“The Green Party has today released its economic development plan to rebuild Aotearoa New Zealand and create 284,000 jobs over the next four years.”
“The Greens are serious about the economy. We will drive it to meet the needs of New Zealanders. Our plan will create 284,000 jobs, lower the cost of living and ensure we’re all happier, healthier and safer,” says Green Party Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.
“Our investment in transport, clean energy and genuinely fixing the basics and building the future will create an additional 64,000 jobs on top of the 220,000 forecast over the next four years.”
Marama Davidson says, “We have no shortage of talent, creativity and hard work in this beautiful country…”
The Green Party has dropped a truly aspirational plan to generate 284,000 jobs over four years. But there is a slight catch. A slight catch created as only pollies can create slight catches. You see, National is already promising 220,000 new jobs based on Treasury estimates.
The Greens, not wanting to be outdone by a mere accountant’s spreadsheet, are actually claiming they will create 64,000 new jobs on top of National’s 220,000.
This stunning statement immediately raises eyebrows and also some serious questions.
First, where on earth are they going to find the warm bodies. Warm bodies who are ready and able to work?
Where will the workers come from to fill these new roles?
Critics would point straight to immigration supply hubs in Asia, wondering how our already-buckling infrastructure will handle a massive influx of foreign workers. But a hilarious truth in yesterday’s Herald reveals a glaring paradox: a single ad for a local meat packer attracted a staggering 1,000 applicants.
It turns out we don’t need a massive wave of migration; we just need a lot more sausages to pack.
Who will fill these 284,000 new vacancies? Will it be the 220,000 people on the “Jobseeker” benefit?
The workers are already here! They are standing in our unemployment queues, desperately waiting for an economy that actually has room for them.
I’m picking their response would something like, Yeah Nah!
Yet, this sudden desperation to fill positions poses an uncomfortable question: Are the Greens actually indicating tacit approval of National’s campaign promise to crack down on long-term unemployed beneficiaries? They must be! Where else are they going to find the bodies to fill these hundreds of thousands of new roles?
If the ire of Winston and Shane will see them refuse to look to Asia for a massive wave of migration, their entire strategy relies on aggressively mobilising the domestic workforce.
By promising to absorb every available local job seeker, the Greens have accidentally joined forces with the right by admitting that the ultimate goal is clearing out the welfare queues and pushing beneficiaries off state support and into the workforce.
Are the Greens actually working in concert with National by adding a further 64,000 jobs to Nationals tally? Wow, wonders never cease
By promising to absorb every available local job seeker, the Greens are inadvertently aligning with the right.
Are they not admitting that the ultimate goal is clearing out the welfare queues and pushing beneficiaries off state support and into the workforce???
And then there’s the small matter of the $6 billion price tag. The Greens aren’t pulling mystery money out of a hemp sack; they want to strip a massive business tax break called the “Investment Boost” and redirect that cash into their own pet projects. It’s a spectacular clash in economic philosophy: National wants to leave billions in private hands, while the Greens want the Crown to snatch that cash back to hand-pick and fund public infrastructure and science fellowships.
Ultimately, it’s a high-stakes gamble on whether politicians or private businesses are better at spending $6 billion of your money
Who would you pick?
Pee Kay writes he is from a generation where common sense, standards, integrity and honesty are fundamental attributes. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.