“ACT welcomes the acknowledgement by Environment Minister Nick Smith that the RMA has become a major impediment to development, is costing jobs, making housing too expensive and not even doing a great job at managing natural resources,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“The Treasury-commissioned report released by Mr Smith confirms the stifling and expensive effects of the RMA on development.
“The discussions around inequality and child poverty in recent years have consistently shown rising housing costs as a significant factor contributing to various measures of poverty in New Zealand. Fixing these regulatory barriers to affordable housing could have a major impact in reducing inequality in New Zealand.
“New Zealand needs comprehensive RMA reform. ACT looks forward to working with National on these reforms, to the benefit of all New Zealanders.”
ACT Leader David Seymour welcomes Craig Foss’ prompt call to review taxi and private car hire regulations, announced today.
“I believe that entrepreneurship and the fast adoption of new technologies are essential to the prosperity of small nations such as New Zealand,” said Mr Seymour, who wrote to the Minister of Transport requesting such a review last week.
“Regulation can play an important role in protecting consumers, but should not be used to privilege particular businesses, especially when technology removes existing market failures. Regulations may have been needed in the past when consumers had limited access to information on pricing, safety, and other quality indicators. Mobile internet technology now gives real-time information to all parties. It is removing the need for such regulation while improving customer service, efficiency, and safety.
“Craig Foss has acted promptly. It is now important that he places the interests of consumers first, as regulation is in place for them – not incumbent providers."
“Smartphone-based taxi technology has provided greater choice for New Zealand consumers, but in some cases could prove illegal under current transport regulations,” said ACT Leader David Seymour today.
“Recent cases where drivers have been charged or issued with infringement notices suggest the current law may not be fit for purpose. It is not for me to comment on individual cases, but we must review the existing law to send a message that entrepreneurship is welcomed in New Zealand, and to foster innovation in taxi technology and maximise consumer choice.
“Taxi companies provide a vital service and are an important source of employment. Smartphone-based technology could benefit all of these companies, allowing them to explore new safety practices and pricing options, such as providing users with driver profiles and enabling automatic fare adjustment to increase taxi supply during busy periods.
“As ACT Leader, I have written to the Minister of Transport, asking him to confirm whether the Government has any plans to review the law to ensure smartphone-based taxi services are able to continue operating legally within a competitive transportation market.
“Intelligent regulation and a liberal approach to business innovation are essential to a healthy economy. Therefore, regulatory reform is a key ACT priority for the next three years.
“I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans for modernising New Zealand’s transport regulations.”
Mr Seymour has previously researched taxi regulation for Canada’s Manning Foundation and Frontier Centre, and has even written a paper named “Whither Taxi Regulation: Why GPS-enabled smartphones will send traditional taxi regulation the way of the dodo”.
Inequality and poverty issues were big news this past year.
The English version of Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, was published in April. It provided an impressive collection of historical data on trends in wealth distribution. Much less impressive was the interpretation of the data and the theory that went with it.
The book was greeted with enormous enthusiasm by the political left. No surprise there. People – on both the left and right of politics - tend to accept uncritically information or views which align with their prior beliefs.
But one of the great virtues of a free and open country, and of the democratic process, is that your political opponents will scrutinise your arguments and you theirs. It’s a contest of ideas.
So how has Piketty’s book held up? A recent lengthy review by Deirdre McCloskey described the many problems with the book, and John Cochrane (University of Chicago Business School) has helpfully provided a condensed version. It is well worth a read.
Cochrane summarises McCloskey: the book is “wrong as simple microeconomics ….and growth economics; the evidence is contrary to its thesis…. and it advocates policies - confiscatory taxation by a centralized world government - that would turn back the trade-based betterment (a better description than ‘capitalism’, as it is innovation that drives income growth) that has saved billions from grinding poverty.”
McCloskey notes that Piketty’s definition of wealth does not include human capital - the skills and education of the workers. Add back in human capital to the accounting, and you find that workers own most of the nation’s capital, “and Piketty’s drama from 1848 falls to the ground.”
The year ended with more publicity on academic work on inequality, with the Guardian newspaper featuring a working paper from the OECD. The headline was: Revealed: how the wealth gap holds back economic growth. This headline was enough to excite those on the political left, but the subheading was even better: OECD report rejects trickle-down economics, noting a ‘sizeable and statistically negative impact’ of income inequality.
The political cream on top was that the report identified NZ and Mexico as the two countries whose growth was most held back by rising inequality:
Does any of this stand up?
Let's start with the Guardian’s subheading, where they ever so predictably reach for the notion of “trickle-down economics”. This expression is a pretty standard fantasy of the political left, not so much a straw man as the left’s imaginary friend. There is no such academic theory.
What about the OECD report itself, rather than the overheated journalistic version? Was Russel Norman’s excitement in the House justified? Had he read it, or just the Guardian report?
As always with these matters, you need to wait a bit until other academics have tested the report – its methodology, its data analysis and conceptual coherence.
An economist at the NZ Initiative, Eric Crampton, has helpfully reviewed the OECD paper on his blog, Offsetting Behaviour. You can read it here.
Crampton notes several odd aspects of the report’s conclusions.
“They find that net inequality (after tax-and-transfer) hurts economic growth, that gross inequality (pre tax-and-transfer) doesn't hurt growth, that changes in human capital (education) do not affect growth one way or another - there's a slightly negative effect of education on growth in the set of specifications, but it's not significant; and, investment doesn't affect growth one way or another.”
As Crampton notes, these are strange results. Typically we would expect investment in capital equipment and in human capital to be important for growth.
But it gets weirder still.
Digging into the report, the results suggest that all that matters is the difference between the average income and the level just below - the 4th decile. The difference between incomes at the top (the 9th and 10th deciles) and average incomes have no influence on growth.
If you took that result seriously your policy recommendation would be to increase the tax on average earners to give money to people slightly poorer than them. An odd result. Nobody now seems to be defending the data analysis in this report.
But if you did, you would wonder what the mechanism might be for inequality to affect growth?
The report suggests it would be via reduced investment in education in the lower decile cohorts. But remember, the report found no effect of education on growth.
The authors decided this result must be wrong, and instead made the case for increased spending on education. That judgement in turn is based on other OECD papers which do find a strong effect of education on growth. Awkwardly, many of those very papers also find that inequality increases growth.
Let’s be positive here. The authors cite OECD research that suggests that “across 21 OECD countries human capital has a robust, positive and significant impact on long run growth”. Yes, it does, see the McCloskey comments on Piketty earlier.
Referring to that research the authors write: “The evidence strongly suggests that high inequality hinders the ability of individuals from low economic background to invest in their human capital, both in terms of the level of education but even more importantly in terms of the quality of education. This would imply that education policy should focus on improving access by low-income groups, whose educational outcomes are not only worse on average from those of middle and top income groups, but also more sensitive to increases in inequality.”
Well, there is a policy that does just that. It is called Partnership Schools.
Ponder that over the holiday break, and wonder why the political left does not support this policy.
Leader, ACT New Zealand
On International Volunteers Day New Zealand politicians must consider their responsibility in tackling the regulatory burden faced by the voluntary sector, says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“Unfortunately, regulations intended to improve practices in business can often have unwanted consequences for volunteer causes.
“One current example is the Health and Safety Reform Bill, which would treat volunteers – even casual ones – as workers, forcing organisations to take liability for the safety of people who have chosen to pitch in for events like tree plantings and disaster clean-ups.
“The practical effect of this regulation is obvious: it will be harder for communities to mobilise volunteer action. Ratepayers in particular will be hit hard, as local councils currently utilise volunteer labour for many vital services and initiatives.
“ACT is backing the Bill’s submissions from Local Government NZ and Volunteer NZ, which call for more flexible regulation towards health and safety.”
“Volunteer initiatives are always preferable to government programmes. Individuals who sacrifice their time to contribute to causes they are passionate about are far more likely to put care into a job than an anonymous bureaucrat on a fixed salary.
“Volunteer and community initiatives are at the core of what separates an adequate society from a healthy society. The fact that New Zealanders spend more time volunteering than anyone else in the OECD is something we ought to celebrate.”
The planned ban on car access to Auckland’s volcanoes is out of the blue and undemocratic, says ACT Leader and Epsom MP David Seymour.
“The Maunga Authority’s decision to end vehicle access to the top of Mount Eden and other cones comes after the government had promised that the Authority would not compromise existing public access and use rights .
“It is hard to reconcile that promise with this week’s announcement. For many New Zealanders, such as the elderly or those with injuries or disabilities, a ban on cars will effectively be an end to access.
“What stings even more is that today is 2014’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
“On a day when we should be celebrating inclusion and fair treatment, the Maunga Authority is threatening disabled, injured, and elderly people with, at best, a marginalising and bureaucratic process for gaining access to the summit, and at worst, a total end to their enjoyment of our mountaintops.
“Further considerations ought to be given to parents of small children, the tourists who contribute to Auckland’s economy, and cyclists, who would for some reason be included in the ban.
“Maybe some sort of restriction is justified to reduce erosion, pollution, or noise. But if that were the case, the merits of the ban should be able to stand up to public scrutiny and debate. Instead, the Authority has announced the ban from out of the blue, with no opportunity for public consultation or a cost-benefit analysis.
“The government should hold the Maunga Authority to the public-minded spirit outlined in its formation. The ratepayers who fund maintenance of these mountains deserve input.
“Matters of public access to our beautiful maunga should be matters of public consultation.”
 "There will be no changes to existing public access and use rights. Third party rights including infrastructure, buildings and leases will be maintained.“ http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/deed-settlement-initialled-t%C4%81maki-collective
The theft and illegal slaughter of farm stock can only be expected to continue if tougher laws are not introduced, said ACT Leader David Seymour today.
NZ Farmer today reported on David Searle, who found three dead ewes on the edge of his property yesterday morning, with another six missing.
“It makes for a grim read, but what’s grimmer still is that this is an ongoing problem for rural New Zealand,” said Mr Seymour.
“It’s a crime that often goes unreported, but is estimated to cost farmers $120 million each year. One Southland farmer had 1200 ewes stolen in July alone.
“Stock thieves are comparable to burglars in that they are rarely apprehended, offend repeatedly, and have little regard for the sanctity of property.
“ACT would have equipment used in the theft confiscated, as is the case for fisheries offences, and increase maximum jail sentences to reflect the harm done to farmers and their vulnerability in remote areas.
“Farmers have called for tougher laws, as has the national association Federated Farmers. ACT won’t let stock rustling and other property crime become a career option in New Zealand.”
Partnership Schools: The Path to Quality Education
November 11, 2014
You may find this recent newspaper article on Partnership Schools of interest.
I did, and for this simple reason.
The article fairly presents the difficulties some schools are having in this early establishment phase. As common-sense would suggest, and as recent research shows, the average quality of schools improves over time (e.g. see the US National Bureau of Economic Research: The Evolution of Charter School Quality). Rome was not built in a day.
The article also fairly presents some of the undoubted successes so far in New Zealand.
For many students these schools are proving truly transformative, turning around lives, rescuing them. It is profoundly moving to read of this, even more so to be privileged – as I have – to witness it.
In my Maiden speech in Parliament I mentioned a visit to one of these schools where, as I chatted to the students about their experiences in other schools compared with their experiences at their new Partnership School, one young girl said “I didn’t know I was smart until I came here”.
Who could fail to be affected by that?
Now, consider these accounts of lives being transformed, and weigh that enormous positive against some of the negative comments in this article and elsewhere by opponents of these new schools. For opponents to describe Partnership Schools as part of an “ideological drive to disestablish public education” is not just wrong, it’s childish and daft. Most of our public schools provide excellent educational opportunities - just not to all children.
I am sure these opponents are good people, committed educators, but some of their attitudes are appalling.
Fancy giving parents options; giving them choices which might dramatically improve their children’s chances in life. We should be doing everything possible to facilitate this, not block it.
The opposition to Partnership Schools reflects politics and ideology. Opposition political parties would close down these schools no matter how good they might be. And just tough luck for the kids caught in the crossfire of politics.
That can reasonably be described as an extreme ideological view, one that is hard to defend on any moral or fair-minded basis.
Would those politicians be prepared to visit these schools, and tell the children and their parents, face-to-face, that they intend to close the school? And tell them why.
Leader, ACT New Zealand
Social Housing: Stock and Flow Confusion
November 7, 2014
This is the first issue of what will be a regular newsletter, commenting on and reacting to political and other issues. On this occasion, the topic is the debate over social housing reform, one where opposition politicians and many commentators seem hopelessly confused over what is, and is not, important.
It’s been interesting watching the responses to National’s planned reform of social housing. The political responses are not just steeped in ideology, but almost drunk on it. Nobody seems interested in debating the real issue – of how best to provide for the housing requirements of those most in need.
One tactic is to try and frame it as a case of asset sales, as if that is some sort of gotcha – pretty feeble from an ACT perspective, of course.
Governments are always selling things – used cars, old office equipment, farms, and even surplus houses – so it’s hardly a big deal; and of course governments are always buying and investing in things, typically far more than they should.
But secondly, and most importantly, nobody seems to have a clue about the distinction between stocks and flows; between assets and their income flow (or financing cost).
For example, your term deposit is a stock; the interest income is a flow. If the term deposit interest rate is 5%, and I promise to give you five dollars a year for ever, you are in the same position as if you had a $100 of your own to deposit.
When you reach retirement age and start receiving NZ Superannuation payments, you receive a “flow” of income for the rest of your life. Instead, and equivalently, the government could borrow and give you a one-off (a “stock”) payment sufficient for you to buy an annuity giving the same flow of income. Either approach has exactly the same expected outcome.
Stocks can be converted to flows, and vice versa.
It’s the same issue in housing. The government can buy a house (it will be borrowing a “stock” of cash to do so, to buy the asset) and let you live in it at a subsidised rate, giving you a “flow” of rental subsidy. Or the government could sell a house it already owns (an asset that is effectively funded by a “stock” of debt) and just pay you a “flow” of rental subsidy to rent from some provider on the market, whether a purely commercial or a social provider.
What matters is access to the housing: whether that is done via government owning a stock of assets or funding a flow of rental subsidy is entirely a second order consideration, essentially just a financing decision.
Another confusion that springs from not understanding stock and flow distinctions is to argue that the cash from any houses that are sold, should immediately be spent. Absolutely not. Selling the stock and spending that as a flow would be wildly irresponsible. Spending just the flow equivalent of that stock (roughly the interest income, or debt servicing cost of it) would be broadly neutral.
The real issue here is how to get the most effective structure of social housing assistance to those most in need. To start shifting from a system overwhelmingly dominated by the government owning a massive stock of houses, and move at the margin to increase the proportion funded by a flow of rental income support, seems like a total no-brainer.
A healthy system is one where we try lots of approaches, where there is experimentation, competition and a range of options. That is why markets are so effective, because it is a relentless process of experimentation to find out what works best.
We need more of this in social housing, in education (which is why partnership schools are so important) and in the health sector.
When you see responses to these social housing proposals that focus obsessively on whether or not they represent asset sales, you know that the response is entirely ideological – that person is not thinking, not interested in the real issues.
The same applies when people complain that a property developer might make a profit out of building or providing social housing.
That represents another form of ideological ignorance – in fact one even worse than not understanding stocks and flows.
Businesses are funded by a mix of debt and equity: the business pays interest to the owners of their debt (that might be to a bank, or to those who have purchased the business’s bonds in the debt markets); and it distributes profit (the residual, high risk part) which is paid to the owners of the equity in the firm.
Would you seriously expect people to provide equity for no return? Profit is just the label for that highly uncertain return, just as interest is the label for the more secure (because it gets paid before equity owners see anything) stream of interest income from a business.
The proposed reforms show that the government is doing some serious thinking about how best to provide social housing to those most in need. It’s time opposition politicians started thinking too.
Leader, Act New Zealand