Latest news with #NationalParty
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Opposition slams Kāinga Ora decision to scrap public housing builds
Labour's Kieran McAnulty said cancelling the builds made no sense, with homelessness rising. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty has condemned the government's decision to halt thousands of planned state-housing builds. State housing provider Kāinga Ora has scrapped hundreds of developments that would have delivered nearly 3500 homes and will sell a fifth of its vacant land. The agency says the move will save up to $220 million. McAnulty said it made no sense to cancel these builds, while homelessness was rising. He said the housing crisis in New Zealand continued to worsen and this was a time the government should build more Kāinga Ora homes. "Homelessness is increasing at unprecedented levels and 15,000 construction worker have lost their jobs since this government came in," said McAnulty. "People will see this for exactly what it is - the National Party willing to promise all sorts to get elected, with no intention of following up. "Nicola Willis pledged a 1000 per year net increase in social housing in Auckland, but they're not going to do that. The only way they do that is if they count the houses the previous government funded. "Chris Bishop and Tama Potaka said they would build more houses than the previous Labour government - that would have been a decades-long record. Now they're selling houses and going backwards in some regions." Green Party housing spokesperson Tabitha Paul claimed the cost of not housing people was far higher than providing the housing they needed. "We know the wait list for public housing across the country is really high and homelessness is increase, because we're seeing it more on our streets," she said. "Kāinga Ora taking the narrow view that this might save them a few dollars will cost them more in their health fees, their justice fees and all the other ways the housing crisis manifests, when people are not properly housed." Housing Minister Chris Bishop ordered Kāinga Ora to deliver a turnaround plan that would ensure financial sustainability. The agency's plan will see it refocus as a landlord, rather than a developer, and the number of houses it owned would stabilise from 2026. Chief executive Matt Crockett said Kāinga Ora reviewed more than 460 social housing projects to ensure it was getting the best value for money and supplying houses in the areas of greatest need. "These reviews were essential to ensuring we only progress new housing projects that make commercial sense and that we sell land which is surplus to our requirements, so we can get on a more financially sustainable footing,'' he said. "Our reviews have highlighted an abnormally high number of projects and land holdings that no longer make sense for Kāinga Ora, if we want to get ourselves in a better financial position." The agency decided 212 projects that would have delivered 3479 homes would not proceed, because they did not stack up financially or were in the wrong locations. Another 254 projects would continue, building more than 1800 new homes. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
14 hours ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Unlucky Luxon's popularity hits new low
A recent poll found 49% of New Zealanders have an unfavourable impression of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Photo / Mark Mitchell KEY FACTS Despite economic challenges, Christopher Luxon remains safe as National Party leader, but faces a difficult potential second term. According to this week's Freshwater Strategy-Post poll, Luxon is now as unpopular as Te Pāti Māori (TPM). The poll found that 49% of New Zealanders have an unfavourable impression
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Reassessing SA's political holidays: Are they still relevant in our changing society?
While our public holidays that commemorate important events in our history should have a place in the calendar, it can sometimes feel as if fewer people care about the real reason for the day off. This apparent feeling seems to mirror the ANC's political decline. The two may well be related. South Africa, like many other countries, has public holidays that commemorate important political events. Who can deny the importance of 27 April? If you were alive in 1994 you may well remember voting yourself, or watching other people voting for the first time. Each of our political holidays (as opposed to religious and international holidays like New Year's Day or Christmas Day) commemorates something important. But they are also the result of the settlement involving the forces that were dominant during the early 1990s. For example, Cosatu and the union movement were powerful enough to ensure that there was a Workers' Day. If there had to be a negotiation process now, it is not certain that unions would have the power to force their will on this issue. At the time, there were only two major players. Famously, when there were negotiations on issues like public holidays, decisions were made by the concept of 'sufficient consensus'. In practice that came to mean when the ANC and the National Party agreed. It also meant that there were some clever solutions to difficult problems. The 16th of December is now the Day of Reconciliation. Battle of Blood River But its date was chosen to allow people to continue their celebrations of their victory over the Zulu nation in the Battle of Blood River in 1838 (the fact this battle occurred should put to bed the colonial myth that South Africa was 'empty' when white people moved into the interior of the country). While it could be argued that we most certainly do need a day of reconciliation, no one would argue now that it should be held on that date. But something else may now be happening. As we move further away from the historical events they are supposed to commemorate, they feel less important. If you were alive during the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960, you might well remember the horror when it emerged that so many people had been killed by the police in one incident. If you were not alive during that time, you might well ask why it is that Human Rights Day falls on that day, and not on the date of the Marikana Massacre (16 August 2012)? Especially, as the argument would go, when that date marks a moment when a democratic state used police to defend the interests of capital against workers. This was always foreseeable. While our society is still defined by racialised inequality, personal memories of apartheid may recede. This then leads to a question about whether or not our political public holidays should continue or if there should be a change. It is likely that the ANC would argue they should all remain. But in fact, it is possibly because of the ANC that there is also less support for some of our current holidays. For many years it has been common practice for government figures, who were all from the ANC at the time, to almost monopolise these events. The PAC has always been almost ignored on Human Rights Day for example, when it was they who led the march on the Sharpeville Police Station. Generations have now grown up who have seen only ANC figures on a stage during a public holiday commemoration. Strategy At the time, the ANC was doing this deliberately. It was part of a strategy to remind people that they must vote for the ANC because it was the ANC that had fought for freedom from apartheid. The impression being given was that the ANC was using these events to campaign. There were government stages and sound systems and celebrations, but all presided over by ANC figures. But as the ANC has lost credibility, so it may also have weakened the credibility of our political public holidays. It is true that some figures from other parties are now joining these events through the coalition. PA leader and Sport, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie presided over the national government's Youth Day event on Monday, 16 June 2025. Interestingly, President Cyril Ramaphosa was not there. The keynote address was given by Deputy President Paul Mashatile. And his critics might well accuse him of using the event to campaign. Because while he is correct to say that youth unemployment is a 'moral emergency', it is interesting that he is only entering this debate now, while campaigning for the position of ANC leader. It is a well-known facet of human culture that the meaning and importance of past events shifts according to present-day dynamics. From time to time events and figures rise and sink in prominence as present day politicians seek to use them for their own ends. It is entirely possible, for example, that someone like Julius Malema could seek to make 16 December less about reconciliation, and more about a day to commemorate how white people took land from black people through violence. The fact that both the ANC's armed wing Umkhonto weSizwe and Jacob Zuma's MK were formed on 16 December suggests this date might well continue to carry important significance. Zuma could certainly continue to use the day to stir an ethnic nationalism of some kind. But some of our other public holidays might simply continue to recede to the point where questions are asked about why we retain them. National Dialogue This could be one of the questions that the National Dialogue has to grapple with. And it could reveal the relative strength of certain constituencies. For example, it seems unlikely that unions will have the power to make Workers' Day great again. And thus it could lead to that day falling away. Women's Day is both a symptom of the government's weakness (it has failed to stop so many women being killed by so many men) and a reminder of how deep the need for change is. But political formations formed to serve only the interests of women have failed to make important headway in our society in the past (the last party that tried this approach, Women Forward, won just over 6,000 votes in 2019). This suggests that few people will stand up to defend Women's Day, even if there is an important need for it. If there ever is a proper national debate about our public holidays, that will be a sign that the end of apartheid is no longer the foundation of our society. And it will reveal how power is shifting into a proper post-apartheid nation. DM
The Citizen
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
Is the national dialogue a futile exercise?
Ramaphosa's 'national dialogue' looks more like a monologue, guided by carefully curated allies. What do you think President Cyril Ramaphosa and colleagues mean when they talk about 'our people'? Do you feel included? Many don't. There is reason for scepticism over Ramaphosa's plans for an inclusive national dialogue. His approach throughout his presidency has not been inclusive. 'Our people' usually means ANC. Inclusivity is not evident in the list of 'eminent persons' whom he has named to guide 'a people-led, society-wide process to reflect on the state of our country in order for us to reimagine our future'. People-led? Yet he chooses the leaders of the process. One example is Roelf Meyer, Ramaphosa's supposed adversary in the Codesa talks which preceded this country's first democratic elections. Meyer may have taught Ramaphosa fly-fishing, but the National Party minister fell hook, line and sinker for ANC tricks. ALSO READ: 'Bring all to dialogue': Experts insist national dialogue must be people-driven His capitulation was so complete that the ANC in Soweto nominated Comrade Roelf for its parliamentary list in 1994. Meyer declined but in 2004, he voted ANC and joined that party in 2006. Ja, nee. By choosing Meyer, Ramaphosa will have alienated quite a few Afrikaners who won't feel included. Why do we need a government-orchestrated national dialogue? The nation is continually in dialogue. We have regular elections and opinions are continually freely expressed across multiple platforms. Public participation is mandatory in many issues at all levels of government, even if this is often a tick-box exercise. ALSO READ: Codesa 2 has many agendas to fill South Africa is oversupplied with talk shops whose practical outcomes are negligible. We don't need more of that. And we can't afford it. With economic growth at a low 0.8% in 2024 and unemployment now officially at 32.9%, it is reckless to splurge at least R700 million on this nebulous exercise. After contestation over the national budget, you'd think Ramaphosa would be more circumspect about wasting money. Big spenders of other people's money have no qualms about stretching price tags. Starting at R700 million, the proposed national dialogue could easily end up costing more than the R1 billion spent on the Zondo inquiry into state capture. And what did we get for that? Zero significant prosecutions. In practical terms, this dialogue will yield even less. This national dialogue is an attempt to shore up the ANC's political fortunes and boost Ramaphosa's legacy. If, as expected, the process takes about a year, it will segue into the local government elections. ALSO READ: Thandiswa Mazwai says she would've accepted invite to national dialogue had Ramaphosa sent it Ramaphosa's personally selected 'eminent persons' will have ample opportunity to sway opinions without appearing to be on the campaign trail. From this perspective, cashstrapped taxpayers could be funding the ANC's next local government election campaign. Genuine dialogue requires a two-way exchange of ideas. Yet Ramaphosa and the ANC are implacably wedded to broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE) in all its forms. He recently defended it against arguments that B-BBEE stifles economic growth. A national dialogue would be beneficial if the ANC was able to listen, and to change course on B-BBEE. A monologue or dialogue of the deaf won't help. The aims of the national dialogue are to increase inclusivity, boost economic growth and create employment opportunities. The best way to do that is to scrap B-BBEE laws that are, by definition, exclusive. Reimagine a future without race laws. Now you're talking. NOW READ: Ramaphosa announces 'Eminent Persons Group' to guide national dialogue – These are the people appointed
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
As Christopher Luxon heads to China, his government's pivot toward the US is a stumbling block
By Robert G. Patman of NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon meets with China's President, Xi Jinping in Lima. Photo: Pool / Chris Skelton Analysis: Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand's best interests. But there is arguably a degree of cognitive dissonance involved, given the government's increasing strategic entanglement with the United States - specifically, the administration of President Donald Trump. It was this perceived pivot towards the US that earlier this month saw a group of former senior politicians, including former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer, warn against "positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China". Luxon has brushed off any implied criticism, and says the National-led coalition remains committed to maintaining a bipartisan, independent foreign policy. But the current government has certainly emphasised a more active role on the international stage in closer alignment with the US. After coming to power in late 2023, it hailed shared values and interests with the Biden administration. It then confidently predicted New Zealand-US relations would go "from strength to strength" during Trump's second presidency. To date, nothing seems to shaken this conviction. Even after the explosive White House meeting in February, when Trump claimed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a warmonger, Luxon confirmed he trusted Trump and the US remained a "reliable" partner. While Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters apparently disagreed in early April over whether the Trump administration had unleashed a "trade war", the prime minister depicted the story as a "real media beat-up". Later the same month, Luxon agreed with Peters that New Zealand and Trump's America had "common strategic interests". We can trace the National-led government's closer security alignment with the US back to late January 2024. New Zealand backed two United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza. But Luxon then agreed to send a small Defence Force team to the Red Sea to counter attacks on shipping by Yemeni Houthi rebels protesting the lack of a Gaza ceasefire. The government has also enthusiastically explored participation in "pillar two" of the AUKUS security pact, with officials saying it has "the potential to be supportive of our national security, defence, and foreign policy settings". In the first half of 2025, New Zealand joined a network of US-led strategic groupings, including: To be sure, New Zealand governments and US administrations have long had overlapping concerns about China's growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. The Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern issued a defence policy statement in 2018 explicitly identifying China as a threat to the international rules-based order, and condemned the 2022 Solomon Islands-China security pact. Ardern's successor, Chris Hipkins, released a raft of national security material confirming a growing perception of China's threat. And the current government has condemned China's comprehensive strategic partnership with the Cook Islands - a self-governing entity within the New Zealand's realm - and expressed consternation about China's recent military exercises in the Tasman Sea. But US fears about the rise of China are not identical to New Zealand's. Since the Obama presidency, all US administrations, including the current Trump team, have identified China as the biggest threat to America's status as the dominant global power. But while the Obama and Biden administrations couched their concerns (however imperfectly) in terms of China's threat to multilateral alliances and an international rules-based order, the second Trump administration represents a radical break from the past. Trump's proposed takeovers of Gaza, Canada and Greenland, his administration's disestablishment of USAID, sanctions against the International Criminal Court, and withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the UN Council for Human Rights are all contrary to New Zealand's national interests. Similarly, his sidelining of the UN's humanitarian role in Gaza, his demand for a Ukraine peace deal on Russian terms, and his assault on free trade through the imposition of tariffs, all conflict with New Zealand's stated foreign policy positions. And right now, Trump's refusal to condemn Israel's pre-emptive unilateral attack on Iran shows again his administration's indifference to international law and the rules-based order New Zealand subscribes to. It is becoming much harder for the Luxon government to argue it shares common values and interests with the Trump administration, or that closer strategic alignment with Washington balances Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. On the contrary, there is a real risk Trump's apparent support for Vladimir Putin is viewed as weakness by China, Russia's most important backer. It may embolden Beijing to be forward-leaning in the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Islands region where New Zealand has core interests. A better strategy would be for New Zealand to reaffirm its friendship with the US but publicly indicate this cannot be maintained at the expense of Wellington's longstanding commitment to free trade and a rules-based global order. In the meantime, a friendly reminder to Luxon's hosts in Beijing might be in order: that New Zealand is an independent country that will not compromise its commitments to democratic values and human rights. Robert G. Patman is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Otago. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
