Latest news with #TheBulletin
The Spinoff
a day ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Introducing David Seymour, deputy prime minister
As the Act leader officially steps into the deputy prime ministership this weekend, some political onlookers are bracing for fireworks, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. 'Disproportionate' no more David Seymour is finally getting a job title that matches the role he often seems to believe he's already playing. At midday on Saturday, the Act Party leader will be sworn in as deputy prime minister in a ceremony at Government House in Auckland, replacing Winston Peters. The following morning, he'll host a self-styled 'celebration brunch' for party supporters, using the occasion for a speech setting out his 'vision, goals and priorities' in the role. It marks a significant milestone for Act, which has gone from a caucus of one in 2014 to a party of 11 MPs and seats in cabinet. 'Now here we are at the centre of government,' he told RNZ's Anneke Smith last year, adding that Act had a 'disproportionate' influence on government policy – a claim the prime minister diplomatically disagreed with. As Seymour takes up the second-highest post in cabinet, the influence he once boasted of as leader of a coalition party now has an even stronger platform. What kind of deputy PM will Seymour be? For a role that holds little actual power unless the prime minister is absent, the deputy PM title is generating an unusual level of anxiety. Much of that stems from Seymour's unfiltered style and fondness for ideological skirmishes, notes the Herald's Audrey Young (paywalled), who says there hasn't been this much anticipation about a deputy PM since Winston Peters in 1996. Unlike Peters, who has often performed the role (if not his own party leadership) with discipline, Seymour shows little inclination to self-moderate, says Young. However Seymour tells RNZ's Craig McCulloch this morning the transition will be largely 'business as usual', adding, 'I've actually been the acting prime minister several times, and we're all still here, so don't worry.' In Young's charming (paywalled) profile of Jim Bolger on Wednesday, the former National prime minister – who celebrates his 90th birthday tomorrow – was blunt in his advice: Luxon should tell Seymour to 'shut up', and Seymour should 'remind himself that he's not prime minister'. Bolger's assessment was clear: 'Deputy prime minister should not be a high-profile role and wasn't in my day and shouldn't be now. It's a support role.' But if Seymour's track record is anything to go by, he has no interest in meekly playing second fiddle. A quieter power play While much of the focus has been on the ceremonial handover, Seymour is quietly amassing influence elsewhere. As Henry Cooke wrote in The Spinoff earlier this year, a shift in cabinet protocol now requires ministries to loop in the Ministry of Regulation, which Seymour leads, at the earliest stages of policymaking. Previously, Treasury had oversight of regulatory impact assessments (RIAs), giving it leverage over government policy development. That role now sits with a ministry Seymour controls. As Cooke observes, the change might look procedural, but it gives Seymour access to the inner workings of nearly every other ministry, essentially placing him in the loop on anything that could involve new regulation. 'The transfer of a 'deputy prime ministership' – an essentially meaningless role when the prime minister is in the country – pales in comparison with the power Seymour is gaining over the machinery of government.' Radio silence continues Despite his ascension, one high-profile habit Seymour won't be dropping is his long-running boycott of RNZ's Morning Report, reports Stewart Sowman-Lund in the Sunday Star-Times (paywalled). Seymour has turned down over 20 interview requests from Morning Report in the past year – including during times he was acting PM – and has no plans to re-engage. He claims the show has a 'toxic culture' and has treated him with disrespect. 'The minister isn't the first to hold a long-running grudge against a particular media outlet or programme,' wrote Sowman-Lund. 'Te Pāti Māori doesn't speak with the NZ Herald and rarely if ever appears on Newstalk ZB [and] Jacinda Ardern notably pulled the plug on the prime minister's weekly interview with Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking.' Still, political commentator Janet Wilson says Seymour 'absolutely 100%' should front for Morning Report, describing it as a missed chance to reach centrist voters who might be open to his arguments. 'Isn't this an opportunity for him to step up and show what leadership looks like?'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Climate
- Yahoo
The oldest tree in Connecticut is around 300 years old. Here's how to see it
As the weather warms up in preparation for a New England summer, many people are heading back outdoors to adore Connecticut's nature, from flowers to mountains to trees. While Connecticut has plenty of fantastic trees to look at this time of year, many of the state's trees are full of history as well as beauty. In fact, the oldest tree in Connecticut is estimated to be 200-300 years old. Located in Simsbury, the Pinchot Sycamore Tree is believed to be not only the state's oldest tree, but also its largest. Here's the story of Connecticut's oldest tree, as well as where you can see the landmark today. While the exact origins of the Pinchot Sycamore tree are unknown, it is estimated to be 200-300 years old, with some scholars saying it may be as old as 500 years. According to Simsbury's town website, the tree is named after Gifford Pinchot, an environmental preservationist who was born in Simsbury in 1865. Pinchot served as governor of Pennsylvania for two terms and the nation's first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, which he was appointed to by Teddy Roosevelt. The sycamore was originally dedicated to Pinchot in 1965, and again in 1975. Last measured in 2016, the Pinchot Sycamore tree stands at a whopping 95 feet tall with a circumference of 28 feet around, making it the largest sycamore tree in all of New England. Today, the tree stands as a symbol of the town of Simsbury, located just south of the town's center. Today, the Pinchot Sycamore Tree is at the center of Simsbury's Pinchot Sycamore Tree Park, located near Talcott Mountain on the east side of the Farmington River. The address is 20 Hartford Rd., Simsbury. Two markers near the tree recognize the tree's dedication and measurements, as well as the park's founders. The tree is accompanied by a nearby bench for viewing, as well as plenty of green space where residents often picnic under the tree's shade. This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Where is the oldest tree in CT? The history of the Pinchot Sycamore Tree
The Spinoff
4 days ago
- Business
- The Spinoff
Why messing with NZ Super remains political dynamite
Universal super at 65 is increasingly unsustainable, but any attempt to change it will attract fierce political blowback. What's a government to do, wonders Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. No cuts to super – but everything else is on the table Last week's budget delivered a raft of cost-cutting measures, from halving the KiwiSaver member tax credit to tightening access to the Best Start payment. But superannuation was conspicuously untouched – a move that came as no surprise, given NZ First's long-standing defence of the universal pension. High-income earners who can no longer access the KiwiSaver contribution remain fully entitled to super, a benefit projected to cost nearly $25 billion this year and rise to over $45 billion by 2037. Critics have pounced on the apparent double standard, reports RNZ's Susan Edmunds. As economist Shamubeel Eaqub put it: 'It's incoherent … incentives for Kiwis to save for their future [are] means-tested, but New Zealand Super, which is universal welfare for older people, is untouched.' National's slow path to raising the age While ruling out means-testing, both prime minister Christopher Luxon and finance minister Nicola Willis have reiterated National's plan to raise the super age – eventually. The party's policy is to keep the current entitlement age of 65 until 2044, after which it will rise gradually to 67. No one born before 1979 would be affected. In the NZ Herald (paywalled), Fran O'Sullivan argues that such a distant target is little more than political theatre. She contrasts Luxon's timidity on the issue with former National PM Jim Bolger, who methodically raised the age from 60 to 65 over a nine-year period. O'Sullivan notes that Bolger 'managed to convince New Zealanders that a gradual increase … was plain commonsense' at a time when life expectancy was increasing. By contrast, today's leaders seem content to avoid political pain, she writes, even as super becomes an increasingly heavy burden on the budget. One millennial's wail of despair The idea of delaying retirement might make sense on paper – but it's enough to send some younger New Zealanders into an existential tailspin. Writing in The Spinoff this morning, Hayden Donnell delivers a howl of generational frustration: 'Millennials have spent their formative years selling kidneys to pay rent on a draughty villa and getting bullied by gen Z for admittedly being huge losers. They'll spend the next 20 helping fund their parents' generation's Mediterranean cruises. Surely after that they can have a break? I guess not.' Donnell's broader point is that policies like lifting the super age hit those with lower life expectancies and more physically demanding jobs hardest. And while life expectancy has barely moved in recent years – and is even declining in some countries – the financial squeeze on younger generations is intensifying, just as the likelihood of a guaranteed super at 65 starts to fade. Or, in other words: 'Come on man how much shit can people under the age of 40 have shovelled onto them from a great height god damn it christ on a bike argh argh argh no.' 'You can touch anything else. Do not touch my pension' Two of New Zealand's most prominent right-leaning commentators have also weighed in – and their take is not encouraging for National. In his Mike's Minute, Mike Hosking warned that voters' emotional attachment to super far outweighs any argument of fiscal prudence. 'For many, superannuation is untouchable. It's a lifetime's worth of work. 'I paid my taxes' they say, even though that line isn't actually real because we spent your taxes years ago and then borrowed a bit more to keep the lights on.' Hosking's Newstalk ZB colleague Heather du Plessis-Allan was even more emphatic: 'Don't touch my pension. You can touch anything else. Do not touch my pension.' Despite advocating for cuts to almost every other form of welfare, she drew a hard line at super, arguing that she and millions like her had earned it through years of tax contributions. 'So, good luck to Chris Luxon getting this one across the line,' she wrote. With opposition like that from his own ideological camp, Luxon may find that even floating the idea of reform is as far as it goes.
The Spinoff
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Can parliamentary urgency and public accountability peacefully coexist?
The coalition has been setting records with the amount of bills passed under urgency. Now a 'people's select committee' wants to hear from submitters shut out of the process, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Late-night bill passed under urgency After a punishing budget week, the last place most MPs wanted to find themselves in the early hours of Saturday morning was still in the debating chamber. But there they were, locked in a drawn-out battle over accommodation subsidies, reports RNZ's Soumya Bhamidipati. After the Social Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill was called around 11.30pm, opposition MPs filed dozens of amendments in a failed attempt to slow the legislation, which tightens the rules on how boarders are counted when calculating the accommodation supplement. The bill passed under urgency – an increasingly common tactic for the coalition. The government set a record in its first 100 days for the most bills passed under urgency in the MMP era, a pace that's continued with controversial measures like the pay equity law change earlier this month. That, too, bypassed the select committee process, prompting critics to accuse the government of undermining public accountability in the name of speed. What is urgency – and why is it so easy to use? Urgency allows parliament to fast-track legislation, sometimes skipping key stages like select committee scrutiny. While often used for budget-related bills or emergencies, there are few formal checks on its application. A minister (usually leader of the House Chris Bishop) simply moves a motion to commence urgency, and the government's MPs pass the motion with a majority vote. While urgency is extremely useful for the government, it has plenty of downsides. 'Passing legislation more quickly risks the legal equivalent of the old 'marry in haste, repent at leisure maxim,'' writes The Spinoff's Shanti Mathias. 'The public has less chance to be informed about the law, there is reduced transparency, and legislation might simply be less good – imprecise wording or unintended effects can slip through.' The most contentious use of urgency is passing a bill into law, but that's not its only application. The Regulatory Standards Bill is an example: because of the budget, the House was still sitting under urgency when it passed its first reading on Friday. The controversial bill, which has attracted more than 22,000 submissions, will now be put before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where there will be a chance for public feedback. A committee of the people steps in In response to the pay equity legislation being pushed through without public input, former National MP Dame Marilyn Waring has convened a 'people's select committee' to gather evidence the government did not. The hastily assembled group of former MPs from across the political spectrum will hear public submissions starting on August 11, RNZ's Russell Palmer reports. Waring said the hearings would be an 'evidence-gathering mission' with a 'really sound report' at the end. 'The government says that it wants to progress pay equity claims, the opposition is saying that it will rescind this and again address the legislation. So we're doing them all a good turn.' While the initiative lacks any formal powers, groups whose pay equity claims were halted by the new law are being invited to share their experiences. Asked to respond, minister Brooke van Velden said there'd be no changes to the law, but 'members of the public, including former MPs, are welcome to hold their own meetings'. A broader reckoning on accountability The controversy is feeding into a wider conversation about how parliament functions. As Politik's Richard Harman writes (paywalled), the select committee on David Seymour's four-year term bill has unexpectedly turned into a mini-referendum on parliamentary accountability. While a number of submitters have used the opportunity to call for a reinstatement of a second chamber of the House, others have taken aim at how select committees themselves operate. Among them was Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who said the current system is encouraging 'sloppy lawmaking' driven by overworked MPs and overloaded agendas. Regardless of whether the bill passes, the process has surfaced 'widespread disillusionment with the failure of select committees to scrutinise legislation,' Harman observed – a feeling only sharpened by the coalition's aggressive use of urgency over the course of its term so far.
The Spinoff
5 days ago
- Business
- The Spinoff
Budget 2025: A fiscal ‘time bomb' and a ‘disrespectful' blue dress
As the post-budget sales pitch ramps up, Investment Boost is put under the microscopic – while one fashion headline sparks an unlikely political sideshow, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. The politics of regional neglect? The deluge of post-Budget commentary has hardly let up, and for two of New Zealand's largest and most politically sensitive regions – Auckland and the South Island – the reaction has been especially pointed. Business leaders in Auckland are cautiously optimistic, the Sunday Star-Times' Stewart Sowman-Lund reports (paywalled). Former National leader turned Business Chamber CEO Simon Bridges called it 'a real shot in the arm' while mayor Wayne Brown said he welcomed the investment in developing innovation, technology, and science and encouraging foreign investment. Greens' co-leader and Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick was less enthused. She said the budget would make the city 'demonstrably worse', citing the budget's lack of funding for climate resilience and addressing poverty. With little in the budget expressly for the South Island, mainlanders are still waiting for the government's words on regional empowerment to become action, independent economist Benje Patterson told The Press's Blayne Slabbert (paywalled). The government is 'continuing to kick the can down the road' on its fiscal promises to the South Island, he said. Patterson also questioned the long-term value of Investment Boost, an untargeted incentive likely to fund a lot of 'tax-efficient ute upgrades'. A good idea, with a gaping hole The Investment Boost tax break has emerged as one of the most debated measures of Budget 2025. On paper, it's simple: allow businesses to deduct 20% of new asset costs upfront to incentivise growth. But as Newsroom's Jonathan Milne reports, the scheme contains a potentially explosive flaw: there's no cap on either eligibility or cost. Unlike similar programmes overseas, New Zealand's version doesn't have a narrowly defined set of depreciable assets. Instead, Milne's colleague Marc Daalder writes, it offers 'massive, uncapped tax cuts for billion-dollar oil rigs, fast-tracked coal mines and glittering skyscrapers' – meaning just a few large-scale developments could send the cost spiralling well beyond Treasury's $6.6 billion estimate. The finance minister has said the policy will deliver the 'confidence injection' business needs – and Daalder agrees. 'It's hard to imagine a policy that could inject more confidence for the big end of town than an uncapped opportunity for everyone from multinationals to commercial property developers and [Shane] Jones' beloved mining sector.' Labour's fiscal headache While National and its partners defend the budget's restraint, Labour finds itself facing a challenge of a different kind: how to mount a credible alternative. As Thomas Coughlan writes in the Herald (paywalled), Labour's fiscal strategy appears muddled, with no clear consensus on spending, debt or taxation. The issue of pay equity funding illustrates the problem: Labour has criticised the government's decision to scrap the $13 billion contingency, but offered no roadmap to restore it. As Coughlan observes, if Labour plans to reinstate pay equity, it needs to explain how – especially when even its 2023 wealth tax wouldn't fully cover the cost. 'Who'd have thought that after a Budget as stern and severe as this, one that leaves so many victims, so many targets, that it might actually be Labour that comes off in the more vulnerable political position?' Chris Bishop to the Herald: 'be better' Among all the talk of budget winners and losers, one story has spiralled well beyond policy: Nicola Willis' dress. It all started when the Herald interviewed a local designer who said the finance minister's choice to wear a British label on Budget Day showed 'total disrespect' to the local fashion industry. The story attracted swift backlash, including from fellow National ministers. Chris Bishop called it 'sexist' and noted no one asked what he or other male MPs were wearing. Tying the article to Andrea Vance's controversial pay equity column, Bishop said 'we don't need gendered abuse of MPs by journalists like Stuff dished out two weeks ago, and we don't need articles commenting on what female MPs wear on Budget Day.' Willis herself dismissed the criticism, saying she wore a mix of overseas and local fashion brands and the media's focus should be on policy, not clothing.
