Don Brash on the NZ Herald live chat
Earlier this afternoon Don Brash participated in an online live chat on the New Zealand Herald website. Below are some of the highlights.
On ACT’s appeal in 2011:
I subscribe to most of the values that National espouses on its website - limited government, personal responsibility, equal citizenship, to name just three.
My disappointment with National is that they seem to have forgotten those values - government spending now higher, relative to the economy, than in any year of the last Labour Government and no obvious commitment to Article III of the Treaty (which commits to all NZers being equal under the law).
And low and middle income earners are those most disadvantaged by the relatively poor performance of our economy. ACT has policies to fix that underperformance.
On tackling household and government debt:
Yes, household debt is a bigger issue than government debt at the moment, though government debt is rising fast - by hundreds of millions of dollars a week. Restraining the growth of private sector debt is not straightforward, but one of the causes of it over the last 20 years has been a persistent belief that property prices always rise, and therefore borrowing against property is a riskless activity.
The rapid growth in house prices was driven in significant part by the dopey restrictions which too many local governments have placed on the availability of residential land, so that, though we are one of the most under-populated countries on Earth, our residential land prices are truly ridiculous.
On whether National can get New Zealand into surplus by 2015:
Well, the Government has projected surpluses in the medium-term future for the last several years, and so far at least those surpluses seem to constantly slip further into the future. Over-hanging those projections is an extremely threatening world economy: if that turns out to be half as ominous as seems like at the moment, getting back into surplus by 2015 will be very tough.
On what one issue he could fix right now if he could:
Excessive government spending. That's not only driving a big increase in government debt (albeit from a low starting point, as I've mentioned), it is also a significant fact in keeping our exchange rate too high - much of the borrowing to fund that spending is being done offshore, and overseas investors have to buy NZ dollars to buy the NZ government bonds. That makes life tough for exporters, and with a high level of international indebtedness that isn't what we need.
You asked for one policy; If I had a second one, I’d go for radical reform of the RMA.
On the trouble with Capital Gains and land taxes:
I used to favour a CGT, but I now believe there are more arguments against than for. They don't prevent property price bubbles (Australia and the US have both had property price bubbles, and both have a CGT), and effectively involve double-taxation of corporate income. (When a company share is sold, the value of that sale is the present value of an expected stream of future after-tax profits.)
The trouble with a land tax is that it would hit hardest the most important part of our export industry, namely farming, and perhaps indirectly jeopardise the soundness of the banking sector.
On how ACT policies help students:
ACT does not support interest-free student loans (and I well recall Bill English describing the policy as an unprecedented electoral bribe when Labour introduced it in 2005). But even under previous policy, interest did not become payable until the borrower was earning above a certain threshold.
NZ now spends quite a lot on tertiary education, but a disproportionate amount of that spending goes to students rather than tertiary institutions themselves. The danger is that, because universities are increasingly unable to compete with the best universities overseas for good staff, the degrees which our students get will be progressively less valuable, with our very best students heading overseas to better universities.
On whether governments should own certain assets:
Actually, I believe that National is using a rather weak argument for selling minority stakes in four of the SOEs. Yes, that will avoid some borrowing, but selling assets is a poor way of bridging a deficit caused by too much spending.
The real argument for selling SOEs should be that governments very rarely make good owners of commercial businesses. Yes, there are a few exceptions (most of them in Singapore!), but that's the general experience around the world. And yes, the government "had" to purchase railways because their private owners couldn't make a go of it. But then nor could the state: railways made a loss for the taxpayer in almost every year for the 20 years before it was sold.
There are a few SOEs which I would not favour selling - those operating natural monopolies like Transpower - but why government would want to run three competing generating companies is beyond me. Power generation is important - but so is food production and retailing, and nobody seriously suggests the government should run a chain of supermarkets!
On catching up with Australia:
The main reason why I'm seeking to get back into Parliament is well illustrated by your question. Far too many people are finding it very tough indeed to make ends meet now, and can see a much better future for themselves and their families in Oz.
As a fifth generation New Zealander, that makes me angry. There is no inherent reason why we can't have incomes similar to those in Australia. I was delighted when the National Government committed to closing the gap between incomes here and those across the Tasman by 2025, but I've been profoundly disappointed that so far at least they've shown no serious commitment to that goal.
On ACT’s small business policies:
First, we will strongly oppose any increase in the minimum wage (you can't raise wages by decree - if you could, why not raise it to $50 an hour and eliminate poverty at the stroke of a pen?): many small businesses are finding it tough to pay even the current minimum wage.
Second, we will make a strong attack on red tape - the RMA is a symbol of that, but there are a raft of other areas too where red tape makes life a misery for small businesses (and large businesses).
Third, we will cut the company tax rate - not to favour "our rich friends" but because the only sustainable way to raise wages and salaries to have more capital per worker, in other words more investment. Countries with a seriously low company tax rate (and we've suggested 12.5%) attract investment better than those with a high company tax rate.
On New Zealand’s relationship with Fiji:
Fiji has long been a part of the New Zealand family and I think it is a tragedy that we are gradually pushing them away (and into the arms of other countries). We have tried ostracism and is doesn't seem to be working. It's time to look at a change in direction, in the interests of both Fiji and New Zealand. After all, we already deal with plenty of governments around the world which are not remotely democratic.
On whether we should be more like Singapore:
I greatly admire Singapore, and have visited there many times. But I very much doubt that most New Zealanders would vote for that kind of regime. As John Key said once, Paula Bennett spends more than a million dollars an HOUR on social welfare; in Singapore they spend $40 million per YEAR. But there are things we should copy: their dedication to education, savings, family values - those are all things we should and can emulate.
But at the end of the day, New Zealand is unique, with our own values and own environment. There is no good reason why we can't have a country which is wealthy enough so that families are not struggling to make ends meet, and which has a social and natural environment which is the envy of the world.
On education:
I think Anne Tolley has been trying very hard to deal with the fact that, though many of our schools are extremely good by any standards, too many children still come out of school unable to read and write, or do basic arithmetic.
The ACT Party wants to go much further, and allow the money which the taxpayer provides for the education of our children to be used at any school of the parents' choosing. We'd also make available the information from SchoolSMART so that parents could make an informed choice about the best school for their child.
And we'd allow good state schools to expand, by opening additional campuses elsewhere in the country.
On Don’s overall ambition for New Zealand:
I very badly want to help set New Zealand on a path where most families can make ends meet, where everybody who wants a job can get one, where we protect the natural environment, and where every citizen is equal before the law, no matter his or her ethnicity.
That's the kind of New Zealand I would dearly like to leave to my children and grandchildren.
Speech to Rural Policy Launch
Speech to Rural Policy Launch
Hamilton November 10th
Thank you for attending today.
My name is John Thompson. I am placed at number ten on the ACT Party List and I am part of the rural group in the Top 12 Caucus.
I will get the electioneering part over now as I am asking you you for your Party Vote to ACT and I hope to enter Parliament by way of getting there via the list ranking that I have.
Latest polling shows that while this is still possible, it is not probable at this stage. I am working very hard to turn this around and trying my best to make it a very real possibility.
New Zealand is a great Primary Producer and has a well earned and deserved reputation around the globe. Whether it is meat and wool, dairy, horticulture, seafood, or wine, we are considered as a safe producer and people can buy our product without fear.
Innovation that accompanies this is also as impressive – the electric fence being a classic example – and today of course are in Hamilton, home of Gallagher Industries and the Hamilton Jet to name just two.
However many seem to want to make it difficult for our primary industries, and most often this is seen in regulations that pass through Parliament.
Private property rights is something that ACT New Zealand staunchly stands for. We believe that intellectual property, bricks and mortar as well as private land under is under attack from all sides – most often from well-meaning but deluded self-important bureaucrats from both central and local government. This creep into the erosion of private property rights must not only be stopped, it must be reversed.
ACT’s view of the Resource Management Act is that it should not be tinkered with – it should be radically overhauled. This was originally meant to be an enabling piece of legislation that would enable business to be done. Again, thanks to the bureaucrats, the RMA is not enabling but in fact is a disabling piece of legislation. An overhaul is long overdue.
To talk more about this and our other rural policies I would now like to introduce Dr Don Brash, Leader of ACT.
Roger Kerr 1945-2011
Today we lost a dear friend and an exceptional New Zealander.
Roger Kerr spent his lifetime serving New Zealand. After 20 years working at a senior level with the New Zealand Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs he was appointed the first Executive Director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable, a position he held for the next 25 years.
Those of us who believe the most successful societies are built upon free markets, individual responsibility and choice, and the encouragement of entrepreneurship, had no better champion than Roger. Even those who disagreed with his views could not help but respect his depth of knowledge and passion.
Roger argued his case calmly and rationally, but no one could mistake his warmth and civility for weakness. Roger never gave up without a fight - an attribute he maintained until the end.
Roger Kerr was an intellectual giant and tireless advocate for freedom. More than that he was a husband, father, colleague, teacher, and friend. He will be greatly missed.
Help Stephen Whittington In Wellington Central
In the upcoming election, I will be standing as ACT’s candidate in Wellington Central. If you are willing to support me financially, please make a donation to 01-0505-0661103-00. Account name is Wellington Central Campaign.
Innumerate Greens
I honestly cannot believe that the Greens have made such a simple mistake, in a document which is intended to set out how they will finance their plans to significantly increase Government expenditure.
Every Child Should Get The Education They Deserve
As ACT’s Education Spokesman, I welcome the launch of the ‘Maori Into Tertiary Education’ project which aims to unlock the potential of Maori youths in Auckland and get them into tertiary education.
More than 200 tertiary education providers met in Auckland on Thursday to discuss ways of getting Māori into tertiary education – their goal is to triple the current participation rate. Another goal was for at least 20 percent of Auckland’s Maori population to have some form of tertiary qualification, at least at degree-level, by 2020. At the moment it is about 8 per cent
As those involved in the project have pointed out, it’s an outrage that nearly half of the 2,840 young Aucklanders who left secondary school last year without any qualifications were Maori. I think it’s encouraging to see the tertiary sector take responsibility and action to improve Maori outcomes. ACT has been long said that a good education is the key to empowering people and making them productive members of society.
The sad reality is it’s not just Auckland that has a problem with failing youth. Secondary education is failing many children around the country - and it’s this failure of our secondary school system which is at the root cause of many of New Zealand’s problems, for example we have some of the worst statistics for youth unemployment and teen pregnancy in the OECD.
While it’s fantastic that the tertiary education sector is willing to play its part, unfortunately not much will change until the Government has the guts to introduce real choice in education.
We simply cannot afford to have so many of our youth fall through the cracks as they are now. ACT’s education policy – to be released shortly - outlines fundamental changes we must make to the education system to ensure students’ learning needs are put first, while altering the incentives to keep our best teachers in the sector and more importantly, in the classroom. It is time we gave every child the education they deserve. ACT’s policy outlines the way we can lift our game.
Private initiatives are the way to go
A group of business leaders have teamed together to create and fund a new group called Pure Advantage. Pure Advantage is dedicated to helping New Zealand make the most out of green growth opportunities. I think this is a great example of how private initiatives respond to both opportunities and community needs.
The launch of this group is simply another reminder that the Government doesn’t have to do everything for New Zealand. We are a country populated by people both willing and able to think and act for themselves. We can cope just fine without an all-encompassing nanny state.
Pure Advantage is a group of leading New Zealanders who saw an opportunity to improve New Zealand’s environment, economic prospects, and living standards. They have seized this opportunity - I think that is commendable.
The advantage of private initiatives like Pure Advantage, vis-à-vis Government initiatives, is that participation is optional. Not all New Zealanders will agree with Pure Advantage’s aim and because it is private they can make this clear by not participating. They can vote with their feet. Compare that with Government initiatives such as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) where participation is compulsory; the only way New Zealanders can vote with their feet on the ETS is by voting ACT this election.
A further advantage of private initiatives is that they only work if they have community buy-in. This encourages competition of ideas and competition between groups trying to meet society’s needs, making it more likely that an efficient solution will be found. Compare this with Government initiatives such as the ETS: a small group of people in Wellington get to force a futile scheme onto all New Zealanders regardless of whether it is efficient and regardless of whether those forced to participate want it.
I wish Pure Advantage all the best in their endeavours – I have just one request: please don’t be tempted to lobby the Government for more regulation.
To the Government, I say the vast majority of Kiwis are capable of looking after their own interests and organising themselves voluntarily to deal with the problems and opportunities that exist in the world. We don’t need you to do it for us.
You can find out more about Pure Advantage at www.pureadvantage.org.
Little Proof? Just Semantics.
Since Andrew Little was caught out advocating voluntary unionism in his final speech to the EPMU, he has tried to back pedal and claim that he doesn’t support voluntary student unions as they are ‘very different’ from trade unions. In the speech he said - “I believe voluntary unionism - true freedom of association - gives the union movement much greater strength and a much greater moral authority.”
As is typical of the Labour Party he provided no analysis for his distinction, he just stuck with simple assertions.
So let’s do Little’s analysis for him and see if there is any real difference between the two.
Political lobbying
The Labour Party itself is the political wing of the trade union movement so there is no doubt trade unions are political entities. Council of Trade Unions President Helen Kelly regularly speaks out against the ninety day probation period and more recently state asset sales. Isn’t it great that her members can leave if they disagree with her stance? Similarly student associations make political statements all the time, they have led the charge against VSM and often call for freezes on student fees. Isn’t it a pity that pro- VSM students aren’t allowed to leave an organisation totally goes against all their political beliefs? Both organisations make political statements and support or oppose certain laws on behalf of their members. In fact they are so similar they both act as a launching pad for the political careers of Labour politicians!
Service provision
Trade Unions and students unions both provide services their members, but there is a huge difference in quality. The EPMU website says its members get lots of great deals at KiwiBank, Resene, Vero, 2degress and ITM. Sounds like some pretty awesome stuff. Student unions also provide so-called services, but there is no real way to tell if people actually want them. The Otago University Students’ Association spends it compulsorily acquired money on an art day where students can ‘work on their own mural on campus’. Oh and students get 10 percent off at Trade Aid. I know which services I’d rather get for my money.
Advocacy
Both trade unions and student unions advocate for the rights of their members. Trade unions negotiate health and safety standards, employment contracts and represent workers when it comes to any grievance they may have with their employer. Student unions claim to provide exactly the same service, but whether students actually need or want it is impossible to tell.
Trade unions and student unions both claim to provide the same things to their members – the only difference is workers are free to leave a trade union, so they provide better services in order to attract members. Students deserve that too.
Andrew Little’s only attempt to draw any distinction between the two, other than simply asserting that they’re different, was to use the word ‘association’ in reference to student organisations instead of ‘union’. Not only will people see through his childish attempt at word play – but I’m sure the Public Service Association would be shocked to find out it isn’t a union either.
We Were on the Cliff Edge Before the Earthquake
Before the Christchurch earthquake, the Savings Working Group had this to say:
“New Zealanders – the people and the Government – are not saving enough. Unless we make some rapid changes, we are risking a major economic disruption likely to leave practically all New Zealanders worse off. It’s as if we are standing on top of a cliff that may collapse dramatically or crumble slowly. Either way, it would be a bad fall. We need to move back from the brink – and fast.”
The earthquake in Christchurch has not only moved the ground under the feet of Cantabrians, it has moved the ground under our whole economy.
We are on the top of the cliff and it is crumbling fast. The Government books are in disarray and we continue to stand at the edge.
There is no use in trying to apportion blame. We as New Zealanders are responsible for getting ourselves into this mess.
We continue to vote for politicians that sell us bullshit.
We have bought into the idea that the Government can make us all wealthy.
If the Government does not act quickly and step back from the edge, we are likely to fall with the cliff. When the economy does badly, it is the lowest socio-economic group that are hit hardest.
If we continue to be foolhardy and only slowly move back from the edge we will condemn New Zealanders to years of poverty. Speed is of the essence here, every day that we accrue more debt we irreparably harm ourselves. We lose a day of growth that we will never get back. The best thing that the Government could do for the poor and for our future generation is move quickly to get debt under control by cutting government spending. We should really question the merit of costly and ineffective schemes like the Families Commission, Ministry of Women’s Affairs and interest free student loans.
New Zealand has no choice if it wants to step back from the brink, we need to prioritise spending, focusing on growth and core government services. We can no longer refuse to act, we must now move swiftly to save our economy in the interests of the most vulnerable in society.
Freedom - in all its Forms
One thing that I have noticed amongst ACT supporters recently, is their general willingness to tackle economic illiteracy within the public, however, they are less fervent when it comes to tackling social conservatism.
I think that it would be wrong to think that ACT is only about economic freedom - social freedom is just as important. There is no doubt that economic freedom is important to help the ordinary person. However, it is only one side of the coin. Freedom in the social sphere is just as important as it is in the economic sphere. I want ACT supporters to become advocates of freedom in both sphere, not just one.
I have always thought of ACT as having something to offer to both National and Labour. We should seek to offer Labour, when they get back in, a socially liberal platform which we would be willing to support them on. There are many social issues which ACT and Labour could see eye to eye on. When National are in power, we should offer them an economic platform on which we would support them. This seems not only a principled stance, but also one that means ACT remains relevant at all times and is not neglected as the Greens are by Labour.
I am always surprised by people who think that I have a conservative social policy. This could not be further from the truth.
In reality, the divide between social and economic freedom is a contrived one. There are no issues that do not have both social and economic implications. Just as the excess of government intervention can be seen in the economy, so too can it be seen in the lives of individuals. I do not advocate “no government” as I believe there is a proper role for the government to play in education, healthcare, law enforcement, and the environment amongst others. But there is no role for the government to strip individuals of their civil liberties denying them the ability to pursue their idea of the good life.
We should seek to stand up for the social and economic rights of New Zealand citizens – this is the classic liberal vision of the ACT Party.
