|
NZCPR
WEEKLY ARCHIVE
If the links don't work
visit our HELPDESK
here>>>
or email me to sort out the problem.
|
|
New Zealand
Centre for Political Research -
www.nzcpr.com
|
|
These newsletters
can only be produced because of your
generosity - to support the NZCPR please
click
here>>>
|
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
HOPES OF A NATION
In his iconic book “Free to Choose”,
Nobel Prize winning economist Milton
Friedman, described what underpins a
nations’ economic power:
“A free society releases the energies
and abilities of people to pursue their
own objectives. Freedom means diversity
but also mobility. It preserves the
opportunity for today’s disadvantaged to
become tomorrow’s privileged and, in the
process, enables everyone, from top to
bottom, to enjoy a fuller and richer
life”.
John Key appeared to have understood
that fact in his Speech from the Throne
just after the 2008 election when he
promised that “The driving goal of the
new government will be to grow the New
Zealand economy in order to deliver
greater prosperity, security and
opportunity to all New Zealanders”. He
then explained that “The true builders
of that future are millions of New
Zealanders working in the homes, the
businesses, the industries of our
country. It is they who make the country
strong. It is they who have placed their
trust in us their parliament. And it is
they, our fellow New Zealanders, that my
Government will ever seek to serve.”
[1]
While words sound good – it is
actions that matter. After nine years of
socialism the country was more than
ready for a fresh approach. That’s why
National was elected – to get the
country back on track
to deliver greater prosperity, security
and opportunity to all New Zealanders.
This is about people’s lives; their
future. Drift and compromise is not an
option.
A desire for a better
future is also why voters were so
supportive of John Key’s promise to
prioritise a policy agenda to catch
Australia by 2025. With an Australian
family of four on average being $64,000
better off than New Zealand families,
many Kiwis now have friends and
relatives living in Australia. Since
young people are especially keen to live
in a country where they can get ahead,
the heartbreak of grandparents separated
from their grandchildren - because New
Zealand politicians have managed the
country so poorly - is becoming
increasingly commonplace. Meanwhile the
income gap continues to grow. It is
estimated Australian incomes, which were
35 percent higher than Kiwi incomes in
2008, will have grown to 45 percent by
2013 - unless the government takes
action.
The reality is that the
dominance of the state, manifested in
various ways, has bogged down the
country. Everywhere you look, things
have become more complicated and more
costly. Wealth creators and people just
going about their lives are confronted
by endless new laws and regulations
which collectively are handicapping New
Zealand’s prosperity.
A good
example from local government was
recently described by Owen McShane of
the Centre for Resource Management
Studies. Owen has long held that not
only are most planning laws unnecessary,
but the actions of local government -
through the powers given to them by the
Labour Government - have dramatically
hiked up the cost of housing in New
Zealand.
Here’s how Owen explains
it.[2]
Someone
in Kaiwaka in Northland, trying to
create a section on which to build a
house for retirement now
has to take into account the following
payments and charges:
a reserve contribution (Council has
chosen this time of recession to
increase Reserve Contributions from 5%
to 7.5% – a fifty percent increase) of
around $15,000; a roading development
contribution in the region of $10,000; a
consent processing fees of $2,500; a
challenge to the consent conditions of
$600; a double gated street crossing
estimated at more than $20,000;
surveyors’ fees of around $6,000;
planning consultancy fees of between
$3,500 to $5,000. This means that all
up, the cost of a small section in small
town New Zealand has been increased by
around $60,000 because of arbitrary
local government charges and fees. It is
no wonder that so many young New
Zealanders are moving to Australia for
affordable housing. Meanwhile those who
stay are having to pay money they don’t
have, only by increasing their long-term
indebtedness to levels that are far
greater than they should be.
The high cost of housing is one of
the issues raised by Dr Don Brash, the
former Leader of the National Party and
Governor of the Reserve Bank, and the
2025 Taskforce in their Report on
strategies for New Zealand to catch
Australia, which they released late last
year. In their report they explain that,
“Houses in New Zealand are now among the
most expensive, relative to incomes,
anywhere in the world. The Task Force
rejects the repeated claim that in some
sense too many resources are devoted to
housing in New Zealand.
Existing houses cost too much
mainly because too few real resources
are devoted to house-building. Council
zoning restrictions and arbitrary ‘urban
limits’ prevent the release of
sufficient land to lower the overall
price of housing. Dr Arthur Grimes
provided a presentation to the Taskforce
reporting on his published research work
on the detrimental economic impact of
the Auckland Metropolitan Urban Limit
(MUL). Beyond that limit, housing
development is not permitted, and land
just inside that boundary trades at
around 10 times the price of otherwise
identical land outside the boundary.
There are few more striking concrete
examples than that of costly inefficient
regulation, allowed to persist with no
proper economic cost-benefit analysis.
Such a cost-benefit analysis should
focus on the real revealed preferences
of individuals, not ill-defined ‘smart
growth’ strategies or preferences of
local body politicians or officials.
There is no shortage of land in this
country, but local authorities prevent
it being used for its most valuable
purpose. That has to change. When it
changes, housing will be a great deal
more affordable: our incomes will
stretch further.”[3]
Given the hugely important
contribution that the Taskforce has made
to plotting a future course for New
Zealand - in particular through the
startling finding that
if core government spending was reduced
to the same proportion of GDP that it
was in 2004 and 2005, the top personal
tax rate, the company tax rate and the
trust tax rate could all comfortably be
aligned at 20 percent, with all those
earning above $14,000 paying less tax
and nobody paying more income tax –
I asked Chairman Don Brash for some
feedback on the responses he received to
the release of the 2025 Taskforce
report. Given the interesting points
that he raised, I am publishing his
“Reaction to the Report of the 2025
Taskforce” as this week’s NZCPR Guest
Commentary.
In particular, Don
explained that “The
Government’s reaction to the report
could at best be described as lukewarm”.
Having said that, he goes on to explain,
“The good news is that the Government
remains committed to having us reach
Australian living standards by 2025.
The 2025 Taskforce makes no claim
to infallibility, though its
recommendations are entirely consistent
with those made by successive OECD
reports on New Zealand.
The one thing which is absolutely
clear is that neither present policies,
nor a few minor tinkerings here and
there, will get us to the goal the
Government has adopted.” To read Dr
Brash’s full commentary, please click
the sidebar link>>>
Mike Butler,
a former newspaper chief sub-editor, who
now writes for the NZCPR’s new
Breaking Views blog, reminds
us that New Zealanders used to have
incomes rated amongst the highest in the
world, but that over the years our
standing has fallen. He explains that
according to the International Monetary
Fund’s data from 2009, “the top nation
was Luxembourg with a GDP per capita of
$78,559. The United States was fourth at
$46,716, Australia 13th at $35,677, the
United Kingdom 15th at $35,445, and New
Zealand 27th at $27,027”. (Scroll down
for the direct link to Mike’s excellent
article “Between Rich and Poor” and those
of our other bloggers)
Without a
doubt New Zealand is on a slippery slope
from being rich to very poor, not
because we are too small, too isolated
or lack mineral wealth, but because
successive governments have managed our
economy badly. In fact, a country is no
different from a household or a business
– if you make poor quality spending
decisions and do not have the gumption
to cut back on waste and inefficiency,
economic wellbeing will slip out of
reach. The challenge to improve this
situation and rescue the country from
our slide is in John Key’s hands. He
must forget about tinkering but be
prepared to do what is right, not what
is politically convenient.
The
problem is that National has now taken a
leaf from the former Government’s book
and is now more poll driven than Labour
ever was.
The result is that the National Party
leadership has become too obsessed with
the reaction to reform rather than the
benefits that will flow. That is a
symptom of the fact that not enough
effort has been made to enunciate and
communicate the nation’s long-term
goals, and in particular the importance
of cutting government spending and
balancing the books so that we can begin
to improve our economic prospects – and
close that widening gap with Australia.
New Zealanders have shown in the past
that we are not afraid of tightening our
belts - just so long as the benefits of
such restraint can be clearly seen.
To her credit, when
first elected Prime Minister in 1999,
Helen Clark said that her objective was
to raise New Zealand’s living standards
into the top half of the OECD within a
decade. But because she found the going
more difficult than she had thought,
Helen Clark abandoned the goal and let
the country down. As a consequence our
relative economic wellbeing deteriorated
rapidly.
A first clear indication of how serious
John Key is about lifting New Zealand’s
performance will be seen in his speech
to Parliament on Tuesday. The main
indicator of course, will be in the 2010
Budget in May.
For
the sake of our future, let’s hope John
Key will meet the hopes and expectations
of the nation when they elected him to
lead the promised revitalisation.
NZCPR
POLL
This week’s poll asks:
Would
you support National making its election
promise of catching Australia by 2025 a
major priority?
To vote click here>>>
(Readers comments
will be posted
here>>> daily)
View
feedback
on last week's poll
here>>>
|
NZCPR BLOG
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES
Articles can be found
on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE -
click
here>>>
1.John
Key, Speech from the Throne
2.Owen McShane,
The Report of the 2025 Housing Task Force
3.2025 Taskforce Report, Answering the $64,000
question: Closing the income gap with Australia
by 2025
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward this newsletter on to
your own networks and encourage other people to
subscribe - that's how we grow.
To help support the
publication of these newsletters and receive
your free EBOOK and unlimited access to our
website Forum click
here>>>
To join the
mailing list for this free newsletter please
click
here>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for
publication on our website
Soapbox
Series?
If you enjoy political debate visit the
Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum
subscribers post up information for the public
to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column
please click
here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on
09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box
984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly
periodical from
the
New Zealand Centre for Political Research,
a public policy think tank at
www.nzcpr.com,
established in
2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a
change of address, please note your
old address and your new one and click
here>>>. To
unsubscribe,
please click
here>>> and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying
the address is not on the mailing list, it means
you are subscribed under a different address and
you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand
Centre for Political Research -
www.nzcpr.com
|
|
These commentaries
can only be produced through the
generosity of readers - to help please
click
here>>>
|
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
A RADICAL AGENDA
“We have no problem with Pakeha
living on our lands, we invited them
there. But the problems we have is when
they basically ignore us and trample all
over us, at which time we say okay
enough’s enough, we want all of our land
back.
You people can stay on it but so
long as you acknowledge that we are the
mana whenua and when we say to you that
this is right and that is not right,
that you listen to what we say”.
Margaret Mutu.[1]
Earlier this month Wikatana and John
Popata, the two brothers who assaulted
the Prime Minister at Waitangi Day last
year, began an occupation on privately
owned land in the coastal settlement of
Taipa in the Far North. They say their
presence there is designed to damage the
value of a property that had been put up
for sale to the point where it cannot be
sold. They plan to stay there, with
their dogs and mates, until all of the
“stolen” land in the area is given back
to their Ngati Kahu iwi at no cost.
Their long-term aim - for which they
have the full backing of their elders -
is to reclaim all privately owned land
in the area for the iwi. In fact, the
Ngati Kahu chief negotiator, Margaret
Mutu, has gone so far as to publicly
assert that because they are the “mana
whenua”, private property owners in the
area must do whatever Maori tell them to
do.
In other words, Margaret
Mutu - who holds a position of respect
as a Professor of Maori Studies at
Auckland University - is calling for the
supremacy of Maori over non-Maori. By
proposing that Pakeha become servants to
Maori, Margaret Mutu is essentially
promoting “apartheid” and in doing so is
abusing the respect demanded by her
academic position. She should not only
be removed, but the Race Relations
Commissioner should be investigating her
racist calls.
This situation,
where a whole community (which includes
many retired pensioners) is being
intimidated by radical Maori bullies -
who have stated that they intend to
destroy the value of their properties -
is completely unacceptible. Instead of
pandering to such radicals by officially
recognising the tino rangatiratanga
flag, John Key and his Government should
be drawing a line in the sand and
sending out a clear message that such
behaviour will not be tolerated.
In the NZCPR’s new blog
Breaking Views
(located below, at the end of this
commentary)
author and historian Mike Butler
concludes his article
Mr Key and the flag of disintegration
with the observation that “Mr Key’s
unilateral decision on the flag is one
example of how the current prime
minister can make sudden changes that
circumvent the process of representative
democracy and which hugely promote the
agenda of a tiny minority. By helping
advance Maori sovereignty goals, Mr Key
is giving approval to the increased
disintegration of New Zealand society.”
In other words, while successive
governments have enacted policies
designed to appease Maori demands, they
usually turn a blind eye to the radical
agenda of Maori sovereignty activists.
Not only will the decision by John Key
to give official recognition to their
flag on Waitangi Day be interpreted as a
stamp of approval for the objectives of
their movement, but the Prime Minister
is ignoring the legitimate concerns and
fears of mainstream New Zealand.
This country is already
well advanced on the dangerous path
towards Maori sovereignty. The
bicultural project, enacted in the 1980s
enabled Maori activists to infiltrate
influential positions within the
government service, through the creation
of racial categories within state
institutions.[2]
In spite of intermarriage over the years
having blurred racial boundaries to the
point where such classification is
largely meaningless, the fact remains
that claims of Maori ancestry now
attracts substantial political and
economic power. Nowadays however, with
New Zealand being a multiracial society
and New Zealanders increasingly wanting
recognition - not for being of British,
Maori, Asian, or some other heritage -
but for being a New Zealander,
biculturalism can be seen to be a
stumbling block in the development of
national pride and as such has gone well
past its “use-by” date.
Then
there is the on-going indoctrination of
children: Dr Elizabeth Rata, Associate
Professor of Education at Auckland
University is particularly scathing
about kaupapa Maori education with its
“tino rangatiratanga political purpose”,
describing it as “subversive” and
“destabilising”.[3]
Maori propaganda is also now firmly
entrenched in the new primary and
secondary school education curriculum,
despite
attempts to have it removed - it
was dumped from the draft curriculum but
was reinstated after
intense
political pressure from vested interest
groups. The mythical Treaty of Waitangi
“partnership” concept now plays a key
role in official education policy.
History has shown us that as
governments make concessions to Maori
rights activists their appetite for
further reform grows. Not satisfied with
past full and final Treaty settlements,
they keep inventing new reasons to come
back for new claims. The current demand
for a slice of the estimated $350
million electromagnetic spectrum is a
case in point. While there is no
conceivable case for Maori to claim that
spectrum is a treasured “toanga”
protected under Article 2 of the Treaty
of Waitangi, Maori have broadened their
statement of claim to cover all such
eventualities: “where
any property
or part of the universe has, or may
have, value as an economic asset, the
Crown has no authority under the Treaty
to possess, alienate, or otherwise treat
it as its own property without
recognising the prior claim of Maori
rangatiratanga”.[4]
While this argument found sympathy
with the biased Waitangi Tribunal who
decided that Maori were entitled to a
share of spectrum resources, when the
Tribunal similarly found in favour of
Maori claims to oil and gas reserves,
then Prime Minister Helen Clark wasted
no time at all in quashing the idea with
a ruling that it was not in the
‘national interest’.
Essentially
this ruling by Helen Clark, which was
backed up by the Attorney General
Margaret Wilson, means that grasping
claims for public good resources like
the spectrum, air, rivers, the foreshore
and seabed, and the conservation estate,
could all be rejected by a Prime
Minister using the ‘national interest’
argument - should they choose to do so.
At the present time, however, exercising
constraint appears far from our Prime
Minister’s mind as National continues to
adopt Maori Party policy: inserting
dangerously ill-defined Treaty
principles into legislation, introducing
race-based initiatives into the justice
system, and committing an astonishing $1
billion of taxpayer’s money to progress
the Whanau Ora programme, which will
segregate the delivery of social
programmes along racial lines.
In this week’s NZCPR
Guest Editorial, “National has no
mandate for promoting racial
separatism”, Treaty expert and law
lecturer David Round challenges the
National Party for pushing the country
down a racist path:
“The Prime Minister and National Party
have absolutely no popular mandate for
promoting Maori sovereignty or racial
separatism. National went into the
election, as I recall, still with an
official policy of abolishing the Maori
seats. We all recognised that that was
unlikely to happen; obviously, that
policy had to be put on the back burner.
Nevertheless, people voted for National
under the distinct impression that they
were voting for a party opposed to
racial separatism; for a party, indeed,
still sympathetic to Dr Brash’s Orewa
speech. That trust in the Party has been
betrayed”.
To read David’s full article, in which
he concludes that “We are building our
own funeral pyre”, click the sidebar
link>>>
David is right. Voters
expected constraint from National but
instead are witnessing a shocking
escalation in racial initiatives, with
more in the pipeline.
Of
particular concern is the future of the
foreshore and seabed. If National goes
along with the demands of the Maori
Party and grants customary title to
Maori – it will only be a matter of time
before free access to our beaches and
the sea will be compromised, as well as
hefty charges and levies being imposed
on all commercial maritime operations.
Then there is the forthcoming
“constitutional issues” inquiry, which
was part of the Confidence and Supply
Agreement between National and the Maori
Party. The Maori Party has long
campaigned on enshrining the Treaty of
Waitangi into a New Zealand
constitution. However, indigenous
constitutions can pose very real dangers
to modern societies – as the citizens of
Bolivia discovered last year, when
private property was nationalised by
their new constitution![5]
Not only has the Human Rights
Commission already started campaigning
on giving the Treaty of Waitangi
constitutional status - through its
report on “The Status of Human Rights
and the Treaty” (on which it is
accepting submissions) - but it is also
searching for new ways to push the
Treaty partnerships concept “in central
and local government, business, resource
management, and environmental
protection, in order to improve
economic, social and cultural outcomes
for all New Zealanders”.[6]
Hidden somewhere in the shadows
of the Beehive is the Maori Party’s
demand for National to ratify the
radical United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - a
treaty that even Labour Prime Minister
Helen Clark refused to sign because of
the dangers it posed to the stability of
New Zealand. As a starter, under this
treaty all land, private and public,
would revert to the ownership of the
“indigenous” people. But while National
has justified their consideration of
signing the treaty on the basis that it
is not binding, that fact would get lost
in clamour, as radicals who share the
view of Maori Party Member of Parliament
Hone Harawira - that white New
Zealanders have ripped off Maori for
generations - decide to take the land
back. This would usher in the total
degradation of race relations in New
Zealand, with protests like the one at
Taipa becoming common place.
National has a responsibility to the
silent majority of New Zealanders – who
no longer speak openly about matters of
race for fear of being labelled racists
- to reassess the dangerous game they
are playing. They are implementing
racist policies in order to hold onto
the support of the Maori Party – just so
they don’t need to rely on ACT. But each
time they cede to the demands of the
sovereignty activists in the Maori
Party, they are taking us all a step
closer to their ultimate goal of Maori
supremacy – and that is an ugly place to
be.
I will leave the final
chilling words to a long-time campaigner
for tribal sovereignty, Whatarangi
Winiata, the President of the Maori
Party (which thanks to National is now
in government): “Failure by our nation
to take steps... to change the
management of our affairs and ways of
governing ourselves, will create the
circumstances where the fury of
tino rangatiratanga will produce the
true believers, namely, those who will
die for the cause”.[3]
NZCPR
POLL
This week’s poll asks:
Do you
agree with the direction on race
relations that National is taking?
To vote click here>>>
(Readers comments
will be posted
here>>> daily)
View
feedback
on last week's poll
here>>>
|
NZCPR BLOG
(Note: please click the logo or column
titles to visit the blog and comment)
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES
Articles can be found
on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE -
click
here>>>
1.RadioNZ,
Protestors plan to build on occupied land
2.Elizabeth Rata, Brokerage Politics and the
Rise of Neotribal Capitalism
NZ Political
Review, Spring 2004
3.Elizabeth Rata,
Belonging to New Zealand
Teachers Refresher
Course Conference, Wellington 2007
4.Waitangi Tribunal,
Radio Spectrum Management and Development Final
Report
5.RadioNZ, Indigenous Constitutions: Bolivia
today, Aotearoa tomorrow?
6.Human Rights
Commission, Status of human rights and the
Treaty
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward this newsletter on to
your own networks and encourage other people to
subscribe - that's how we grow.
To help support the
publication of these newsletters and receive
your free EBOOK and unlimited access to our
website Forum click
here>>>
To join the
mailing list for this free newsletter please
click
here>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for
publication on our website
Soapbox
Series?
If you enjoy political debate visit the
Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum
subscribers post up information for the public
to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column
please click
here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on
09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box
984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly
periodical from
the
New Zealand Centre for Political Research,
a public policy think tank at
www.nzcpr.com,
established in
2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a
change of address, please note your
old address and your new one and click
here>>>. To
unsubscribe,
please click
here>>> and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying
the address is not on the mailing list, it means
you are subscribed under a different address and
you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand
Centre for Political Research -
www.nzcpr.com
|
|
These newsletters
can only be produced because of your
generosity - to support the NZCPR please
click
here>>>
|
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
LESS TAX NOT NEW
TAX WAS THE ELECTION PLEDGE
The Tax Working Group released its
report on proposed changes to our tax
system on Wednesday to a respectful
response from the government. This is in
sharp contrast to the dismissive
reaction the 2025 Taskforce received to
their report on ways for New Zealand to
catch up with Australia.
The
difference of course, is that while the
terms of reference of the Tax Working
Group were tightly controlled by the
government, those of the 2025 Taskforce
were not. This enabled the 2025
Taskforce to take a comprehensive
approach and recommend some game
changing options. Prime amongst these
was their suggestion that government
spending should be reduced back to 2004
levels so that taxes could be cut to 20
percent: “Cutting core Crown expenses to
29 percent of GDP would, for example,
allow the maximum personal tax rate, and
the company and trust tax rates, all to
be reduced to 20 percent”.[1]
This suggestion, which would transform
New Zealand’s future, did not go down
well with the Key Government, which
seems inexplicably wedded to the former
Labour Government’s reckless spending
programme. Even the Secretary of the
Treasury, John Whitehead, has criticised
the present level of government
spending, estimating that an astonishing
65 percent – some $40
billion – of the government’s $62
billion budget is of a questionable
quality. What this means is that those
who are critical of a reduction in
government spending should be reminded
that according to the expert, more than
two-thirds of all taxpayers’ money is
being spent in an inefficient or
wasteful manner.
When the Tax
Working Group was set up last May to
undertake a strategic review of the tax
system, a strong caveat was imposed. The
Group was tasked with finding sufficient
alternative sources of tax to compensate
the government for the revenue loss
associated with aligning the top income
taxes, corporate taxes and trust taxes
at 30 percent. In other words, the whole
exercise had to be “revenue neutral”.
And that’s the rub. This was not a “blue
skies” review of our tax system in the
sense of a panel being free to examine
the way our taxes are structured,
collected and spent. Instead they were
constrained by the need to find more
cash. Any analysis of government
spending levels was completely off
limits.
The Tax Working Group
concluded that our tax system, which
back in 1989 had been heralded as one of
the least distortionary in the OECD -
with internationally competitive tax
rates - has now become “incoherent,
unfair, lacks integrity, unduly
discourages work participation and
biases investment decisions”.[2] The
burning question is how on earth has the
situation deteriorated so quickly?
The answer, as explained by this
week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Roger
Kerr of the Business Roundtable, is
“Michael Cullen”!
“The rot began
with the first decision to raise the top
personal income tax rate from 33% to
39%.
This move was unnecessary (the
government did not need the extra
revenue), it increased economic costs
(high marginal tax rates are most
damaging to growth), and an apparently
simple move increased the complexity of
the system (some 50 pages of new tax
legislation were needed to implement
it).
“Subsequent moves by the
Clark-Cullen government had similar
effects.
The Working for Families scheme
increased effective marginal tax rates,
with the abatement rate of 30% (now 20%)
being added to the 33% and 39% personal
tax rates.
Several new distortionary tax
concessions were introduced, ranging
from KiwiSaver subsidies to racing
industry tax concessions.
The Portfolio Investment Entity
(PIE) schemes further fragmented the
income tax system.
And while the cut in company tax
to 30% was a positive move, the top
personal rates were not reduced at the
same time, which increased incentives to
shelter personal income in company
structures.”
With most of Dr
Cullen’s changes to the tax system going
against the advice of tax experts at the
time, Roger Kerr has found the criticism
of them by the Tax Working Group
unsurprising. In fact, he concludes that
the report itself is “over-hyped”. To
read Roger Kerr’s excellent analysis of
the report, click the sidebar link>>>
[Please note
that more commentary on the Tax Report
can be found on the new NZCPR Blog "BREAKING
VIEWS" below]
The point is that whichever way you
slice and dice it, the New Zealand
Government is spending too much money
and New Zealanders are paying too much
tax. In other words, the government
sector has grown so big it is
impoverishing the country.
The
numbers tell the story.
In 2004,
core government spending amounted to
28.9 percent of all economic activity in
New Zealand (GDP). However, as a result
of a spending spree by Labour - as well
as the effects of the recession and the
decision by National to continue on with
much of that wasteful spending - core
government spending has now reached 36.7
percent of GDP.
If local
government activity is factored in the
outlook is increasingly bleak. According
to the OECD, in 2004 the combined
spending of local and central government
in New Zealand was 38.6 percent of GDP.
Australia in comparison was lower at
35.1 percent. Nowadays, spending by the
New Zealand government sector has blown
out to 45.1 percent of GDP, while in
Australia it has dropped back to 35
percent!
It is a clear point of
difference between our two countries
that across the Tasman, the government
sector is being held in check, while in
New Zealand, it is growing like topsy,
dominating almost half of all of the
country’s economic activity. We tend to
forget that governments don’t create
wealth – they consume it! That means
that every dollar they spend is a dollar
that must be collected from those who
create it. With big government squeezing
private sector wealth creators, it is
little wonder that not only is our
economy so fragile, growth so slow, and
prosperity so elusive, but that a steady
stream of Kiwis leave our shores for
more benign tax environments overseas.
Whether National likes it or not, it
is the massive rate of expansion of
government in New Zealand and the
inextricably linked rise in taxation,
that is is the root cause of our
economic problems. And since the Tax
Working Group was prevented from
exploring this point, the tax debate has
been forced to focus on new ways of
plundering taxpayers. Surely it is time
we collectively said enough is enough
and supported the introduction of a cap
on government spending like they have in
Hong Kong. There, government spending is
capped at 20 percent – by convention –
and the country prospers, with wealth
creators rather than wealth consumers
dominating the economy.
While
introducing such a cap on government
spending would clearly need to be a
staged process, the fact that National
(which argued vehemently against
excessive government spending during the
nine years it was in opposition) is
searching for new taxation avenues
instead of cutting spending sufficiently
to stimulate the economy, demonstrates
that they cannot be trusted to constrain
spending voluntarily. That means a cap
on spending may be the only way to
protect taxpayers and ensure our long
term economic progress.
There is
something extremely distasteful about
the slippery politics being employed in
this debate about tax. When the public
vote for a government that is promising
tax cuts, they believe that it signals a
lowering of the total tax burden.
National certainly didn’t explain on the
campaign trail that they were promising
income tax cuts on the one hand, and new
taxes on the other.
What is also
especially disappointing is the way in
which National has started to use the
old socialist technique of “divide and
conquer” to try to demonise property
investors so they can justify penalising
them with new tax increases. But their
arguments don’t wash.
If the Tax
Working Group had included property
experts on their panel, they could have
put the record straight on a number of
misapprehensions about property
investment. Firstly, there already is a
capital gains tax on property for any
investor who buys with the intention of
selling for a quick profit. Secondly,
the debate about depreciation fails to
mention that it is a timing issue.
Should the asset appreciate in value not
depreciate, then the depreciation
expense deductions are reclaimed by the
IRD at the time the asset is sold.
Thirdly,
claims have been made that New Zealand
investors are over-indulging in property
solely for tax advantages. Again, this
argument does not hold water.
As
property expert Frank Newman wrote for
the NZCPR in
Taxing Matters, “While tax
undoubtedly plays a part, property
investment is popular for a number of
other reasons. Firstly, it has provided
better long-run returns than the
alternatives! According to the Real
Estate Institute housing price index,
residential prices have returned 11.8% a
year over the last 17 years, compared
with a 7% for New Zealand shares.
Secondly, and most critically, people
will only invest in things they trust.
The Sunday Star Times recently reported
the findings of a survey of 1200 people
who were asked to rate the level of
trust they have in sharebrokers,
financial advisers, fund managers,
mortgage brokers, insurance advisers,
and banks. Only banks scored in positive
territory which points to a confidence
crisis in the funds management and
sharebroking industries. These issues
are never factored into the comments of
the central bankers, politicians, fund
managers and academics who so frequently
scold us for “over-investing” in
property, and for these reasons property
is likely to remain the most preferred
long-term investment for New
Zealanders.”
There are around
340,000 private rental dwellings in New
Zealand, many owned by mum and dad
investors who have put their savings
into rental property as part of their
retirement plan. Any decision by John
Key and National to punitively punish
these people – because the government
can’t get its own spending under control
– is contemptible. As is any further
attempt to politically portray them as
pariahs.
All in all, the Tax Working Group report has served a useful
purpose in pointing out that too much of
the tax collected in this country is of
a form that discourages growth and
wealth creation. And while correcting
that is a laudable goal, the real answer
to our tax problem is that we simply pay
too much. Lowering and flattening the
tax structure in conjunction with the
government’s elimination of wasteful and
inefficient spending, is the way to
prosperity in New Zealand – not
introducing land taxes nor any of the
other devious suggestions being touted.
NZCPR POLL
This week’s poll asks:
Do you support the Tax Working Group’s
recommendation to introduce a land tax
of 0.5 percent of the unimproved value
of a property?
To vote click here>>>
(Readers comments
will be posted
here>>> daily)
View
feedback
on last week's poll
here>>>
|
NZCPR
BLOG
- click
heading or columns to visit blog &
comment
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES:
Articles can be found on
the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE -
click here>>>
1.2025
Taskforce Report
2.Tax Working Group Report
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward this newsletter on to
your own networks and encourage other people to
subscribe - that's how we grow.
To help support the
publication of these newsletters and receive
your free EBOOK and unlimited access to our
website Forum click
here>>>
To join the
mailing list for this free newsletter please
click
here>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for
publication on our website
Soapbox
Series?
If you enjoy political debate visit the
Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum
subscribers post up information for the public
to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column
please click
here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on
09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box
984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly
periodical from
the
New Zealand Centre for Political Research,
a public policy think tank at
www.nzcpr.com,
established in
2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a
change of address, please note your
old address and your new one and click
here>>>. To
unsubscribe,
please click
here>>> and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying
the address is not on the mailing list, it means
you are subscribed under a different address and
you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand
Centre for Political Research -
www.nzcpr.com
|
|
Dear
NZCPR Weekly Readers,
I hope you and your family
have had a
great Christmas and New Year.
Thanks so much to those who
sent in donations over the summer break
to help keep the NZCPR going this year.
As we provide a free
service, we
depend entirely on voluntary
donations from our newsletter readers.
We cannot exist without your support.
Since the recession has made things
pretty tough,
your help is
greatly appreciated
(if you would like to
visit our donation page, please click
here>>>).
As you will know, this year we are
running a fundraiser function at Alan
Gibbs world famous sculpture park. If
you are planning to come along but
haven’t yet registered, I would advise
you to do so soon, as spaces are fast
filling up (to visit the website to find
out about the Great Day at the Farm and
register, please click
here>>>).
Between now and the fundraiser I will be
featuring our generous sponsors on our
newsletter and website, so if you are
able to support them, we would be very
grateful.
2010 is going to be a big
year politically as a number of
controversial policies come to the fore.
I would like to make an appeal to you –
this year, if you feel strongly about an
issue, please let our Members of
Parliament know. In a democracy, MPs are
influenced by public opinion – and the
more people who speak out, the greater
the notice they take!
These NZCPR
newsletters, which are also sent to MPs,
policy makers, journalists, and other
opinion leaders, are designed to be a
catalyst for public action. With your
help in sending them on to others in
your address books,
we are able to utilise
the power of the internet
to collectively become a potent
force for change - and when you read
this newsletter you will see that this
year’s first call to action starts
today!
Thanks again for
your interest in the work of the NZCPR
and for your support – and my very best
wishes for 2010.
Kindest regards,
Muriel
Dr Muriel Newman
Director New Zealand
Centre for Political Research
|
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
THE MMP REVIEW -
trashing our democratic rights
It can be argued that the announced
referendum on MMP, to be held in
conjunction with the 2011 general
election, is one of the most important
constitutional reforms undertaken by any
New Zealand Government. Yet, while there
is “lofty” talk about the need for
public consultation – “We
want to ensure that everyone has the
opportunity to have their say on this
significant constitutional issue” – it
is clear that the government is not
serious about public input.[1]
The consultation process that
has been chosen involves nothing more
than the standard public submissions to
a Select Committee. As we have already
seen from this government’s farcical
submission process regarding the
emissions trading legislation, not only
is there little chance that such
submissions will have any effect,
submitters are likely to be denied the
opportunity to make their submission in
person.
This scant intended public
consultation process is in spite of a
well established convention that
whenever constitutional reform is
undertaken, widespread public
involvement is encouraged. The Cabinet
Manual states it clearly - with regard
to changes in our constitutional
arrangements, “It is important for a
process of change to involve a sound
process, public education, proper
consultation with affected parties,
public buy-in and plenty of time.”[2]
What this means is that unless
we
demand to be properly consulted over
the structure of our electoral system -
which is fundamental to the
constitutional arrangements of the
country - National again intends to snub
the rights of people to have a
meaningful say.
So what is the
Government proposing for this crucial
review of MMP?
The process goes
something like this.
A
referendum bill will be introduced into
Parliament in March, which will include
two questions – firstly, whether the
current MMP voting system should be
retained, and secondly, for those who
would like to see change, which voting
system they would prefer. A list of
options will be provided, which is
likely to include first-past-the-post,
preferential voting, supplementary
member, or single transferable vote. The
Bill is scheduled to be passed in late
2010 with the indicative referendum on
MMP held at the 2011 general election.
If a majority of voters want to
see MMP replaced, then a binding
referendum will be held at the 2014
general election between MMP and the
preferred alternative. If MMP is
defeated, the new voting system will be
introduced and used for the first time
at the 2017 election! This means that
our Prime Minister - who has strongly
indicated that he thinks MMP is working
well - has approved a process that will
retain MMP until at least 2017. This is
in spite of recommendations in the
Cabinet papers for options which would
see a new voting system in place in time
for the 2014 election.[3]
To complicate matters further,
the Cabinet papers have also suggest
that the government might like to
consider announcing modifications to MMP
in order to make it more palatable to
voters: “In the lead-up to the first
referendum, the public discussion
concerning whether to retain or change
the current voting system is likely to
bring to light a number of issues that
people have with MMP (eg, the party vote
threshold). It may be useful during this
public discussion for the Government to
indicate whether it would be willing to
undertake a review of MMP to clarify and
address these issues, if the public
votes to retain MMP. This would assist
voters to make an informed choice. It
would also reduce the likelihood of
change from MMP to an alternative voting
system if most voters generally agree
with MMP, subject to some amendments”.
While the government has remained silent
on whether it intends to pursue this
course of action, doing so could expose
it to accusations of gerrymandering the
referendum process.
All in all, the proposed
referendum process can be seen to be
deeply flawed.
Firstly the
timeframe for the implementation of a
new system – if that’s what the public
wants - is far too long. If the public
vote for change in 2011, a binding
referendum should be held in 2012 so
that if MMP is defeated, the new
electoral system can begin at the 2014
election.
Secondly, there needs to be a
proper public consultation process
instead of the sham that’s being
proposed. Voters can tell whether
governments really mean it when they say
they want to “engage” the public, by
looking at the proposed process. If a
government goes to the trouble of
setting up an independent Commission –
Royal or otherwise – with terms of
reference that involves widespread
public consultation around the country,
then they are genuine. If they set up a
series of meetings around the country
for Ministers and MPs, then at least
they are prepared to put on a good show.
But when they resort to a Select
Committee process on a bill (which is
what the government is intending in this
case) then you know they are simply
paying lip service to the concept of
public consultation.
What should be happening is that
the government should be using this year
to consult widely, going up and down the
country properly engaging the public in
the constitutional change process. There
would still be ample time for a
referendum bill to be introduced into
Parliament in early 2011 and passed
before the election.
Thirdly, it
appears that no provision has been made
for some form of preferential voting on
the preferred options to replace MMP.
Without a preferential vote, it could be
that there is no clear winner. A
preferential vote would also help to
ensure that voters weigh up the pros and
cons of each voting system alternative
and rank them in the order that they
prefer.
These are all matters of process
that expose the fact that National’s
consultation is intended to avoid
change, and by retaining the status quo,
accommodate the interests of its
coalition partners. The Cabinet papers
also indicate that there is a strong
desire to avoid any robust discussion on
the future of the Maori seats. For a
party that campaigned hard on abolishing
the Maori seats right up until John Key
became Prime Minister and jumped into a
cohabitation liaison with the Maori
Party, this turnaround is an indictment.
No matter what cosy arrangements the
present government has put in place, the
referendum on our voting system is a far
bigger matter that must involve this
crucial Maori seat issue - especially
since the 1986 Royal Commission on the
Electoral System recommended that the
Maori seats had passed their used-by
date and should be abolished.
In fact it is this cosy
deal-making between political parties
with little regard for the overall good
of the country that has been a driving
force in the desire of many voters to
ditch MMP. After 14 years of watching
disgraceful conduct, with parties
“bought off” with taxpayers’ money in
return for supporting dodgy laws, the
public have had enough. The latest
fiasco involving Nick Smith rushing his
emissions trading law through Parliament
so he could look good at Copenhagen was
a final straw. The backroom deal that he
did with the Maori Party enabled wealthy
Maori corporations to rub their hands
all the way to the bank, while the
public now stands exposed to the
re-opening of Treaty settlements that
have previously been classified as full
and final.
Then there is the
vexed issue of large numbers of list MPs
in Parliament who are not accountable to
the public but to Party bosses and are,
in effect, MPs by appointment rather
than election
-
as is the pretence. It has been said
that if there were no list MPs, the
controversial smacking bill would never
have been passed, as MPs would have been
much more in tune with the views of
their electorates.
Given the
fact that the voting system is now under
review, one of the “burning” issues that
should be considered is whether New
Zealand voters would like to see the
size of Parliament reduced. In 1999
Margaret Robertson’s
Citizens Initiated Referendum calling
for a smaller Parliament of 99 MPs
received 81.5 percent support. Yet in
the intervening years nothing has been
done to progress this. The forthcoming
referendum on MMP would provide an ideal
opportunity to dovetail in the move to a
smaller Parliament.
There is another, bigger
constitutional issue that is gaining
traction that should also be canvassed
at this time. It is the fact that New
Zealand’s one-House Parliamentary system
leaves citizens vulnerable to
exploitation.
If a
government
cobbles
together the numbers to pass
bad
law that
has the potential to be
hugely detrimental to our future
well-being as a nation,
there is nothing we can do about it.
Unlike
many other nations, New Zealand has no
legislative watchdog body in the form of
an Upper House to question the public
good value of legislation and if
necessary, stop it. We used to have an
Upper House, of course, called the
Legislative Council, but that was
abolished in 1951.
While this
whole global warming debacle has been
playing out, it has been particularly
interesting to see that in spite of the
demands of political leaders, the Upper
Houses in Australia and the United
States have steadfastly refused to pass
emissions trading laws.
By doing so,
they
have thus far
protected
their citizens from the disastrous
economic damage such taxes would impose.
Maybe it is time for New Zealand to have
a watchdog body too. If we had a small
Upper House of say 20 elected Members to
compliment a Parliament of say 79
electorate MPs, this could be just the
sort of constitutional reform that would
take New Zealand forward positively –
protecting us from unwise political
excesses, while reducing
the total size of Parliament down to 99
MPs.
Graeme Hunt, an Auckland-based
writer and historian, who has campaigned
strongly against MMP, is this week’s
NZCPR Guest Commentator. Graeme explains
that “Good
democracy should be simple: voting
should be easy, outcomes should be
transparent and turnout should be high.
MMP fails on all counts but there are
concerns in some quarters, even among
those who oppose MMP, that a return to
the old days of a powerful executive
with a legislative iron grip on a single
House of Representatives is not the way
to go.”
In his article, Graeme
outlines the history of New Zealand’s
Upper House of Parliament and concludes,
“Sadly, although there might be a good
case in New Zealand for a house of
review, it is unlikely to come about.
The only way it could be sold would be
if the membership of the House of
Representatives were reduced to, say, 99
MPs – something overwhelmingly endorsed
by Margaret Robertson’s
citizens-initiated referendum in 1999.
“I suspect most Kiwis, if they had
to, could live with a small upper house
elected by STV and a lower house elected
by FPP, provided the upper house had
standing. The Legislative Council did
not have standing but the Australian
Senate, which is elected by STV, does,
as does the Australian House of
Representatives, which is elected by
preferential voting”. To read Graeme’s
full article click the sidebar link>>>
All in all, if you feel you are
being sold short on the constitutional
review of New Zealand’s voting system by
the process that National has proposed,
then you need to do something. To
paraphrase the wise words attributed to
Edmund Burke, Bad things happen when
good people do nothing!
In
a democracy change will only take place
if there is sufficient public pressure.
So let the Prime Minister know how you
feel about the MMP review he has authorised
– to email John Key, click
here>>> and write your
message. Let’s start 2010 off with a
roar!
NZCPR POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Are
you satisfied with the MMP Review
Process as outlined by the Government?
To vote click here>>>
(Readers comments
will be posted
here>>> daily)
View
feedback
on the biggest issues
facing NZ in 2010
here>>>
|
FOOTNOTES:
Articles can be found
on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE -
click
here>>>
1.Simon Power, MMP referendum to be held at 2011
election
2.Cabinet, New Zealand’s
Constitution
3.Cabinet Considerations on MMP
Referendum
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward this newsletter on to
your own networks and encourage other people to
subscribe - that's how we grow.
To help support the
publication of these newsletters and receive
your free EBOOK and unlimited access to our
website Forum click
here>>>
To join the
mailing list for this free newsletter please
click
here>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for
publication on our website
Soapbox
Series?
If you enjoy political debate visit the
Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum
subscribers post up information for the public
to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column
please click
here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on
09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box
984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly
periodical from
the
New Zealand Centre for Political Research,
a public policy think tank at
www.nzcpr.com,
established in
2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a
change of address, please note your
old address and your new one and click
here>>>. To
unsubscribe,
please click
here>>> and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying
the address is not on the mailing list, it means
you are subscribed under a different address and
you will need to submit that one)
|
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand
Centre for Political Research -
www.nzcpr.com
|
 |
|
CHRISTMAS
GIFT IDEAS FROM THE NZCPR |
 |
"The Aquada ride for
my husband will get a big Tick
off my Christmas shopping list
and should leave him with a
Cheshire Cat grin for days!"
THE GREAT
DAY OUT AT THE FARM
- click
here>>> |
 |
"Attending your
fundraiser is going to be my
Christmas present. Many thanks
for this wonderful opportunity
to see some stunning art and
meet some amazing people - I'm
so looking forward to it!"
THE GREAT
DAY OUT AT THE FARM
- click
here>>> |
 |
Judged "Best New Game of
2009" by the NZ Games
Association. "As close to real
investing as you can possibly
get...
far more challenging and
engaging than Monopoly..."
A fantastic Christmas gift for
the whole family!
NEW
ZEALAND INVESTMENT GAME -
click
here>>>
|
 |
"Thanks
for a
wonderful book.
We've
bought copies for our children
for Christmas - we hope they
get as
much reward from the book as we
have. We're
about to
buy some
land
for
free
range chooks,
veggie
gardens
and fruit trees.
We'll
save even more whilst having
fun!"
LIVING OFF THE SMELL OF AN OILY
RAGclick
here>>> |
NZCPR
Weekly |
"I've
really enjoyed the NZCPR Weekly
newsletters and would like to be
able to send them to some of my
friends for Christmas - is that
possible?"
Yes, it certaily is and
what's more it's FREE!
Just click
here>>> & fill in the
details
|
|
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
Two Flags, Two
Peoples, A Divided Nation
New Zealand has a lot to be proud of but
there are some aspects of life ‘down
under’ that we would prefer not to
mention. Near the top of that list is
racism.
Racism is alive and well
in New Zealand. That is, anti-white
racism of the sort recently made public
by a Member of Parliament. In claiming
that ‘Whities’ had been ripping off
Maori for centuries, MP Hone Harawira
exposed the underlying attitude that
drives the Maori sovereignty movement -
along with its beneficiaries the Treaty
of Waitangi gravy train and indeed the
Maori Party itself. This undercurrent of
anti-white racism has existed for years
but remains one of those truths that
most are reluctant to admit and that few
have the courage to address.
The
New Zealand Centre for Political
Research has never shied away from this
issue. It is too important to ignore -
it’s at the heart of how we feel about
our country and is critical for our
future.
Unfortunately the Maori
rights movement with its assertion of
racial privilege has grown strong as a
result of the actions of politicians who
have been prepared to sacrifice racial
harmony on the alter of electoral
support. Those individual MPs in
government, who have persuaded their
colleagues to support Maori rights over
the rights of all other New Zealanders
to equality before the law, have done
the country a grave disservice. As a
result of their lack of courage a
bloated grievance industry continues to
fuel the growing racial divide.
The reality is that over a
thirty year period, the Treaty of
Waitangi settlement process, introduced
to address historic grievances between
Maori and the Crown, has been captured
by the Maori elite. Many claims have
received multiple ‘full and final’
settlements, each one becoming
increasingly generous.
To its
credit, Helen Clark’s Labour Party said
enough is enough and introduced a cut
off date for historic claims. But to its
shame, John Key’s National Party has now
put the whole concept of full and final
settlements at risk. As Phil Goff, the
Leader of the Labour Party explained in
a speech last month, National’s
desperate deal to buy Maori Party
support for its emissions trading
scheme, has resulted in five Maori
corporations being able to re-open their
“full and final” settlements. This will
have set a precedent for the creation of
“a permanent class of ‘post-Treaty
asset’ - Assets that were once part of a
Treaty settlement would forever be
eligible for compensation if they were
ever affected by adverse decisions by
government. If the government ever
changed the rules relating to forestry,
or tax law, or the exchange rate, here
is now a precedent for having to
compensate the owners of an asset that
had once been part of a Treaty
settlement. That’s a bad principle. Full
and final settlement would become
impossible.”[1]
In contrast, when
Don Brash was leader of the National
Party, he tackled the growing racial
divide head on by declaring that the
Treaty should not be used as the basis
for creating greater civil, political or
democratic rights for Maori than for any
other New Zealander. He pledged that
National would complete the settlement
of historic claims, remove all
references to race from legislation
(including the undefined “principles of
the Treaty”), and abolish the Maori
seats.
The response from the
public was overwhelming. They were
hungry for leadership. They wanted
someone to put a stake in the ground and
halt the slide to separatism. During his
time in Parliament, Winston Peters also
consistently stood against Maori
privilege, as has ACT. Even Helen Clark
occasionally drew a line, preferring to
meet Shrek the sheep than the ‘haters
and wreckers’ who led the foreshore and
seabed hikoi to Parliament.
Incredibly, John Key has now embraced
the party that believes that white man
should be kicked out of New Zealand, and
under John Key’s direction National is
now assisting Maori to advance its
racial agenda.
Just last week the
Minister of Treaty Negotiations,
Christopher Finlayson, signed an
agreement with Ngati Porou which has
been described as “a return of
sovereignty to Ngati Porou”.[2] The
settlement includes $110 million in
cash, ownership of almost 6,000ha of
conservation reserves and parks -
including forests, scenic and wildlife
reserves, hot springs and boat ramps -
the right to buy 21 schools and 5 police
stations which the Crown would then
lease back, the option to buy any state
house in the area that Housing New
Zealand might want to sell, and the
right to “enhance influence” on Gisborne
District Council resource management
decision-making that might affect the
iwi.
In spite of Tuhoe agreeing
to a “full and final” settlement of
£100,000 in 1958, they are back at the
negotiating table pursuing their agenda
of “self government”. According to the
Herald, Treaty Minister Christopher
Finlayson is “keen to keep a lid on
public opinion”, especially regarding
those government functions that could be
devolved to Tuhoe, which include health,
building, education, local government
and the environment, while tourism,
justice, welfare, culture, arts and
heritage, taxation and Maori development
are proving more problematic! Tuhoe are
also demanding full ownership of the
212,000ha Urewera National Park.[3]
The Gisborne Herald recently exposed
that the real concern of East Coast
tribes over the proposed changes to the
foreshore and seabed legislation is that
they might miss out on the getting their
hands on the riches: “As
you’re aware, there are a lot of oil and
minerals in the seabed and if you ask
us, that’s what the Foreshore and Seabed
Act is all about. Our primary position
is affirmation of ownership, but if we
can’t get to that,
compensation. The amount of
resources out there would make the
fisheries deals pale in comparison —
we’re talking some fantastic amounts
that would help with our economic
salvation.”[4]
These tribes are
also extremely keen to see John Key
ratify the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as they
have already
been
planning
how they will use it to
create another lucrative opportunity to
squeeze taxpayers: “A simple solution to
any vacuum left by the repeal of the
Foreshore and Seabed legislation was for
the Government to ratify the Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
When you read that declaration, it gives
those people the right to veto laws, the
right to royalties over minerals. When
you boil it down, it’s really just an
extended version of Article 2 – Tino
Rangatiratanga. If the Government binds
itself to that declaration, it’s not
law, but at least we can build some sort
of regime that is similar to
implementing our Article 2 rights.”
What motivates these acts of racism
is not a desire for equality – it is
self interest and greed wrapped in a
cloak of mana and customary rights.
Where modern Maori differ from their
waring tribal ancestors is in their
unity. They have a common flag and a
common enemy.
And that is why the
public at large will show absolute
disgust and contempt when on February 6th
the Maori sovereignty flag will be flown
from the Harbour Bridge, Premier House
and many other government buildings.
These two sovereignty flags – that of
New Zealand and that of Maori Treaty
rights - will represent the divided
nation that New Zealand has become.
David Round, this week’s Guest
Commentator, puts it like this: A
nation’s flag is a precious thing. It
arises out of a long history; it grows
with a people and tells their story. The
New Zealand flag is no exception. On the
blue of the Pacific Ocean shines the
Southern Cross, the great guiding
constellation of our skies, and in one
corner the crosses of St George, St
Andrew and St Patrick ~ England,
Scotland and Ireland ~ tell of our
British ancestors ~ the explorers and
pioneers who found New Zealand a
barbarous, albeit beautiful, wilderness
of warring tribes, and created by their
patient heroic labours the land of peace
and comparative prosperity we have
inherited. Certainly, there is nothing
specifically Maori here, and it might be
nice if there were, although Maori
crossed the blue Pacific guided by the
stars, and all Maori, after all, have
British ancestry, even if they prefer to
ignore or deny the fact; but this is our
flag. It is a pretty accurate reflection
of our nation and of the traditions and
ideals which have shaped and made us
and, until recently anyway, inspired us.
We shall need those ideals again in
future.
It is perhaps a bit of an
accident of history, but then so are
many things. We have never been a great
flag-waving nation; we are an
undemonstrative, laconic people; but all
the same, this is what we are. Our
ancestors, Maori and British, have
fought and sometimes died for it. A flag
is not just a pretty piece of cloth. It
is not just a corporate logo; it is not
just ‘a symbol’. It is more than that;
and that is why the Prime Minister’s
decision that the Maori sovereignty flag
will fly from Parliament, Premier House,
government buildings and the Auckland
Harbour Bridge next Waitangi Day is so
foolish and ominous a sign. To fly the
flag of a movement dedicated to the
dismantling of our country shows how
foolish and blind we have become. The
Maori sovereignty flag is the enemy of
the flag it will be flying next to”. To
read David’s article, click the sidebar
link>>>
It is tragic for New
Zealand that John Key’s National Party
is so obsessed with pleasing everyone
that it appears to be blind to the
agenda of radical Maori and naïve in
allowing this escalation of racial
division under its watch.
Incredibly the National Party has
advanced the Maori sovereignty agenda
much more than the socialist Labour
Party did. That will prove disastrous
for the future of New Zealand and I’m
sure will be a huge disappointment to
many of those who voted for National at
the last election.
At a political
level, the actions of the National Party
have re-opened the door to the return of
Winston Peters – who has consistently
argued against racial division and the
prevailing partnership myth of the
Treaty of Waitangi. It also re-exposes
National’s right flank to gains by the
ACT Party, should ACT choose to pursue
this issue and wrestle away votes that
would otherwise go to New Zealand First.
The racism debate needs to be
discussed openly and honestly, and
without fear or favour. We need to ask
which of two paths New Zealand wants to
go down. The first is the path of the
Maori sovereignty movement that looks to
a future shaped by indigenous rights. We
know from the experiences of Zimbabwe
and South Africa where that path leads.
The alternative path – desired by
most New Zealanders – respects
indigenous culture but rejects tribalism
and privilege for our so-called
indigenous population.
Most
people want the grievance gravy train to
stop. Most people know the train has
become a billion dollar industry that
has gone beyond righting the wrongs of
the past, and most can see that the
motivations are now largely selfish.
What is particularly
disturbing in all of this is that John
Key and his National Party either don’t
see it, or are prepared to turn a blind
eye because it suits them to do so.
NZCPR POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Should
the Maori sovereignty flag fly alongside
the New Zealand flag on Waitangi Day?
To vote click here>>>
(Readers comments
will be posted
here>>> daily)
To view last
week's comments click
here>>>
|
|
NZCPR Columnists
|
 |
Ron Smith:
NUCLEAR CARGOES
Earlier this year, advanced notice of a
shipment of Mixed Oxide Fuel to Japan
caused a familiar flurry of ostensible
anxiety from Greenpeace, which was
uncritically reflected in the media.
more>>> |
 |
Mike Moore:
GREEN POLITICS - A
RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT
It’s finally happened. A British judge
has determined employees can take
employers to court on the grounds that
they were discriminated against because
of their views on climate change...
more>>> |
|
|
Allan Peachey:
SCHOOL FOR DISRUPTIVE KIDS TO CLOSE
Youngsters with significant behaviour
problems need to be in highly
specialised schools with teachers who
are highly trained in dealing with them.
I have seen some great successes
overseas ...
more>>>
|
 |
Ronald Kitching:
NATURE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY - part 2
To decide whether an undertaking is
sound we must calculate carefully
whether to use
a waterfall to produce electricity or
extend coal-mining and better utilise
the energy contained in coal...more>>>
|
FOOTNOTES:
Articles can be found on
the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE -
click
here>>>
1.Phil
Goff, Nationhood
2.Herald, East Coast iwi weigh up $110m cash
offer
3.Herald, Tuhoe discusses areas of
self-government
4.Gisborne
Herald, What comes next after seabed Act?
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward this newsletter on to
your own networks and encourage other people to
subscribe - that's how we grow.
To help support the
publication of these newsletters and receive
your free EBOOK and unlimited access to our
website Forum click
here>>>
To join the
mailing list for this free newsletter please
click
here>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for
publication on our website
Soapbox
Series?
If you enjoy political debate visit the
Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum
subscribers post up information for the public
to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column
please click
here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on
09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box
984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly
periodical from
the
New Zealand Centre for Political Research,
a public policy think tank at
www.nzcpr.com,
established in
2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a
change of address, please note your
old address and your new one and click
here>>>. To
unsubscribe,
please click
here>>> and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying
the address is not on the mailing list, it means
you are subscribed under a different address and
you will need to submit that one)
|
|
NZCPR
Commentary
THE ENEMY OF
NATIONHOOD
David
Round
It is a depressing indication of the
madness now an unquestioned part of our
national life that those calling for
racial equality and respect for the
rights of all, including the foreshore
and seabed as our common heritage, are
automatically condemned as racist. New Zealand is indeed a deeply racist
country. But the racism lies in a
race-based political party,
racially-selected Parliamentary seats
and members, a special racial electoral
roll, race based sports teams, schools
and units within schools, television
stations, government departments, trusts
and financial assistance galore, legal
recognition of racial privilege, treaty
indoctrination on every conceivable
occasion. Universities now have special
Maori graduations. No public ceremony in
our secular country is complete without
Maori elders and karakia. Every new
appointee in the public service is
welcomed with a powhiri…..None of this
is diminishing. It is growing. We are
not working towards becoming one nation.
We are walking in completely the
opposite direction...
To read
click here>>>
|
| |
|
|
Meet this Asian
Water Buffalo at The Great Day Out at
the Farm - click
here>>> |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
lDONATION
FORM
Download the
NZCPR donation form
here>>
l FACEBOOK
NZCPR
Group now on
Facebook:
join
here>>>
lTECHNICAL
HELP
Visit
our HELPDESK to solve problems
with the newsletter
here>>>
l POLL
RESULT
Last Week's poll:
Do you support the 2025 Taskforce’s
proposal to reduce
government spending to
2004/05 levels
so the top tax rates can be
reduced to 20 percent with lower rates
staying as they are?
Result:
Yes 95%, No 5%
*Last week's poll
comments
here>>>
*All previous poll
comments
here>>>
lCONTACT
YOUR MP
All MP
email addresses can be found on the
NZCPR Parliament
page
here>>>
lQUICK
LINKS
See
QUICKLINKS on the
homepage for details on
Bill, Submissions, Acts of Parliament,
Order Papers
-
view>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
NZCPR
EXCLUSIVE
Available as part of your NZCPR
subscription package
Click for
details>>>
|
|
|
|
NZCPR
EXCLUSIVE
Available as part of your NZCPR
subscription package
Click for
details>>>
|
| |
|
|
Back
to top of page >>>
|
|
New Zealand
Centre for Political Research -
www.nzcpr.com
|
You are
invited to the NZCPR's special event:
THE GREAT DAY OUT
AT THE FARM
- for full details please click
here>>> |
|
THIS WEEK... |
|
The Copenhagen
Saga
From the 7th of December
through to the 18th, the much
publicised United Nations Climate Change
Conference will be held in Copenhagen,
Denmark. The main aim of the conference
is to reach an agreement on a framework
to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it
expires in 2012. Attending the
conference on behalf of New Zealand will
be the Minister for Climate Change Nick
Smith, his Associate Tim Groser, and a
contingent of officials. In addition, as
one of the concessions to the Maori
Party for their support of the emissions
trading scheme, taxpayers will also fund
two iwi leaders and kaumatua to travel
to the Copenhagen conference.
Few details about the cost of the
proposed treaty have been disclosed. In
2001, when New Zealand signed the Bonn
Declaration, we were amongst 20
industrialised countries that pledged
millions of dollars a year to help
developing countries tackle climate
change: "We are prepared to contribute
$410m, which is 450 million euro, per
year by 2005 with this level to be
reviewed in 2008." However, this has
turned into a debacle according to the
BBC, with no proper record of what money
has actually been paid, and
large sums that cannot
be accounted for.[1]
The stakes
are higher now. The global warming
scaremongering machine has been so
successful that developing countries at
Copenhagen will be asking nations like
New Zealand to front up with an
estimated $250 billion to tackle climate
change – and according to some sources,
that could be each and every year!
The details of what is being
proposed at Copenhagen can be found
within a document penned by the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change
working group.[2] This virtually
impenetrable 181 page draft contains a
bewildering array of negotiating
options. However, what stands out is
that the bottom-line purpose is money,
power and control!
Through this
Copenhagen treaty, the United Nations
wants countries like New Zealand to
agree to ambitious emission reduction
targets (up to 95 percent of 1990 levels
by 2050 is one of the targets being
proposed), to provide huge financial
support to developing countries for the
purpose of adaptation, mitigation and
compensation, and to support the
establishment of a proposed new
governance body.
The problem for
New Zealand is that the decision to
support such
binding
treaties
- which could have enormous implications
for the future prosperity of New Zealand
- is taken solely by the Executive of
Government, rather than
by
Parliament
as a whole.
And while a procedure has been
established whereby a “National
Interest” analysis of
some
proposed treaties must be presented to a
select committee of Parliament, that is
as far as it goes.[3] If however the
treaty involves a domestic law change
then the proposed legislation must, of
course, go through the normal
parliamentary process.
Our
arrangements
contrast
with what occurs in
other countries such as the United
States, where the Constitution requires
the approval of a two-thirds
supermajority of democratically elected
senators - along with the approval of
the President – for any binding Treaty.
This is in order to effectively
safeguard national sovereignty against
threats posed by foreign treaties.
Interestingly, while the US signed up to
the Kyoto Protocol, it was never
ratified, because it failed to win
supermajority support in the Senate.
In spite of the wealth destroying
implications for New Zealand of most
climate change policy, an argument that
has been used by governments to justify
strong action, is that associated with
trade: if we don’t play our part in
combating climate change then New
Zealand’s trade will suffer. Given that
Canada has thumbed its nose at climate
change measures on the basis that they
will damage the economy, I asked New
Zealander David Seymour, a Senior Policy
Analyst for the Canadian Frontier Centre
for Public Policy and this week’s NZCPR
Guest Commentator, whether Canada has
experienced the sort of trade backlash
that our politicians have warned us
about:
“Canada is approximately
fifty per cent wealthier than New
Zealand on a GDP per capita basis, and
on some days temperatures in some cities
are colder than those at the North Pole.
Unsurprisingly, Canadians burn a
lot of fossil fuels.
Putting aside a few small
oil-rich nations, only the United States
and Australia emitted more greenhouse
gases per capita than Canada did in
2005.
Canada’s 22.6 tonnes per capita
was twenty per cent higher than New
Zealand’s 18.8, and by 2007 they were
thirty-four per cent above their Kyoto
target.
“Anybody who supposes
they might be sorry for it is in for a
rude shock.
Only last week did Prime Minister
Stephen Harper agree to go to Copenhagen
next month, and in case anybody was to
take this as an act of contrition, his
Minister for the Environment had this to
say:
One thing the Conservative government
will never do is fly over to Copenhagen,
pull a target out of the air that is
ill-suited to our industrial base, to
our geography and agree to damaging the
Canadian economy.”
David
explains, “In reality, Canada has not
suffered trade problems due to its
position on climate change policy.
Meanwhile, Canada has shown that
a commitment to free trade is the most
important factor in getting trade deals
done.
With a trained economist as a
Prime Minster, Canada has brought
agreements with four new countries into
effect over the past two years, and has
a further eleven currently pending.
Since 2003, Canadian exports have
risen twenty per cent, hardly the sign
of a country that is becoming an
economic leper in the international
community.” To read David’s full
article, click the sidebar link>>>
As the media hype over the
Copenhagen conference reaches fever
pitch, a scandal dubbed “Climategate”
that hits at the heart of the whole
theory of man-made global warming is
unfolding. As a result of
data from
the Climate Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia in England
making its way into the public arena,
details of
communication
among
the United Nations’ top climate
scientists
have raised
doubts
about
the accuracy of the
UN's
influential reports. Serious allegations
have been made that these scientists
have been colluding to falsify data,
manipulate results, and
to
block other researchers from having
access to the figures
- all
in order to protect their fabricated
evidence that the globe is warming due
to the influence of man-made greenhouse
gases. It is a scientific fraud of
massive proportions and as the fallout
spreads, there are calls for
inquiries,
resignations, and the disbanding of the
whole United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This scandal is so big that it has now
enveloped our own crown atmospheric
research unit, NIWA. NIWA has been
accused of scaremongering by inflating
temperature records to show the New
Zealand’s temperature has increased by
0.92°C over the last 100 years,
far more than the IPCC's global average
temperature rise over the last 100 years
of 0.6°C.
In comparison the
raw
data shows an insignificant increase of
0.06°C over the 100 year period.[4]
Questions
over whether
NIWA has
been involved in this global scandal
continue. If the data has
indeed
been doctored as some are suggesting,
then
a full inquiry should be called and
those responsible exposed and sacked
from their government paid positions.
President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech
Republic
is
one of the few world leaders who is an
outspoken critic of the whole theory of
man-made global warming.
He
was speaking in Washington DC earlier
this month, reflecting on the
forthcoming Copenhagen summit.[5] I will
leave the final words this week to
President Klaus:
I have already been at a UN Summit in
Copenhagen before. It was in 1995 at the
so-called Social Summit. At that time,
the Summit was attended by then U.S.
Vice President Al Gore who — so it seems
— will be there again this year. I did
also attend, as Prime Minister of the
Czech Republic, but I don’t plan to go
there now. I don’t see any chance to
influence the results or to be listened
to.
In 1995, there were huge
demonstrations organized by all kinds of
anti-establishment groupings - from
socialists and greens to anarchists and
anti-globalizationists. I have never
seen such clashes between demonstrators
and police and army forces before. The
difference is that I don’t expect any
demonstrations in Copenhagen now. The
anti-establishment people have in the
meantime become insiders and will be
sitting in the main hall. This is a
shift with far-reaching consequences.
We should not forget how the
doctrine of global warming came into
being. In a normal case, everything
starts with an empirical observation,
with the discovery of evident trends or
tendencies. Then follow scientific
hypotheses and their testing. When they
are not refuted, they begin to influence
politicians. The whole process finally
leads to some policy measures. None of
this was the case with the global
warming doctrine.
It started
differently. The people who had never
believed in human freedom, in impersonal
forces of the market and other forms of
human interaction and in the spontaneity
of social development and who had always
wanted to control, regulate and
mastermind us have been searching for a
persuasive argument that would justify
these ambitions of theirs. After trying
several alternative ideas — population
bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources,
global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes
— that all very rapidly proved to be
non-existent, they came up with the idea
of global warming. Their doctrine was
formulated before reliable data
evidence, before the formulation of
scientifically proven theories, before
their comprehensive testing based on
today’s level of statistical methods.
Politicians accepted that doctrine at
the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and —
without waiting for its confirmation —
started to prepare and introduce
economically damaging and freedom
endangering measures.
Why did
they do that? They understood that
playing the global warming game is an
easy, politically correct and
politically profitable card to play
(especially when it is obvious that they
themselves won’t carry the costs of the
measures they implement and will not be
responsible for their consequences).
I don’t see any problem with the
climate now, or in the foreseeable
future... We should not deceive
ourselves. A cap-and-trade scheme is a
government intervention par excellence,
not a “market solution.” This country,
my country, as well as the rest of the
world face many real issues. We do not
need to solve non-existing problems. I
don’t think the real issue is
temperature and/or CO2, but a new
utopian vision of the world. We have
only two ways out: salvation through
carbon capping or prosperity through
freedom, unhampered human activity,
productivity and hard work. I vote for
the second option.
Invitation to the GREAT DAY OUT AT THE
FARM - from Muriel:
I would like
to invite you to
a
very special NZCPR get-together and
fundraiser (in conjunction with Owen
McShane's CRMS) to be held in February
next year: if you would like to meet
others interested in politics and
policy, as well as enjoying a wonderful
day viewing world famous sculptures and
exotic animals, then please visit the
GREAT DAY AT THE FARM
website
here>>> for full details and
to register your interest. I look
forward to seeing you there!
NZCPR POLL
This
week’s poll asks:
Should
New Zealand agree to contribute
to the cost of climate change
adaptation, mitigation and compensation
for developing countries?
To vote click here>>>
(Readers comments
will be posted
here>>> daily)
To view last
week's comments click
here>>>
|
FOOTNOTES:
Articles can be found
on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE -
click
here>>>
1.BBC, Climate Change help for the poor has not
materialized
2.UNFCC, Copenhagen Draft
3.MFAT, Treaty Making Process in New Zealand
4.Richard Treadgold, Are we feeling warmer yet?
5.Vaclav Klaus, Largest tax increase in
world history
NZCPR ADMIN
Please
forward this newsletter on to
your own networks and encourage other people to
subscribe - that's how we grow.
To help support the
publication of these newsletters and receive
your free EBOOK and unlimited access to our
website Forum click
here>>>
To join the
mailing list for this free newsletter please
click
here>>>
Why not submit your burning issue for
publication on our website
Soapbox
Series?
If you enjoy political debate visit the
Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum
subscribers post up information for the public
to view daily.
To contact Muriel about this week’s column
please click
here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on
09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box
984,
Whangarei.
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly
periodical from
the
New Zealand Centre for Political Research,
a public policy think tank at
www.nzcpr.com,
established in
2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.
If you have a
change of address, please note your
old address and your new one and click
here>>>. To
unsubscribe,
please click
here>>> and send.
(Please note - if you get back a message saying
the address is not on the mailing list, it means
you are subscribed under a different address and
you will need to submit that one)
|
| | |
