top of page
Search

The Ministry of Social Development is going to great lengths to sell Kiwis its version of "the truth", regardless of where that truth lies. Yes, its managers are furiously burning public money to crush those of us trying to expose mistakes in the design & implementation of the wage-subsidy scheme to protect their reputations, as well as the Finance Minister & PM's. Stung by critiques that half of the wage subsidy scheme funds were paid to medium & large sized businesses that were not eligible and never needed the money, throwing our country into tens of billions of dollars of debt, fueling our high inflation rate and economic woes, the Ministry is now waging war against those of us who disagree with its views.


First, it attacked South Islander Grant Nelson's Integrity Institute for putting prominent ads in newspapers highlighting the view that the wage subsidy was a rort by referring the Institute to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). I read the ASA's Report. The only thing it proves is that the lay-people who wrote it didn't understand how the wage subsidy scheme worked so were in no position to decide upon whether or not the ads were misleading.


That scheme was described by the Finance Minister as "high trust", meaning funds were taken relying on recipients to act in good faith. Those asking for public money were required to first sign a declaration they were "taking active steps to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on their business activities (such as engaging with their bank)". What baloney. How could it ever be proved or disproved Fletcher Construction, for example, which took $68 million in wage subsidy, was "engaging with its bank" to cover costs on its own without recourse to the public purse? The company did have credit lines & reserves to cover lock-down costs. Nonetheless, Fletchers could still argue it had "engaged" with its bankers during those times. By the way, its share price is up 50% since the subsidy scheme was first announced.


The point is that neither the Ministry of Social Development nor Integrity Institute can ever prove this case one way or the other. But that means the Institute is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech by expressing the opinion that $10 billion was mis-paid to big firms which never needed the money - and even knew so at the time - just as the Ministry is entitled to hold a different opinion. Breach of the "trust" upon which Grant Robertson said the scheme relied is something that could only ever be revealed by getting into the minds of a bunch of corporate execs - and so will forever remain unobservable.


Second, the Ministry has commissioned expensive reports written by consultants like Motu in Wellington, of which I am an Affiliate Member, for which it paid big bucks. Newsroom state "MSD’s parliamentary review for 2021 / 2022 lists a .. Motu researcher for the outcome component .. as a $378,560 cost". Other consultants were also hired. The reports say the wage subsidy was a roaring success and "Value for money". However, Motu relies a great deal on funding from government departments. Here are the research contracts listed in its annual report, 2021-2022:


Ministry of Social Development; Ministry of Social Development; Ministry of Social Development; Ministry of Social Development; Ministry of Social Development; Ministry of Social Development; Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment; Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment; Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment; Ministry for Women; Ministry of Transport; Ministry of Transport; NZ Productivity Commission; Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority; New Forests Asset Management; Aotearoa Foundation; Otago University, Waikato University & Massey University; Te Puni Kokiri; Allen & Clarke


Robertson should stop the vastly expensive wage subsidy Orwellian "truth" campaign being orchestrated by the Ministry of Social Development - which is geared up at protecting his reputation and MSD's, funded by tax payers, whilst homeless suffer on the streets. Why try to silence those of us who have a different opinion? Why stamp out academic and intellectual freedom? If folks like me & Grant Nelson, based on our assessment of the evidence, believe the wage subsidy was a rort, why should we be gagged by the new Ministry of Truth?


Sources









Yesterday, on the back of polls showing falling support for Labour, the Prime Minister was asked again why he dumped the wealth tax which former Revenue Minister, David Parker, had supported. Radio NZ reports the PM as saying:


"It was based on the advice that we received. We looked at a wealth tax. It was very clear that a wealth tax actually contained huge economic risk for New Zealand. Wealth is ultimately very mobile. If a whole lot of the people who would have been subject to the wealth tax can remove that wealth from New Zealand, actually, our economy would have been in far worse shape. I looked at the evidence, I got the advice and I made the call that a wealth tax wasn't going to be the right way forward for New Zealand."


Is that statement true? Not according to my sources. Former Revenue Minister Parker presented the IRD High Wealth Individuals Research Project to my Law & Economics class at Auckland University the day the report was released.


In response to a student question, David stated that the introduction of a wealth or capital tax in NZ would not lead to a shift of wealth out of this country. He said the reason was that if you looked at how much Kiwis would be subject to similar such taxes abroad, then it would be very similar to what he was proposing.


Hang on. Doesn't that mean the PM's own Revenue Minister had received and given advice to Hipkins that contradicts the PM's line? David could not have been clearer on this point. So I don't believe the PM "received advice" & "looked at evidence" showing his Minister's proposed new tax would lead to a wealth exodus. My belief is based on what his own Minister told me and 97 students at the University on 27 April. By the way, I'm not in favor of these kinds of new taxes, but the truth about the nature of the debate the country has been having about them needs to be told.


Why didn't the PM tell the country the true reason he stopped Parker's proposals - namely they didn't play well with Labour's focus groups and in the party's privately commissioned polling, that Hipkins is desperate to go into the election with headlines like "GST cut on fruit and veges", instead of headlines about how new taxes were about to be introduced, and that he's desperate to carve business votes off National-ACT. The reasons have nothing to do with "evidence" or "advice" that the PM received about capital fleeing the country.


Sources:


Home: Blog2

SUBSCRIBE

Thanks for submitting!

CONTACT

Robert MacCulloch

bottom of page