Farming: Vital in Our Past, Our Present, and Our Future
Speech by ACT Leader Don Brash to the Federated Farmers Annual Conference
30 June, 2011
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,
This afternoon you're enduring a procession of politicians.
I'm sure we'll all be telling you what a great contribution farming makes to the New Zealand economy.
We'll probably all make the point that exports from the land generated some $23 billion in exports last year, nearly 60% of all exports of goods from New Zealand.
Some of us will acknowledge that, in the decade after agriculture was so abruptly stripped of all subsidies by the Labour Government of the eighties, farming achieved the highest rate of productivity growth of any major New Zealand industry, while over the whole 30 year period to 2008 labour productivity in agriculture has been right up there with the very best in the economy.
And achieved that without subsidies, and with the lowest rate of taxpayer support of any farming industry anywhere in the world.
I was reminded of just how extraordinary that productivity growth in agriculture has been when I visited the Wairarapa last week. I was told by one farmer that in 1946, shortly after the Second World War, it took seven men to produce 300 bales of hay in a day. In other words, one man could produce about 43 bales of hay in a day. Now, one man can produce 2000 bales in a single day - a near 50-fold increase in labour productivity!
If the whole economy had performed as well as farming has over the last 25 years, New Zealand would have living standards on a par with Australia, not well below Australia.
Despite this extraordinary achievement, of which all farmers should feel immensely proud, successive governments have tended to see farming as a sunset industry, important in our past but increasingly irrelevant to our future.
Politicians have talked about riding a Knowledge Wave, about the importance of the creative industries, of movies, and of fashion. They've talked about high tech start-ups, and the opportunity to build a back office for the world's financial industry.
And yep, all of those things are good and to be welcomed. Some New Zealand high tech companies are doing some extraordinarily innovative things.
But the foreign exchange earned from exporting movies and fashion garments is tiny compared with the exports from the farming industry.
And yet farming is pilloried by people who should know better.
All farmers get blamed for the environmental sins of the minority.
All farmers are assumed to be incredibly rich and to pay no tax.
All farmers are assumed to treat their animals with total indifference to their well-being.
After the next election, ACT will not be using its influence to re-introduce subsidies for the farming sector. I know you wouldn't believe me even if I said that we would be doing that!
But to the extent we can influence the policy of the next government - and that depends entirely on how many party votes we get in the election - we will be aiming to achieve three objectives of direct relevance to the farming sector.
First, we will be pushing to get government spending under control.
In the first four or five years of the Labour Government's nine years in office, you'd have to say that they were reasonably responsible, as left-of-centre governments go. Government spending grew slightly more slowly than the economy as a whole.
But in their last three or four years, they started throwing money around in all directions. In the four years to June 2009, national income grew by 20% but government spending grew by an astonishing 43%, and largely as a consequence the government's budget moved from surplus to deficit.
Much of this increase in spending was of very poor quality. Earlier this month, the Minister of Education mentioned that government spending on early childhood education had roughly trebled over the past five years, from about $500 million a year to about $1.4 billion a year - and yet all that extra money has increased the level of participation at preschool centres by just 1%.
The National Government didn't create this mess. Labour did. But tragically National has failed to fix the mess.
Why does it matter? Well, most obviously the huge increase in government spending, coming on top of the slow growth in revenue as a consequence of the recession and, now, the cost of the Christchurch earthquakes, is pushing up government debt at the rate of knots.
The Government has been borrowing over $300 million a week, week after week. At that rate, before long you're talking serious money! That's equivalent to $300 for every household in the country, every week.
But from the point of view of you in the export sector the most serious consequence of all this borrowing is its effect on the exchange rate. When the Treasury sells $300 million of bonds every week, most of those bonds are not sold to Mum and Dad investors in New Zealand, or even to New Zealand-based institutions. They're sold to foreign investors, and of course those foreign investors have to buy New Zealand dollars to buy New Zealand dollar bonds.
And that adds to the upward pressure on the exchange rate.
Yes, export prices in foreign currency have been pretty good lately, and this has shielded the farming sector from the worst effects of the very high New Zealand dollar.
But New Zealand needs the export sector to be doing not just well but extremely well at present! Over decades, New Zealand has accumulated massive amounts of overseas debt - indeed, our net indebtedness as a country puts us in the same league as Greece and Portugal. Why? Because year after year (indeed, every year since 1973!) we've run balance of payments deficits, and last month's Budget predicts that we'll be running deficits for as far ahead as the eye can see.
So we need you in the export sector to be doing extremely well, strongly motivated to produce more milk, produce more meat, and produce more wool.
And the high level of government spending, and the resultant high level of government borrowing, is blunting those incentives by putting upward pressure on the exchange rate.
Actually, the high level of government spending - and government spending today is higher, relative to the size of the economy, than in any year under Labour - has another damaging effect on the exchange rate.
The Reserve Bank is charged with keeping inflation low and stable. But when the government is spending a lot more than it's taking in in revenue, the Reserve Bank has to keep interest rates at a higher level than would otherwise be necessary. Today, the Reserve Bank's OCR is lower than at any other time in our history, but it's still relatively high compared with other countries (with the single exception of Australia). That makes New Zealand an attractive place for foreign savers to invest their money, with resultant upward pressure on the exchange rate.
So that is the first thing ACT would try to achieve of direct relevance to you in the farming industry, getting government spending under control to help ease the upward pressure on the exchange rate.
Secondly, we would seek a root and branch reform of the Resource Management Act and all the bits and pieces that hang off it - like the proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.
As some of you know, I've been the chairman of the 2025 Taskforce for the last couple of years, charged with providing advice to the Government about how to lift New Zealand living standards to the Australian level by 2025.
I'm sometimes asked: what's the single most important thing to be done if we're to achieve that goal? I reply that there's no single thing which will get us all the way there, but the most important single thing to be done in my opinion is to remove the extraordinary obstacles to progress created by the RMA.
I'm constantly regaled with horror stories of the little Hitlers who far too often seem to populate the lower levels of local and regional government, charging for this, complaining about that, throwing their weight around (sometimes in flagrant breach of the law), refusing to grant consents on the most flimsy excuse.
And I've already had anguished letters from farmers distressed about the implications of the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity if adopted in its present form.
As I probably don't need to tell you, that directs that local governments ensure that there's "no net loss of biodiversity of areas of significant indigenous vegetation" (Policy 5); and requires that tangata whenua be fully involved in developing and implementing regional and district plans to protect indigenous biodiversity (Policy 7).
No mention at all of compensation for trespassing on the property rights of farmers. No suggestion that tangata whenua should have no more rights to be consulted than any other member of the community.
ACT believes that if a council wants to restrict your ability to manage your property as you see fit, then, provided that what you are doing on your own property is not directly and adversely affecting others, the council must demonstrate one hell of a good reason for doing so. And if the council does restrict you in a way that disadvantages you financially, it should compensate you.
ACT also believes that local and regional government should have an obligation to consult with all members of the community equally, and not give any kind of preference to one racial group over another.
So that's the second thing of direct relevance to the farming sector we want to do.
And thirdly, and finally, ACT will press for the abandonment of the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Why do we have an ETS? I have to admit I know of no good reason at all.
To be sure, it seems pretty clear that on average temperatures around the world have been increasing. But they've been increasing for at least the last 200 years, since the days when the Thames regularly froze over, and that warming began long before greenhouse gases caused by human activity could've had a significant influence on the climate.
And we know temperatures were very warm in the medieval period, and in Roman times, when grapes were routinely grown in what is now the United Kingdom. And greenhouse gases could hardly explain that, or the cooling which took place between those warm periods.
Even if a case can be made that human activity is behind the gradual increase in global temperature, it isn't obvious that an increased temperature is necessarily a bad thing for life on the planet. We know that plant life thrives on an atmosphere high in carbon dioxide - which is why many market gardeners deliberately pump carbon dioxide into their glass houses.
And we know that human societies thrive both in Singapore and in Finland, though average temperatures in the two places could hardly be more different.
Incurring the many trillions of dollars in cost which would be involved in any serious global attempt to slow the increase in average temperature would place an enormous burden on all societies, especially those already living on the margins of existence.
And even if it were accepted that human activity is causing the planet to warm, and that the enormous cost of trying to slow that warming is justified, it's entirely unclear why New Zealand should be at the forefront of that effort, at considerable cost to all New Zealanders, including New Zealand farmers.
It's estimated that the average dairy farmer is already incurring increased costs of nearly $4,000 annually (including both on-farm costs from the increased cost of diesel and electricity and the increased costs incurred by Fonterra), and that that will rise to over $10,000 annually by 2015.
So ACT favours the abolition of the ETS system, or at very least its suspension until comparable schemes are in place in all our major trading partners.
But Mr President, ACT's ability to achieve those goals - bringing government spending under control in order to take the pressure off the exchange rate, a fundamental reform of the RMA and all its off-shoots, and the abandonment of the ETS - depends entirely on one thing and one thing only: how many party votes we get in the election.
By all means vote for Bill English in Clutha-Southland, or Shane Ardern in Taranaki-King Country - but please give your party vote to ACT!
Speech to the Association of Integrated Schools Conference - Hon Rodney Hide
Speech to the Association of Integrated Schools Conference
Associate Minister of Education Hon Rodney Hide
Wednesday, June 22 2011
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak at your conference today - it’s great to be here.
I believe the best education systems are those where parents have a genuine choice of schools. And a diverse range to choose from.
High quality integrated schools make an important contribution to this diversity.
Parents value the range of educational programmes on offer at your schools – particularly the religious or philosophical values and aspirations that underpin them.
Your schools’ special character allows students to have their needs met. And to be taught in an environment that suits them best.
Today, I would like to talk to you about a subject that I’m very passionate about - public private partnerships - or PPPs.
Since becoming Associate Minister of Education, I have had the chance to visit many schools around the country. And on these visits nearly every school has the same complaint. Property - and the amount of time principals and boards are forced to spend sorting out property issues.
This problem is largely because there are few incentives under our current property procurement processes to think about how a building’s design and construction will impact on its ongoing maintenance and running costs.
This Government has made it clear we are open to greater use of private sector expertise where it makes sense.
Currently underway is a project to commission two new schools at Hobsonville Point in Auckland. These schools will be financed, designed, built and maintained under a public private partnership.
A single establishment board of trustees is overseeing and assisting in setting up the new schools.
The benefits of a PPP is that it ties a school’s design and construction together with its maintenance for 25 years, forcing people to think about what makes sense in the long run.
The land and school will still be owned by the Government, while the board of trustees will remain wholly in charge of the governance and day to day running of the school.
The private partner provides services such as building and grounds maintenance, cleaning, waste management, security, and furniture and equipment.
Penalties will be charged if these services aren’t carried out to an agreed standard or within a specified timeframe.
In addition, the private partner will carry the risk around time-consuming and expensive problems like leaky buildings, and will be required to sort them out quickly or face financial penalties.
So it’s like having a 25 year guarantee on the building.
The private partner will have greater flexibility as to how to deliver a solution. For instance the PPP contract might specify that the buildings don’t leak, but the choice of roofing material is up to the private partner.
All of this means the board of trustees and school leadership can get on with student learning and achievement – and not have to worry about property.
Principals of PPP schools in Australia report having up to fifty per cent more time to devote to improving teaching and learning.
Other benefits of a PPP include:
• more accurate and transparent assessment of whole-of-life costs.
• more motivation for private partners to find the most efficient ways to deliver the facilities we are after.
• potential for better value for money.
So as you can see, a PPP is about a three-way partnership between the Government, a private partner and a board of trustees when it comes to property.
A contract sets out the relationship between the Government and private partner, with sub-agreements and property occupancy documents setting out the school’s relationship with the other parties.
A private provider can only make money through a charge specified at the start of the contract.
Your schools, on the other hand, have entered into an educational partnership with the Crown.
You receive the same government funding for each student as other state schools. But your proprietors retain ownership of land and buildings – and have more say over the school’s operations. Charging attendance dues is one example of this.
This strong relationship achieves our Government’s aims and preserves your schools’ special character.
Looking to the future, PPPs will only be used again when they stack up against traditional procurement methods.
The Ministry of Education’s investigations revealed that PPPs would not be suitable for all new school projects due to the higher procurement costs.
Future PPPs will most likely continue to be for small groups of new schools like Hobsonville Point rather than individual schools.
Lessons learnt from Hobsonville Point will be applied to the future use of PPPs.
Before I finish I want to touch briefly on the changes the Government is making to special education, so every single child gets a fair go.
As you know, last year I launched ‘Success for All – Every School, Every Child’ – an action plan for the next three years that will lead to greater emphasis on mainstream schools doing more for special education students.
An Education Review Office report last year found that only half of all schools in New Zealand do a good job of including students with special education needs.
This is unacceptable, so I set a target for schools to improve their performance.
By the end of 2014 I expect 80 percent of schools to be doing a good job of welcoming and including students with special education needs – with the rest well on their way.
I take this target very seriously as I want every child to learn and succeed in every school.
ERO will be measuring the progress schools are making to meet it – with the first results available later this year.
I want it be quicker and easier for young people with the highest special education needs and their families to get extra help.
Children with high and obvious needs can now enter the Ongoing Resourcing Schemes (ORS) with less assessment and no unnecessary reassessment.
Eleven hundred more young people will get ORS support by 2014, and a further thousand will be able to get specialist support in their first three years at school.
I want to make better use of the special school teaching expertise. Special schools are being encouraged to provide outreach specialist teaching – making their skills and support available to more students in mainstream classes.
In four years time I expect to see:
• Schools welcoming and including every student
• All young people learning and succeeding, and getting extra help when they need it
• Parents who can see that their child belongs, has friends and is learning and succeeding
• Parents receiving good information – without being knocked back.
In conclusion, I believe that innovation is the key to transforming our education system, so it delivers for every single young New Zealander.
We need to look at new ways of doing things, and we need new attitudes and new expectations.
That’s why I’m excited about the potential of PPPs to introduce innovation that will be beneficial across the wider schooling network.
Thank you – and I wish you all the best for the remainder of your conference.
Speech to ACT Scenic South Regional Conference
Speech by Hilary Calvert MP to the ACT Scenic South 2011 Conference
Mercure Leisure Lodge Hotel
Sunday, 19 June 2011
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law. - Aristotle
Today I want to talk to you about some of the principles the Act Party holds dear by highlighting two major issues that are important to all New Zealanders.
First I want to talk about our policy of one law for all, a principle that has been alive and well at least since Aristotle’s days.
The second issue I want to canvass is how we improve our standard of living generally, but with particular reference to employment at the beginning and end of our working lives.
An underlying theme is that sometimes the best-intentioned measures end up harming the very people they were meant to help – the law of unintended consequences.
ONE LAW FOR ALL
ACT’s bottom-line support for One Law For All has been criticised by some as Maori-bashing racism.
This is to completely misconstrue Act’s position.
In 1840 the British Crown signed a Treaty with Maori. Under Article III the Crown granted Maori “the rights and privileges of British subjects”. By implication this includes the right to be treated equally under the law, a right which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights 1689.
Over the years the Government on behalf of the people did not give Maori equal rights – courts ruled against them on dubious grounds and settler governments confiscated land illegally (eg in the Waikato 1860, Raglan golf course in 1940s).
Many New Zealanders became concerned about the way the government was behaving.
We tried to redress earlier wrongdoings and to show Maori the respect they should always have been able to take for granted.
But we made serious mistakes while trying to correct the wrongs. The law of unintended consequences struck.
If we want to honour the treaty, correct the historical property issues and pay proper respect to Maori we should:
- Repeal special laws – all issues should be resolved by general agencies under universal principles (eg breaches of Treaty should be resolvable at law under Article 3 – if Labour had let this happen in 2004 with Ngāti Apathere would now be no Marine & Coastal Area Act.
- Review how agencies deliver on general principles – everyone has a taniwha at the bottom of the garden and legislation/courts/agencies should be able to deal with them sensitively and in the right context. We do know how to deal with spiritual issues – we deal with them all the time when we sort out what to with consecrated ground for example the cemetery that is in the way of the proposed dam at Beaumont.
- Allow for majority to prevail while having regard to the rights of the minority. The disaffected can bring issues to the attention of the majority and demand a fair hearing.
- Remember that Parliament as the House of Representatives is supreme, and has full power to make *and unmake* laws (Constitution Act 1986 s 15)
We did a reasonable job trying to sort out treaty settlement claims.
But then we went completely down the wrong track.
We created a separate class of New Zealanders with special rights that applied only to them.
Sometimes we kept the rights in place long after they had fulfilled their purpose.
In 1867 the government created four seats reserved for Maori to bridge the gap until enough Maori met the property qualification then in place. Although only intended to last five years, this ‘temporary’ measure is still in place, but expanded, despite more people of Maori descent standing for general seats than for reserved seats.
It is interesting to compare our history concerning Maori treatment with our history concerning another section of society who were not always treated equally - women.
We have also reached the conclusion that we should have women treated as equal citizens – we legislated for women’s suffrage in 1893; Otago was the first University in the British Empire to admit women students by right; we brought in widows’ pensions, the Married Women’s Property Act, the Domestic Purposes benefit.
But we did not try to give women special seats in parliament, or give them special quotas at university or special laws that allowed them to occupy public land and charge their neighbours for walking on it.
What held women back was a lack of equal opportunity – nothing else.
We dismantled the unfair barriers and women are doing the rest. When I entered law school, women made up 10% of the roll. Now the majority of law graduates are women and women are taking their places as judges and senior counsel and partners – without having to rely on positive discrimination which, positive or not, is still discriminatory.
MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) ACT
This is example of what can happen when the process goes wrong and also a time when the government went against the overwhelming will of the people as expressed to a government review and a select committee.
If the issue of customary title had been left to the courts in 2004, there would be no fear and loathing on the high-tide line.
The new law gives Maori the right to go to the High Court to ascertain the extent of their property rights in the foreshore and seabed.
This was the right thing to do. It is also where the new law should have stopped.
Instead, the Government gave some Maori special rights that are denied to all other New Zealanders.
- Iwi can avoid the court process by negotiating privately with the Crown. Political negotiations almost always lead to political outcomes. Justice will take a back seat as deals are struck that would never have made it through the transparent court system.
- The new law gives customary titleholders the right to override resource management laws that apply to everyone else. It creates a special ability to fine people and to charge any amounts for use of some resources.
- Iwi can unilaterally declare that a part of the foreshore is a sacred site, a wahi tapu area and then stop others from going on it, rather than using current law to protect special and historical sites.
The National Party knew this separatist law went against all they stood for.
National’s concessions were made for political reasons, and now we all need to know:
How much more are the two major parties willing to concede in exchange for the Maori Party’s support?
I spent some time in the impoverished and strongly Maori Far North talking to Northlanders about what is holding many Maori back.
Up there many pakeha feel that Maori have not had a fair go.
They are concerned that Maori are still not getting the same chances as other New Zealanders. Too many Maori are forced to attend inferior schools, receive sub-standard medical treatment, and end up entangled in the welfare net with little hope of escape.
One hundred and sixty-one years after the Treaty was signed there are still proportionately more Maori in prison, unemployed, in ill-health or earning less income than the rest of us.
But instead of focusing on these issues, Parliament has been tied up with legislation giving special rights to Iwi over the foreshore and seabed. The Marine and Coastal Area Act will do nothing to address the issues that really matter. It will divide us even further and advance the separatist agenda.
Separatism will not keep Maori out of prison or in the workforce.
So what’s the alternative?
We can implement policies that bring New Zealanders together. That’s one law for all again.
A Government that borrows over $300 million a week and refuses to cut spending hurts everyone – Maori and non-Maori.
New Zealand will prosper again only if we get government spending under control, and let our entrepreneurs and industries create high-paying jobs.
In short, we must take New Zealand off the separatist path and focus our energy instead on creating a successful and prosperous nation.
IMPROVING LIVING STANDARDS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT
It used to be said in farming circles that if dairy, sheep meat and wool prices ever peaked at the same time New Zealand would be the richest country on earth.
Well, they have. We’re not. But we should be, if not the richest, at least well up in the top quartile of the OECD.
This week our neighbours in Canterbury have had to contend with yet more rumblings under their feet. It must be terrible to live with the constant fear that any shake might be another disaster on the scale of the two big quakes, and we can only admire the courage of those who stay to keep the city running.
In addition to the human cost there is also a financial cost to us all. The effect on the national economy of the big shakes so far has been in excess of $20 billion. If we are to do justice to the people of Christchurch by reinstating our second largest city we must take a firm line with some of our sacred cows.
THE PENSION
John Key has said that the pension age will not go up while he is Prime Minister. But we should all admit that the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand Superannuation will need to gradually increase to ensure that the cost of the scheme remains fair to younger New Zealanders.
This affects Dunedin people more than most, given the high ratio of seniors in the city. It’s time that we stopped dumping people into retirement when they can work and want to work. Someone who was 60 in 1960 was old, but today’s 60 year-olds have had a dream run compared their parents: no war, no depression, no hunger –and they can expect to live another 20 or more years in comparatively good health and mobility.
We need to stop treating seniors as if they were past their use-by date. There’s many a good meal to be had from mature beef.
Some countries allow people to defer their pensions until a later age in return for which they receive a larger annuity. We should look at new paradigms rather than relying on policies designed by the first Labour government for our grandparents.
EMPLOYMENT
At the other end of our lives we have an issue of youth unemployment.
In this regard I would like to mention the role of youth rates in keeping young people out of work.
It’s vital that this issue doesn’t disappear from the radar screen because it would be so easy to deal with it without Bill English having to lose a night’s sleep.
The tragedy is that 44% of New Zealand’s unemployed are under the age of 24. Nearly 28% are in the 15-19 age group where unemployment has more than doubled since Labour abolished youth rates in 2005.
Forcing employers to pay school leavers the same rate as more mature workers is a substantial barrier to getting many of these young people on to the first rung of the career ladder.
ACT wants the Government to allow employers to pay youth rates. This is apparently an “extreme” policy.
In 2007 John Key said in the House that he thought that a Youth Minimum wage is good for young people.
On May 11 2011 I asked him in the House whether he supported Paula Bennett in her opposition to youth rates when Labour’s abolition of youth rates increased youth unemployment by 12,000,
He replied: “I think that we all admit that and accept that one of the factors for youth is the rate they are paid.
“Yesterday in the ODT we saw an article entitled “Indications youth minimum wage not ruled out as policy option”. This article explained that in March the Government ruled out supporting Sir Roger Douglas’ bill to allow the reintroduction of a youth minimum wage. Now the Government has said they will not rule this out as a policy option.
Maybe this is because as The Honourable Kate Wilkinson said “National is always willing to listen to good ideas”. We the Act Party remains ready willing and able to provide good ideas for the government.
CONCLUSION
Ours is a potentially prosperous and socially homogenous country which could be the envy of the world if we would just stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
We are subject to the vagaries of world markets and we have inherited a legacy of racial injustice that has generated resentment in some sectors of our community.
We face some challenges in social policy and we have to solve those by managing our costs and increasing our revenue, just as households have to – in fact, the research suggests that New Zealanders have heard the message about borrowing and spending less much more clearly than the Government has!
Despite all this, ACT is positive about the future. We must give centre-right New Zealanders the message that a party vote for ACT will return a National-led government with a steel spine comprised of a team of ACT MPs who will give John Key and his colleagues the support they need to deliver a stable platform of equality before the law and economic sanity.
Thanks to ACT, the future has never looked brighter.
Budget 2011: More Pragmatism Over Principle
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Speech to Budget Debate; Parliament; Wednesday 8 June 2011.
Mr Speaker, the National and Labour parties are the biggest obstacles to the reform, modernisation and eventual success of New Zealand. This Budget shows why.
National, like Labour, have elevated means over ends, pragmatism over principles, posture over policy, cynicism over sincerity and symbols over substance.
National may have inherited the financial mess from Labour, but that’s no excuse for not tackling its causes head on.
When it comes to means over ends, we can all agree we want to see New Zealanders enjoying the best living standards possible. Only ACT, however, identifies and promotes means based on private enterprise, choice and competition that will deliver that end on a viable and lasting basis. National has unfortunately long since succumbed to bribery, via Government spending, as a means to that end, a means which is not viable and leads only to lasting debt.
The end result of decades of bribery by both National and Labour Governments is a level of central and local government spending that now represents over 40 percent of GDP. Best international estimates of the optimal level of government spending are in the region of 19 – 22 percent of GDP. Running at nearly double that level can only mean an economy hobbled by excessive taxation and bureaucracy, and warped incentives. That is exactly what our economy is.
A government that makes no serious effort to change this when it has the opportunity is clearly a government that puts pragmatism over principle. It fails to do the right thing because it’s simply too hard and runs the risk of upsetting vested interests and lobbyists.
While ACT welcomes the opening up of certain SOEs to private ownership up to 49 percent, we are left wondering why National lacks the courage of its alleged private enterprise convictions and wants to retain a majority interest in, for example, an airline and a television network when such things are properly the purview of the private sector.
Cuba nationalised everything in sight in the 1960s, but eventually learned its lesson and is now busy privatising again. If they can do it surely we can.
It’s not just a question of the money, Mr Speaker, that so-called “asset sales” would bring into empty government coffers; it’s that governments have no business owning such things in the first place.
In its obsession with not frightening the horses, this government tries to create the appearance of tackling our present crisis when in fact it does as little as possible. This is where posture over policy comes in.
National at one time pretended to be enthusiastic about New Zealand catching Australia by 2025. It even created a taskforce charged with telling us how we could do that. The taskforce was even chaired by one of the best economic brains in the country, ACT leader Dr Don Brash. It made many excellent recommendations. What has National done? Filed them in the rubbish bin. National’s purported commitment to catching Australia by 2025, if ever, is now shown to be as hollow as Helen Clark’s infamous commitment to returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD by 2010.
All posturing, no policy to back it up. Even the posturing was eventually abandoned. Has Mr Key abandoned any pretext of wanting to catch Australia by 2025? Let him tell us. But, if the answer is “yes”, as this Budget would indicate, where does that leave his claim to be ambitious for New Zealand?
In its failure to tackle the looming crisis facing our nation, this Budget is a symbol of National’s cynicism. National knows, for example, that in reinstating a youth minimum wage at least 12,000 new jobs for young people would be created in short order. The Budget could have signalled National’s intention to do that. It did no such thing. Instead it relied on the tired old Muldoonist tool of subsidisation – its Youth Employment Package – which creates fewer than half as many jobs at enormous cost to the taxpayer. A further instance of this Government not only spending too much money, but spending it unwisely.
I mentioned at the outset the Government’s propensity for symbolism over substance. Is there a more eloquent example than National’s continuation of Labour’s big government approach to early childhood education. Ever greater wads of taxpayer money have been thrown at the sector, with both parties touting it as illustrating their caring natures. In practice what’s to show for all this “generosity” with other people’s money? A 300 percent increase in expenditure over five years has resulted in a 1 percent increase in participation. Symbolism over substance – and at what cost!
Mr Speaker, in 2009 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in a speech in Switzerland, observed that: “Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history,”. As a surviving luminary from the collapsed Soviet Union Mr Putin should know what he’s talking about. It would seem our politicians have failed to heed the lesson that Mr Putin correctly says is obvious to any fourth grade history student. Sadly, this Budget confirms this to be the case. Government assets over the last 10 years have doubled to 120 percent of GDP, or $223 billion – money taken from the private sector now invested in poorly performing government assets.
As President Ronald Reagan once observed: “In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” New Zealand’s government is too big, too intrusive and it spends too much. National’s Budget did nothing meaningful to change this. It was, as my colleague Hon Heather Roy so accurately described it yesterday, a dire disappointment and an abject failure of nerve.
ENDS
Extreme Caring
Hon Heather Roy Speech to Budget Debate; Parliament; Tuesday, June 7 2011.
This Budget was a dire disappointment - an abject failure of nerve. Confronted with the necessity and opportunity to begin a historic sea change away from the knee-jerk borrow-and-spend mentality that has held New Zealand back for so long, the Government instead opted for cosmetics and cowardice.
Yes, the Government acknowledged that borrowing $380 million per week is unsustainable, but failed to make any significant assault on the mind-set that says spending beyond our means and having to borrow heavily is the solution to our problems.
Economic commentator Gareth Morgan captured the essence of our economic malaise very well in his column in this morning’s New Zealand Herald, “Bubbles on beer budget poor life choice”. He points out:
"this is one of the most indebted countries in the world with a net external debt-to-GDP ratio of 90 per cent. We are still behind Ireland (130 per cent) if that's comforting, and a smidgen short of Greece (91 per cent), but Australia isn't as bad (77 per cent) while the US (19 per cent), UK (14 per cent) and Canada (20 per cent), make us look delinquent".
In our present crisis the urgent imperative on government is to make itself much less of a burden on the productive sector. The way to do this is to discipline itself and bring its own runaway spending under control. National’s principles commit the party to small government. Yet, we have seen spending under this National-led Government explode.
And, no, this is not because of the earthquakes. Of our $17 billion dollar deficit this year, only $6 billion is because of the earthquakes.
What we needed, Mr Speaker, was a major application of the brakes. Instead the Government has merely eased back slightly on the accelerator.
One of the reasons the Government has been so timid is no doubt its fear of a chorus of accusations that to act more boldly would have been “uncaring”. This Budget, Mr Speaker, has left unchanged and unchallenged a number of situations that can scarcely be described as caring.
Is it caring, Mr Speaker, to condemn our young folk to soul destroying idleness by outlawing youth rates?
ACT says no.
It is sheer folly, Mr Speaker, to prohibit employers from hiring young workers at rates that they can afford just to appease the perverse sensibilities of socialists and unionists. If a young person is prepared to work for a given rate of remuneration, that should be the end of it. But, then of course, members of the Labour side are not known for their familiarity with the concept of choice.
Is it caring, Mr Speaker, to continue scams like Working for Families which snare thousands of people into the welfare dependency trap, when their own money could simply have been left in their own pockets in the first place?
ACT says no.
ACT simply WOULD leave people’s own money in their own pockets, while targeting welfare at those who genuinely need it. The notion that even people on MPs’ salaries can qualify for Working for Families, as I could have done in 2004, is farcical; it shows that government has moved from focusing its attention on those in genuine need to trying to nanny everyone.
Is it caring, Mr Speaker, to send children out of our school system illiterate?
ACT says no.
Our schools have been failing for decades. When the Principals’ Association criticises teachers’ own literacy, something is very wrong. Our schools have been in thrall to the philosophy that says literacy doesn’t matter. The damage this mind set has caused is incalculable. Once again simply increasing spending on Vote Education is not the answer. State schools at minimum must repair to basics and to the pursuit of excellence. Again, if the field is opened up to genuine competition the natural demand of parents for the best for their children will give both state and private schools no option but to try to meet that demand.
Is it caring, Mr Speaker, simply to throw more taxpayers’ money at our die-while-you-wait public health system when in Singapore, where the Government spends just 3 percent of GDP on health as opposed to our 9 percent, every measure of health success across the board is radically superior to ours, including:
• Infant mortality,
• Child mortality,
• Life expectancy,
• Emergency room waiting times,
• Non-urgent surgery waiting times?
ACT says no.
We need to learn from places like Singapore and introduce a much greater degree of choice for patients by means of private enterprise involvement. Wherever possible, rather than Government simply throwing more and more money, year after year at a system that remains stubbornly inefficient, consumers should have their own money returned to them to spend on the healthcare of their choice as they see fit.
Mr Speaker, to those who would have you believe that ACT is uncaring my response is we are the only party that truly DOES care and has the policies to back our caring up. These same people, Mr Speaker, would also have you believe that ACT is extreme. If by extreme they mean “unhinged”, nothing could be further from the truth. But, if by extreme they mean “passionately and sincerely committed”, then I proudly acknowledge we are extreme.
We are extreme in our desire for a vibrant, full-employment economy that will afford everybody the dignity of work.
We are extreme in our desire to revitalise the health system and end waiting lists.
We are extreme in our desire to transform the education system and end a situation where one in four is functionally illiterate.
Mr Speaker, I would remind the House that the Prime Minister himself once said that he was ambitious for New Zealand. This Budget shows Mr Key’s ambition to be extremely tepid. ACT, by contrast, has no qualms in proclaiming itself to be EXTREMELY ambitious for New Zealand … and to mean it.
Let Funding Follow The Child
Hon Heather Roy MP Speech to Early Childhood Council Conference; Wellington Convention Centre; Friday, May 27 2011.
Peter Reynolds, CEO of the Early Childhood Council, Council members, Early Childhood educators, Ladies and Gentlemen - thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
The early childhood education (ECE) sector played an important part in my life for many years - as the mother of five children I am very familiar with Early Childhood Education services and I miss the parental involvement that is encouraged in your sector more than any other part of the education sector. Strong links between home and educators provide the very best education for our children.
I am also a former manager of a private kindergarten - Craighead Kindergarten in Timaru. My involvement in this way with the ECE sector was my first introduction to governance and management issues and to the Ministry of Education. This was an eye opener, I learned a lot and the experience has been invaluable in my political life since. During that time I was extremely grateful for the services of the Early Childhood Council. The advice and support our centre received was excellent and of great assistance to a "rookie manager"!
These days my involvement is solely political and I'm fortunate to have been involved in the development of policy for my party. The aim of ACT's ECE policy is to ensure that our children receive maximum benefit from the resources our society is prepared to invest in your sector – for the coming year $1.4 billion. Unfortunately we don't have limitless resources, so we need to do the best we possibly can with that which is available.
ACT's ECE policy, like our policy in the wider education sector, is founded on the principle of choice and it consists of two limbs:
1. We believe funding should follow the child, not the whims of Wellington based politicians and bureaucrats; and
2. Government funding should be targeted based on need, not on a universal funding basis.
ACT believes that (state) ECE funding should follow the child regardless of the ownership type of the service or the philosophy of service. We believe this is important because it gives parents greater choice when deciding where to enrol their children by making a wider range of centres financially accessible to them.
ACT wants parents to choose where to enrol their child, because we firmly believe that parents know their children best, certainly better than bureaucrats, and are better placed to make the decisions of the ECE centre that best meets their child's needs. For some that will be kindergarten, for others it may be Play Centre, Kohanga Reo or a language nest, Montessori or Rudolph Steiner. For some parents and children full Day Care may be the option of choice for a variety of reasons.
No two children or two families are the same and it is essential if we want to match children's needs to the Early Childhood service that provides them with the best education possible, government must have policies that offer maximum flexibility. We must also ensure that resources invested in the sector are wisely spent for greatest gain.
ACT is pleased that the current ECE funding model already allows for a large proportion of state funding to 'follow the child'. Your sector sets an example for the way things could be in the compulsory sector. Parents frequently have little choice as to which primary and secondary schools their children attend. This is often determined by geography (where a family lives) and only the better off have the choice of private or integrated schools.
However Early Childhood does have some issues of equity that need to be addressed in my view. I am thinking in particular of the funding disparities that exist between kindergartens run by kindergarten associations and other ECE providers that were re-introduced in the Budget last week. ACT would remove such disparities.
The second limb of ACT's policy is that state funding for ECE should be targeted based on need. We are opposed to universal funding. If we are serious about giving our children the best start in life we need to be serious about minimising the amount of resource spent on often pointless bureaucracy - however well intentioned - instead of our children.
Taxing parents only to return their own money to them in the form of ECE subsidies is pointless bureaucracy. It means that a lot of money is wasted administering a money-go-around and estimates show that each level of 'churn' accounts for a loss of around 10% of funding.
Families that are sufficiently well-off to fund their children's ECE should be left alone to do so.
The role that ACT sees for the Government is to provide targeted funding for those families that are not sufficiently well-off to fund their children's ECE. ACT believes that a scholarship system for children based on need produces the right incentives, where funding follows the child. The value of scholarships could be adjusted to reflect a family's income and the number of children it has in ECE.
ACT's commitment to targeted funding is why we are opposed to the 20 hours free scheme. 20 hours free was introduced by Labour and despite saying in Opposition they would abandon the scheme, National has continued it.
Far from being targeted to those in actual need, that scheme is supposedly available to all, although in reality access is patchy around the country. It is hugely expensive - $786.5 million is budgeted for the coming financial year. Much of this money flows from middle class families to the Government and back to taxpayers, and a good chuck of it is wasted in the process.
Of course, there are other problems with the 20 hours free scheme - although centres like the income, the administrative hassle to be able to make use of the scheme, the restrictions on which centres qualify for the scheme and how the 20 free hours can be consumed are issues I don't need to explain to you.
If ACT controlled the Treasury benches the Government would simply decide whose ECE it is prepared to subsidise and by much. How that money was spent and at which ECE provider would be left for parents to decide.
In conclusion, the aim of ACT's ECE policy is ensure that our children receive maximum benefit from the resources our society is prepared to invest in your sector. To achieve this ACT would ensure that funding follows the child, and that funding by the state is targeted, based on need.
Thank you for the contribution you make every day to give our children the best start in life. And thank you again for the opportunity to address you today.
ENDS
Budget 2011: An Opportunity Missed
ACT Parliamentary Leader Hon John Boscawen speech to Budget 2011; Parliament; Thursday, May 19 2011.
New Zealand was once the most prosperous country in the world. However, by the 1960s our fortunes began to turn and that decline has accelerated over the last 30 years to the point where we are now ranked just 26th on the OECD world rankings.
We now have a society with major social problems and intergenerational dependency and with no immediate solutions on the horizon. As Hon Tariana Turia often reminds us social welfare dependency has robbed so many Maori of self-reliance and dignity.
We have an Education system that on one hand generates our best and brightest so they can be snapped up by the world’s leading employers in Europe, the US and Australia, and on the other hand fails so many with one child in four leaving school without even NCEA Level One. And we all know the statistics are tragically even worse for Maori.
We have a Health system that condemns so many to a long waiting list with only the affluent or the hardest working able to buy themselves out of this through private medical insurance.
The founders of the ACT Party, and two of them are in the House this afternoon, saw these problems 18 years ago when the party was formed and foresaw that without significant structural reform these issues would only get worse. And sadly the fears they had 18 years ago have tragically come to pass. The last 18 years has been a tragic loss for New Zealand with little difference between the solutions offered by both Labour and National. And the Prime Minister confirmed this just yesterday when he admitted that we are actually poorer today than we were in 2004.
The budget presented an opportunity to finally show some real leadership, some real vision for New Zealand but, sadly, both are lacking in this Budget.
For months the Minister of Finance has been warning New Zealanders that we can’t go on borrowing in excess of $300m a week, that we have to get our house back in order and that we need to exercise tight restraint to get back into surplus by 2015.
And what has he delivered? He delivered little more than a commitment to make a few timid reductions in programmes introduced by the last Labour government - and then not starting until 2012.
Over the next financial year the Government proposes to borrow over $13,000 for every family in the country to add to the many thousands borrowed over the last three years.
Cutting back spending programmes which recipients have come to enjoy would have required real political courage which, like the last Labour Government, this Government seems to lack. But, someday soon, people will realise that the goodies which Government is handing out are charged back to our children and our grandchildren.
This Budget provided an opportunity to make comprehensive changes to the way that we deliver our social programmes. This was an opportunity to introduce more choice in education, greater private sector involvement in the health services and to adopt the recommendations of the recent Social Welfare Taskforce. Instead, the Finance Minister chose to fiddle.
However, whether we liked it or not comprehensive change would have meant the need to make sacrifice across the board.
ACT strongly believes we need to protect the most vulnerable 25%, but at a time when the Government is borrowing over $200 a week for every family and will continue to do so for at least the next 12 months the rest of us need to be prepared to make sacrifices.
We need to make both short and long-term changes. In the short term, we need to get rid of wasteful and unnecessary spending, but in the long term we need to improve productivity in health, education and welfare.
Today the Finance Minister announced minor changes in student loans.
Wow.
This is the same man, who in opposition called interest-free student loans “an election year bribe on an unprecedented scale”.
There is no such thing as a free lunch and we now incentivise young 17, 18 and 19 year old students to go out and borrow as much as they can, while leaving their holiday earnings in a bank account to earn interest. They would be crazy not to, and in fact when they can pay their loan back in devalued dollars some years later, if at all, you would almost say that those who didn’t weren’t smart enough for tertiary education.
Not only is it not fair for the parents of children in Otara and Porirua to pay taxes to subsidise the children of the better off who are most likely to go on to tertiary education we have also incentivised our young to take on debt for courses that they neither need nor would use and are then saddled with debt for the rest of their lives.
To the parents and grandparents of those students I ask do you really want to see your children and grandchildren permanently emigrate overseas only to be condemned to talking to them by Skype each night?
Or do you want to see your children and grandchildren grow up in a prosperous country whose income levels not only equal but exceed Australia and are the envy of the world? A country with low marginal tax rates that incentivise work, savings and personal responsibility. A country that truly delivers a world class education system, not just for some New Zealanders but for all New Zealanders. And a country that allows not just the wealthy but all New Zealanders to have access to a proper health system.
Sir, in the same way that the poor have subsidised those with student loans, if not through the income tax they pay certainly through GST, the poor have also been a net contributor to the very generous Kiwisaver subsidies.
While Kiwisaver has been an undoubted success and the cost blowout is due to this success, the poor and the disadvantaged are the least able to make that minimum 2 percent contribution that triggers those taxpayer subsidies.
The Budget also forecasts a significant increase in the cost of New Zealand superannuation. You would expect this as a consequence of rising incomes and the growing number of New Zealanders reaching the age of 65. This number is set to balloon over the next 15 years to the point where it will no longer be sustainable.
Most New Zealanders understand and accept this, and certainly those under the age of 55.
Already countries are signalling an increase in the age of entitlement as people live longer and the baby boom bubble works its way through. Australia’s Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard recognises this too and their pension age is set to increase at a rate of 6 months every two years beginning in 2017 and reaching 67 years in 2023.
ACT agrees. However, what we wouldn’t do is change the age of entitlement for those already 65, or close to it. What we would do is actually be honest and tell those in their 50s now to give them the maximum time to prepare.
This is a Budget that was an opportunity missed. It was an opportunity to radically transform our growth prospects and to show leadership and courage to the nation.
The ACT Party has policies that can transform this nation, address our underlying social problems and return it to the world leadership position it had over 50 years ago.
We will be going out there on to the hustings and telling the story and will be telling it honestly. We heard less than 15 minutes ago from Russel Norman who talked about a $2 billion subsidy to polluters. What Russel Norman didn’t tell New Zealanders is that we’re all paying more for electricity and for petrol to subsidise those who planted forests, with the overwhelming amount of this subsidy going to owners of forests that were actually planted before January 1 2008, the date those subsidies took effect from.
This scheme effectively provides a one off allowance of over 200 tonnes of carbon or $4000 per hectare for foresters who perpetually harvest and replant their forests on, say, a 28 year cycle. This subsidy is enough to purchase high country marginal land and to plant the initial trees. The Government is essentially taxing all of us more for electricity, petrol and food to provide a subsidy so big it is effectively giving away free forests to anyone smart enough to understand how the scheme works.
All New Zealanders pay for this, with the poorest paying disproportionately the most.
We in the ACT Party look forward to taking those policies to the electorate over the next six months and I say to the Prime Minister rather than encouraging people to vote National, or Labour for that matter, vote ACT and we in the ACT Party look forward to taking on both Mr Key and Mr Goff in the hustings.
We welcome the election. Bring it on.
ENDS
Budget 2011: An Opportunity Missed
ACT Parliamentary Leader Hon John Boscawen speech to Budget 2011; Parliament; Thursday, May 19 2011.
New Zealand was once the most prosperous country in the world. However, by the 1960s our fortunes began to turn and that decline has accelerated over the last 30 years to the point where we are now ranked just 26th on the OECD world rankings.
We now have a society with major social problems and intergenerational dependency and with no immediate solutions on the horizon. As Hon Tariana Turia often reminds us social welfare dependency has robbed so many Maori of self-reliance and dignity.
We have an Education system that on one hand generates our best and brightest so they can be snapped up by the world’s leading employers in Europe, the US and Australia, and on the other hand fails so many with one child in four leaving school without even NCEA Level One. And we all know the statistics are tragically even worse for Maori.
We have a Health system that condemns so many to a long waiting list with only the affluent or the hardest working able to buy themselves out of this through private medical insurance.
The founders of the ACT Party, and two of them are in the House this afternoon, saw these problems 18 years ago when the party was formed and foresaw that without significant structural reform these issues would only get worse. And sadly the fears they had 18 years ago have tragically come to pass. The last 18 years has been a tragic loss for New Zealand with little difference between the solutions offered by both Labour and National. And the Prime Minister confirmed this just yesterday when he admitted that we are actually poorer today than we were in 2004.
The budget presented an opportunity to finally show some real leadership, some real vision for New Zealand but, sadly, both are lacking in this Budget.
For months the Minister of Finance has been warning New Zealanders that we can’t go on borrowing in excess of $300m a week, that we have to get our house back in order and that we need to exercise tight restraint to get back into surplus by 2015.
And what has he delivered? He delivered little more than a commitment to make a few timid reductions in programmes introduced by the last Labour government - and then not starting until 2012.
Over the next financial year the Government proposes to borrow over $13,000 for every family in the country to add to the many thousands borrowed over the last three years.
Cutting back spending programmes which recipients have come to enjoy would have required real political courage which, like the last Labour Government, this Government seems to lack. But, someday soon, people will realise that the goodies which Government is handing out are charged back to our children and our grandchildren.
This Budget provided an opportunity to make comprehensive changes to the way that we deliver our social programmes. This was an opportunity to introduce more choice in education, greater private sector involvement in the health services and to adopt the recommendations of the recent Social Welfare Taskforce. Instead, the Finance Minister chose to fiddle.
However, whether we liked it or not comprehensive change would have meant the need to make sacrifice across the board.
ACT strongly believes we need to protect the most vulnerable 25%, but at a time when the Government is borrowing over $200 a week for every family and will continue to do so for at least the next 12 months the rest of us need to be prepared to make sacrifices.
We need to make both short and long-term changes. In the short term, we need to get rid of wasteful and unnecessary spending, but in the long term we need to improve productivity in health, education and welfare.
Today the Finance Minister announced minor changes in student loans.
Wow.
This is the same man, who in opposition called interest-free student loans “an election year bribe on an unprecedented scale”.
There is no such thing as a free lunch and we now incentivise young 17, 18 and 19 year old students to go out and borrow as much as they can, while leaving their holiday earnings in a bank account to earn interest. They would be crazy not to, and in fact when they can pay their loan back in devalued dollars some years later, if at all, you would almost say that those who didn’t weren’t smart enough for tertiary education.
Not only is it not fair for the parents of children in Otara and Porirua to pay taxes to subsidise the children of the better off who are most likely to go on to tertiary education we have also incentivised our young to take on debt for courses that they neither need nor would use and are then saddled with debt for the rest of their lives.
To the parents and grandparents of those students I ask do you really want to see your children and grandchildren permanently emigrate overseas only to be condemned to talking to them by Skype each night?
Or do you want to see your children and grandchildren grow up in a prosperous country whose income levels not only equal but exceed Australia and are the envy of the world? A country with low marginal tax rates that incentivise work, savings and personal responsibility. A country that truly delivers a world class education system, not just for some New Zealanders but for all New Zealanders. And a country that allows not just the wealthy but all New Zealanders to have access to a proper health system.
Sir, in the same way that the poor have subsidised those with student loans, if not through the income tax they pay certainly through GST, the poor have also been a net contributor to the very generous Kiwisaver subsidies.
While Kiwisaver has been an undoubted success and the cost blowout is due to this success, the poor and the disadvantaged are the least able to make that minimum 2 percent contribution that triggers those taxpayer subsidies.
The Budget also forecasts a significant increase in the cost of New Zealand superannuation. You would expect this as a consequence of rising incomes and the growing number of New Zealanders reaching the age of 65. This number is set to balloon over the next 15 years to the point where it will no longer be sustainable.
Most New Zealanders understand and accept this, and certainly those under the age of 55.
Already countries are signalling an increase in the age of entitlement as people live longer and the baby boom bubble works its way through. Australia’s Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard recognises this too and their pension age is set to increase at a rate of 6 months every two years beginning in 2017 and reaching 67 years in 2023.
ACT agrees. However, what we wouldn’t do is change the age of entitlement for those already 65, or close to it. What we would do is actually be honest and tell those in their 50s now to give them the maximum time to prepare.
This is a Budget that was an opportunity missed. It was an opportunity to radically transform our growth prospects and to show leadership and courage to the nation.
The ACT Party has policies that can transform this nation, address our underlying social problems and return it to the world leadership position it had over 50 years ago.
We will be going out there on to the hustings and telling the story and will be telling it honestly. We heard less than 15 minutes ago from Russel Norman who talked about a $2 billion subsidy to polluters. What Russel Norman didn’t tell New Zealanders is that we’re all paying more for electricity and for petrol to subsidise those who planted forests, with the overwhelming amount of this subsidy going to owners of forests that were actually planted before January 1 2008, the date those subsidies took effect from.
This scheme effectively provides a one off allowance of over 200 tonnes of carbon or $4000 per hectare for foresters who perpetually harvest and replant their forests on, say, a 28 year cycle. This subsidy is enough to purchase high country marginal land and to plant the initial trees. The Government is essentially taxing all of us more for electricity, petrol and food to provide a subsidy so big it is effectively giving away free forests to anyone smart enough to understand how the scheme works.
All New Zealanders pay for this, with the poorest paying disproportionately the most.
We in the ACT Party look forward to taking those policies to the electorate over the next six months and I say to the Prime Minister rather than encouraging people to vote National, or Labour for that matter, vote ACT and we in the ACT Party look forward to taking on both Mr Key and Mr Goff in the hustings.
We welcome the election. Bring it on.
ENDS
One Law For All
ACT Parliamentary Leader Hon John Boscawen speech to First Reading of Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill; Parliament; Tuesday, May 17 2011.
I rise to oppose the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. ACT opposes these Bills as they are a radical departure from the principle of one law for all.
ACT believes in fair and final settlements to Treaty grievances, which is why we have in the past sent Treaty settlement Bills to Select Committee. ACT cannot, in good conscience do the same with these Bills.
Let me first outline why ACT will oppose the Waipa River Bill. Part 2 of the Bill will extend a co-governance framework to parts of the Waikato River, including the Waipa River. Co-governance is an affront to the principle of equality before the law, something that ACT has championed for over a decade.
The co-governance framework will provide legal mechanisms for Maniapoto to participate in the governance and management of the Waipa River. It forces local authorities to put in place joint management agreements covering functions of the Resource Management Act.
The activities of people who use the Waipa River are currently regulated by elected officials; if they object to the management of the River, they have the simple option of voting the officials out of office. If this Bill is passed users of the River will also be regulated by officials within Maniapoto, officials who are not elected and are not accountable to the users of the river. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
The bad news does not end with the Waipa River Bill. The Government seems intent on replicating the undemocratic model of co-governance in its other Treaty settlements. In Minister Finlayson’s own Press Release announcing the Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement last December he boasted that the Settlement would provide “Ngati Porou with input into the strategic governance of specific conservation sites”.
Clause 45 of the Bill forces resource consent authorities to provide Ngati Porou with a summary of applications for resource consent in the same way they would have to do for an affected person as defined under the Resource Management Act. Instead of only consulting iwi who are actually affected by an RMA activity, authorities must now give certain iwi special consultation rights over and above the rights afforded to other New Zealanders.
There is no way for the Government to deny that this Bill forms a co-governance framework. Clauses 23 to 31 provide for, in the Government’s own words, Nga Whakahaere Takirua which translates directly to dual authority. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
Of similar concern is the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. The Agreement in Principle states that cultural redress should include co-management regimes over parts of the Mohaka, Waikari and Waihau Rivers.
As with the Ngati Porou agreement clause 64 of this Bill requires local authorities to forward applications for resource consents in each of the three rivers to iwi. Again, instead of having a duty to simply consult all New Zealanders according to the same process authorities will be forced to consult iwi separately.
The Ngati Pahauwera Development Trust must also be appointed as an advisory committee in relation to the fisheries activities in the Mohaka River. Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials they will now be regulated by unelected, unaccountable officials, who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
ACT first rose to speak against co-governance in Treaty legislation when the Waikato River Settlement Bill was before the House last year. ACT said then that governance should be the preserve of elected representatives. Iwi representatives are not elected by the general public nor are they accountable to the public.
ACT strongly opposes the recent trend towards co-governance arrangements in Treaty settlements.
ACT has always called for fair and final Treaty settlements. If the Bills before the House simply addressed historical grievances, as past settlements did, ACT would support them. What we do not, and will not, support is Parliament legislating for two standards of citizenship.
Treaty settlement legislation should be about righting past wrongs; it should not become a rubber stamp to the carving up of our nation’s rivers and conservation sites. ACT believes strongly in having one law for all and we will be voting against these Bills.
Let me also go on to record that when I rose to speak on these three Bills I was greeted by a constant barrage of heckling and criticism and let me say to the members in this House and to the members in the gallery there is no political party more dedicated to righting the wrongs and solving our social crises than the ACT Party.
We have championed the rights of 16 and 17 year old young Maori people, the right for them to go out and get an apprenticeship and earn eight or ten dollars an hour and when we asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment last week in Question time she couldn’t bring herself to acknowledge that it was better to have a young Maori in work.
Let me conclude to the members, particularly in the gallery, that there is no party in Parliament who believes it will do more with its policies to help young unemployed Maori than those in the ACT Party.
The ACT Party, more than any other political party in this Parliament, wants to make a difference, wants to solve the country’s growing social problems. We had a situation last Thursday where the Minister for Social Development and Employment struggled, absolutely struggled, to stop herself from acknowledging that it is far better to have a young Maori apprentice earning ten dollars an hour than sitting at home on the unemployment benefit.
My message, not just to the members of this House but to the people of New Zealand is that we actually need to solve our social problems and you don’t solve social problems by setting up an arrangement of co-governance. You need to actually look at the issue and address the underlying cause.
It’s a pity the Minister for Social Development couldn’t actually bring herself to acknowledge, in fact it took three points of order for her to acknowledge, that she would much rather have someone on an apprenticeship than on the unemployment benefit.
I am very proud to be the Parliamentary leader of the ACT Party. We oppose these Bills but we certainly don’t oppose policies that will actually address the underlying causes of problems in New Zealand. Thank you.
One Law For All
ACT Parliamentary Leader Hon John Boscawen speech to First Reading of Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill, Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill; Parliament; Tuesday, May 17 2011.
I rise to oppose the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill, the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. ACT opposes these Bills as they are a radical departure from the principle of one law for all.
ACT believes in fair and final settlements to Treaty grievances, which is why we have in the past sent Treaty settlement Bills to Select Committee. ACT cannot, in good conscience do the same with these Bills.
Let me first outline why ACT will oppose the Waipa River Bill. Part 2 of the Bill will extend a co-governance framework to parts of the Waikato River, including the Waipa River. Co-governance is an affront to the principle of equality before the law, something that ACT has championed for over a decade.
The co-governance framework will provide legal mechanisms for Maniapoto to participate in the governance and management of the Waipa River. It forces local authorities to put in place joint management agreements covering functions of the Resource Management Act.
The activities of people who use the Waipa River are currently regulated by elected officials; if they object to the management of the River, they have the simple option of voting the officials out of office. If this Bill is passed users of the River will also be regulated by officials within Maniapoto, officials who are not elected and are not accountable to the users of the river. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
The bad news does not end with the Waipa River Bill. The Government seems intent on replicating the undemocratic model of co-governance in its other Treaty settlements. In Minister Finlayson’s own Press Release announcing the Ngati Porou Deed of Settlement last December he boasted that the Settlement would provide “Ngati Porou with input into the strategic governance of specific conservation sites”.
Clause 45 of the Bill forces resource consent authorities to provide Ngati Porou with a summary of applications for resource consent in the same way they would have to do for an affected person as defined under the Resource Management Act. Instead of only consulting iwi who are actually affected by an RMA activity, authorities must now give certain iwi special consultation rights over and above the rights afforded to other New Zealanders.
There is no way for the Government to deny that this Bill forms a co-governance framework. Clauses 23 to 31 provide for, in the Government’s own words, Nga Whakahaere Takirua which translates directly to dual authority. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
Of similar concern is the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. The Agreement in Principle states that cultural redress should include co-management regimes over parts of the Mohaka, Waikari and Waihau Rivers.
As with the Ngati Porou agreement clause 64 of this Bill requires local authorities to forward applications for resource consents in each of the three rivers to iwi. Again, instead of having a duty to simply consult all New Zealanders according to the same process authorities will be forced to consult iwi separately.
The Ngati Pahauwera Development Trust must also be appointed as an advisory committee in relation to the fisheries activities in the Mohaka River. Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials they will now be regulated by unelected, unaccountable officials, who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all.
ACT first rose to speak against co-governance in Treaty legislation when the Waikato River Settlement Bill was before the House last year. ACT said then that governance should be the preserve of elected representatives. Iwi representatives are not elected by the general public nor are they accountable to the public.
ACT strongly opposes the recent trend towards co-governance arrangements in Treaty settlements.
ACT has always called for fair and final Treaty settlements. If the Bills before the House simply addressed historical grievances, as past settlements did, ACT would support them. What we do not, and will not, support is Parliament legislating for two standards of citizenship.
Treaty settlement legislation should be about righting past wrongs; it should not become a rubber stamp to the carving up of our nation’s rivers and conservation sites. ACT believes strongly in having one law for all and we will be voting against these Bills.
Let me also go on to record that when I rose to speak on these three Bills I was greeted by a constant barrage of heckling and criticism and let me say to the members in this House and to the members in the gallery there is no political party more dedicated to righting the wrongs and solving our social crises than the ACT Party.
We have championed the rights of 16 and 17 year old young Maori people, the right for them to go out and get an apprenticeship and earn eight or ten dollars an hour and when we asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment last week in Question time she couldn’t bring herself to acknowledge that it was better to have a young Maori in work.
Let me conclude to the members, particularly in the gallery, that there is no party in Parliament who believes it will do more with its policies to help young unemployed Maori than those in the ACT Party.
The ACT Party, more than any other political party in this Parliament, wants to make a difference, wants to solve the country’s growing social problems. We had a situation last Thursday where the Minister for Social Development and Employment struggled, absolutely struggled, to stop herself from acknowledging that it is far better to have a young Maori apprentice earning ten dollars an hour than sitting at home on the unemployment benefit.
My message, not just to the members of this House but to the people of New Zealand is that we actually need to solve our social problems and you don’t solve social problems by setting up an arrangement of co-governance. You need to actually look at the issue and address the underlying cause.
It’s a pity the Minister for Social Development couldn’t actually bring herself to acknowledge, in fact it took three points of order for her to acknowledge, that she would much rather have someone on an apprenticeship than on the unemployment benefit.
I am very proud to be the Parliamentary leader of the ACT Party. We oppose these Bills but we certainly don’t oppose policies that will actually address the underlying causes of problems in New Zealand. Thank you.
