Isn't the main issue of the post the fact that there are very few affordable houses left in Christchurch for these people to move to - with the money that they get from the government?
I don't think people are asking to get a better place than they had before, they just want something done about the fact that there's nothing available at the same level as before. So the solution is to make available land (or ideally, houses - perhaps well designed rows of terraced houses to keep costs down).
From my understanding there is already a legal framework to get around problems like this - it's called the Public Works Act. It is obvious that new areas around Christchurch will need to develop in order to accommodate the population that is displaced by the earthquake - not just those in the red zone now but those in areas likely to become red zone in the future.
The problem seems to be the rapid appreciation of land upon which these people are supposed to shift to. This is obvious if you don't add houses - you simply can't accommodate thousands more people in the market without any additional supply, without prices skyrocketing.
My idea would be for CERA to designate areas around Christchurch - in strategic areas - for "earthquake relocation". There's an obvious public benefit there, so the designation process is appropriate. Change the law as someone said above so that CERA only needs to pay February 21 land values for the land - then they develop it and sell on to people in the red zones for something that approximates what their old house & land were worth.
As the land will have gone from rural to urban values, CERA should make a killing - but that "profit" would go into developing new infrastructure for these areas. New schools, new roads, new pipes and so forth.
Not only would this process ensure that people from within the red zone have an obvious option, the increased housing supply should control the property market so that people shifting elsewhere theoretically won't be priced out of the market.
On transport, it is so weird that Joyce's roads of national stupidity aren't being used to ridicule the govt at every opportunity.
Every time the govt says it's being prudent, where is the ridicule of the holiday highway or transmission gully: both of which have business cases that amount to flushing a billion bucks down the toilet.
Or the govt's next great transport priority: a motorway from Cambridge to Taupo. No I am not joking.
Rail was another big infrastructure winner, with $250m to go towards the KiwiRail turn-around plan, which aims to turn it into a self-sustaining freight business within 10 years.
Nothing new there though, it's just the second tranche of the KiwiRail turnaround plan that was agreed upon a couple of years ago.
The Wellington $88 million was a bit of a surprise. Rumour is that the new Matangi trains draw too much power from the system, which made the extra $88m essential to avoid the quarter billion spend on those trains from becoming money flushed down the toilet as they can't run.
One thing that's particularly interesting to look through is the estimations of taxation income over the next few years. Page 2 of this gives a good run down of this: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2011/estimates/est11sumtab.pdf
In 2007/2008 taxation income was $61b, but this declined to a low of $55b by 2009/2010, recovering to $58b in the 2011/2012 financial year.
The government estimates that this will start increasing dramatically to $66b by 2012/2013 and - amazingly - to $75b by 2014/2015. That's a $20b increase in tax take in 5 years, or 36%.
That seems pretty optimistic - and unlikely to cut the mustard with Don Brash in any post-election deal one would guess?
Ah thanks for the explanation Steve. I knew there had to be some bizarre reason behind it.
Interesting that transport is now the 6th biggest area of expenditure. If you exclude finance and IRD it's the next biggest expenditure area after the big three of social development, health and education.
Reinforces my feeling that we certainly spend enough money on transport, we just tend to spend it on stupid stuff.
Yeah I'm sure the 2009 transport expenditure is a mistake.
The $23b supposedly spent on transport in 2009 doesn't seem quite right.
Reading Cunliffe's opinion piece today suggests to me that Labour have perhaps finally listened to what has been said in this thread.
There's still something of a credibility issue that Labour will need to resolve though. They are proposing to kick start the economy to a bigger extent than National, make a bigger and bolder effort to reduce borrowing - yet so far the only policies would seem to involve more spending.
I think the Greens alternative budget proposes some good ideas at fairly raising revenue. It makes one wonder whether Labour will reassess their support of a capital gains tax, what they might do about the Emissions Trading Scheme and (of most interesting to me personally) that they might finally say something about transport.
Wasn't there an big earthquake in there somewhere? The problem with such comparisons is that there are all sorts of effects embedded in the income tax and GST take.
Yes you're definitely correct there, as in fact there were two big earthquakes in there. Perhaps Canterbury could be excluded from the figures?
What it really requires is Labour doing some hard yard through written questions in getting all the numbers, plus a mass of OIA requests to Treasury so they can learn absolutely everything about the effect of the tax changes and really show what has been going on.
Not long ago we were borrowing $250 million a week, now that's $380 million all of a sudden. Earthquake aside, what happened?