the council had been given a deadline for the plan changes, “the only consequence for not meeting it is that the minister may intervene, or not”.

There appears to be almost no chance that Bishop would not intervene if the council failed to meet the deadline.

The council has until October 10 to withdraw all or part of the current plan and replace it with a new one that meets the density requirements set out by Bishop in legislation.

Councillors are set to vote on September 24 on whether to proceed with the draft replacement plan or the existing one.

New Zealand's part in US moves provoking China in c/newzealand
[–] fallaciousreasoning 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah agreed, its definitely not fantastic :/

view more: next ›