Assumed Competence

The Coalition hides its ineptitude in plain sight.

Perfect by nature
Icons of self indulgence
Just what we all need
More lies about a world that

Never was and never will be
Have you no shame don't you see me
You know you've got everybody fooled

Songwriters: Amy Lee / Ben Moody / David Hodges.

---

“Vote National”, they said.

The economic managers par excellence who will get the country “Back on Track”.

So how’s that going? Is the economy humming? Real wages up? Unemployment low? Public services running like a well-oiled machine?

Not so much.

We’re spending more, don’t you think we’d have something to show for it by now?

I’m not talking about money that could’ve been better spent on other priorities—the billions for military upgrades, roads, or reducing the tax paid by landlords—money that could’ve gone to areas that have received cuts on top of underfunding.

I’m talking about sheer and utter incompetence. Waste caused by a lack of oversight and a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude toward their work, producing outcomes that would see the coalition parties screaming blue murder if the left were in power.

Yet people let them get away with it because they believe the mantra that they are masterful economic managers, despite all evidence to the contrary.

So, where’s all the money going, and why aren’t people up in arms about the non-delivery of core promises as things go backwards for many?

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on FamilyBoost failure, admits assumptions based on wrong information.

“Prime Minister Christopher Luxon blames assumptions on wrong information for a failure in the FamilyBoost payment scheme, where only 1.2% of families the Government said were eligible received a full subsidy.”

Do you remember when National lost their minds when a tiny fraction of Labour's Cost of Living payments went to people who weren't entitled?

Meanwhile, this government only pays the full subsidy they promised to 1.2% of the families they said were eligible, and we’re to shrug it off as being due to incorrect assumptions?

How typical is it of National that they’re happier seeing 99% of people entitled to something miss out than seeing a tiny percentage receive a small payment they’re not entitled to?

Forget Christopher Luxon thinking he could order a week's groceries for only $60; this is another order of magnitude. Nicola Willis has turned up with a couple of fish and some loaves of bread, saying, “I promise I will feed one thousand of you”, yet only twelve people end up getting something to eat.

If this were Labour, there would be demands for Nicola Willis to be sacked for gross incompetence and/or getting elected under false pretences.

Max said, “I go with lies. They knew but intentionally misled the public to win the election.”

Josephine, the most fair-minded of commenters, noted, “It's always someone else's fault.”

Christian pointed out, “Neoliberalism means never saying sorry.

Lies are a business tool for these guys. Neoliberalism 101: Maximising shareholder profits shouldn't be constrained by morality. In this case, the shareholders are the political donors who topped up National’s war chest .”

David added, “I don't remember any time he took responsibility for anything.”

Image: BeFunky.

Then there’s David Seymour’s fund to convert our largely successful education system into a cut-price model of minimum quality and maximum profit, only to find that almost nobody wants to.

The coalition funded the transition of thirty-five public schools to charter schools, but only six out of two and a half thousand state schools expressed an interest. Six!

Plus, he’s spending far more per student than would otherwise have been the case, which would’ve resulted in ACT and their marketing department, the Taxpayers’ Union, squealing like pigs if it were the left.

Charter schools: David Seymour defends $10 million for 215 students.

Charter schools had a $10m budget across 215 students, which is $46,500 per student. This compares with funding in the state system of just above $9,000.

It’s crazy. The taxpayer is paying five times as much per student, only for them to receive an inferior education.

It’s also quite bizarre behaviour from the man who slashed spending on school lunches. If he’d taken the same multiplier he has for charter school funding, he’d be spending around $40 per student per day on lunch.

He could’ve taken them to Bellamy’s. Where the school kids might have a view on…

Ministers rejected advice to review climate grants

“Ministers rejected advice to take a hard look at hundreds of millions of dollars in climate grants to the likes of NZ Steel, Methanex, Rio Tinto, and Fletcher Building.

Inland Revenue and Treasury told the government there was no proper evidence that yearly subsidies to some of the country's biggest carbon polluters were needed. Their recommendation for a thorough review was met with a no thanks from Minister Simon Watts.”

I’m sorry, but why the hell are we subsidising companies with massive profits to stop wrecking the planet?

Other assaults on the pockets of taxpayers are also less immediate, like this:

Builders, plumbers, drainlayers to be able to sign off some of their own work.

The government is accelerating building approvals. Does anybody remember the leaky home crisis a previous National government gave us? They dropped the regulations, paving the way for bigger profits and left us to bear the risk.

Labour's local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere said, “We have lived through the cost of building failures before. We must not repeat the mistakes of the leaky homes era by lowering standards in the name of speed. Without transparency, enforceable accountability, and a clear process for redress, the public cannot have confidence in a self-certifying model.”

Seymour, who claims to look out for taxpayers' interests, intends to do the same with banking.

David Seymour sides with banks after ‘disappointing’ advice from Regulation Ministry

David received advice from his own Ministry of Regulation—the new one he created that pays its staff way more than other ministries—while everyone else was told to cut costs. But instead of following their recommendations, he sided with the Aussie banks.

Your tax dollars at work.

In 2019, the Reserve Bank required banks to hold more capital than they had been. This is to avoid the poor old taxpayers having to bail them out if they push the profit accelerator harder than was safe. Again.

Seymour’s ministry agreed with the Reserve Bank, and he described their advice as “disappointing.” Gee, David, maybe you and the banks should’ve clarified what you wanted them to say.

And if you think that sounds conspiratorial, Seymour based his argument on information from a paper consultants PwC prepared for the Bankers’ Association, the representatives of New Zealand’s banking sector. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Those are just a few recent headlines. What about the last 18 months?

What instances of wasteful spending by this coalition government come to mind?

There are Nicola’s ferries, of course. Look, we’ve all had a bad day at work. Maybe we made an error, and it cost the company, right?

Still, I don’t know about you, but if I managed to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on a foolish mistake out of arrogant incompetence, I don’t think I’d turn up Monday. I reckon I’d take it as read that I didn’t work there any more and be damned glad there weren’t any charges being laid.

Or how about Luxon’s constant travelling? I appreciate that some folks get to middle age and decide they didn’t have an O.E. when they were young, so they say, What the hell, cast aside the day-to-day and go for it. Fair enough, I wish we could all leave our jobs behind so casually and frequently.

I suppose there is a case for him causing less damage by hardly ever being here. But come on, it’s just for photo ops and to get the press off his back, there’s no need for him to travel so much, he isn’t representing any portfolio - it’s worse - he’s representing us! That doesn’t seem like good value for money, anyway you look at it.

That Treaty Principles Bill was a complete waste of money. Surely, three mature adults could’ve sat around the negotiating table and agreed that if only two of them were going to vote for the second reading, the whole thing was better off not happening. But no, we spent millions on something destined to fail so Seymour could boost his vote with the anti-Maori crowd.

Lester Levy - he came and went quickly. Was it mission accomplished, or just another chunk of money wasted by this government for no discernible benefit? If we’re having a bonfire of money for the boys, you can chuck the dubious value we received from Bill English and Steven Joyce, on too.

How about the Covid enquiry and the War on Woke? Or even something so petty as getting rid of the Te Reo names of government departments - where is the business case for that little doozy, and what has it got to do with getting the economy back on track?

Some of us thought spending more during the pandemic made sense. That’s what you do when the rainy day arrives: the government gets its chequebook out and spends money to keep the economy going.

We could accept that you spend more in return for something, like avoiding large-scale job losses while prioritising the nation’s health. But even the most ardent supporters of this government must see they’re spending more with less to show.

As we know, Nicola Willis spent more in her last budget than Grant Robertson did in his, but what do we have to show for it? Where is the money going?

We’ve had large-scale job losses, and there will undoubtedly be more in next month’s budget. Our health system is in crisis, with senior doctors walking off the job on Thursday.

The government is taking harsh austerity measures, which are negatively impacting many lives, but we’re still borrowing, so where’s all the money going?

If you spend as much, or more, than the last government, whom you angrily accused of being profligate spenders while positioning yourself as the great economic managers, then surely people should expect something in return. Well, where is it?

About now, coalition supporters will start complaining about things like KiwiBuild. Sure, that programme underdelivered in providing 100,000 homes, but it delivered a fair few, and at least they were trying to do something.

And do you know what else? They delivered north of ten thousand state homes, which is a great big deal that helps people and is well worth spending money on.

That’s a legacy - where’s yours?

No, I don’t mean forthcoming knighthoods for the senior members of the coalition; those were locked in the day you were elected, which shows how much they’re worth. I mean, what have you delivered for the people of this country?

Because I know what the other lot wants to do, and it costs money, but you know what—we’re worth it.

Don’t you think? Are we, the people, worth it?

Compared to spending the government’s time and our money assisting companies to make money out of our education sector, cutting corners when developing property, maximising bank profits, subsidising polluters, or promising support for families and delivering bugger all.

Where’s the money, Nicola?

---

Thank you to the subscribers who choose to pay, allowing me to write Nick’s Kōrero. If you can afford to do so, please consider supporting my mahi. Today’s newsletter is public, so you’re most welcome to share it.

To end today, Evanescence with Everybody’s Fool.