A reforming PM
December 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm by David FarrarKevin Rudd said this a few weeks ago:
Well, I mean that the best functioning governments are where you have the two central agencies, Prime Ministries and Treasury working together and that means taking all the best advice out of the Treasury and mixing it with the Prime Minister’s Department to frame the best agenda for the future. I think Treasury by instinct, this goes back to the earlier Labor period, is a reforming department. It actually has a whole bunch of people within it who want to advance the cause of micro-economic reform. I think that reform agenda has not had any political impetus for a long, long time during the latter period of the Howard government and I think there is a lot of enthusiasm there for us embracing a reform agenda because if you cease reforming this economy, you start to strangle long-term productivity growth. We don’t intend to do that.
My God, could you imagine Cullen ever saying such stuff? This is why Rudd may be a very good PM – he is very very serious about lifting Australia’s productivity and growth.
This is one of the reasons why Australia is much richer than NZ, as detailed in NBR by Phil Rennie.
No tag for this post.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Agree. Agree. Agree.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
This wasnt back when he was electioneering was it? Because the reality might be a smidge different now they hold power.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Silly me, when I saw the title of this thread ” A Reforming MP ” I thought you were referring to our very own Miss Klark, who has rewritten democracy within the nanny state of kiwiland . I do apologize profusely for any inconvenience .
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
It is becoming increasingly clear in the wake of Howard’s demise that he wasn’t as “right wing” as he is made out to be and the massive incomes derived through the recent mineral wealth boom enabled him to increase social spending on the back of high taxes for the top 5% (same system as the US). The result is a bugeoning welfare state (same as NZ). Like Douglas following the Muldoon years, Rudd obviously sees some room for reform.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21049773-7583,00.html
I post this because there still seems to be a sentiment that Australia is more wealthy than NZ because of govt policies. Our policies are not different enough for politics to be a large player in our differences. We both have a similar business environment, similar welfare states and similar tax systems. Australia is more wealthy because of their mineral resources AND Asia’s sudden and urgent need for them. End of Story.
Once NZ has developed some niche markets to which we have sufficient exclusivity to demand a premium, then we may well equal the Aussies, but at present most of our industries can be matched and beaten by other countries, except at the moment, dairy. Our tourism, sheep, fruit, wine and all other industries lack exclusivity and are vulnerable to being undermined or wiped out by bigger players elsewhere.
But obviously Phil Rennie is your favourite commentator here, DPF?
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
New Zealand has more natural capital per capita than Australia and is second only to Saudi Arabia in this measure.
So I am afraid your explanation is not the “end of story”.
One difference is that Australia is prepared to turn its natural capital into wealth while we regard using natural resources as raping of the Earth Mother.
Doc happens to manage over half of New Zealand ‘s total land area and most of our natural mineral wealth is in their care.
Policies do count.
And so do religious beliefs – especially when they are based on neo-animism.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
“Our policies are not different enough for politics to be a large player”, bullshit Kent and you know it. It would be very interesting to ask the 600 who leave next week why they are going. Yes of course the money is better but most people do not move their familys and leave the country of their birth just for more money. I think most would say they have had enough of this corrupt suffocating nanny state.
But you carry on and fool yourself that all is fine and dandy in the state of the long white cloud but it is clear to most in this country that the emperor has been naked for some years now.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Owen,
You have said this before but fail to give any evidence. If you’re counting coal, then forget it, most countries have adequate resources of coal. Just what mineral resources are you referring to? Limestone? Water?
Side show, if NZ is so bad, why not go to OZ yourself and not concern yourself with our ‘predicament’.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
SSB. Why are you still in this country?
Vote:Australia should have a nice bit of Parched land for you to farm.
Your obviously not a dairy farmer as you would not be spending so much time moaning about life.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“It is becoming increasingly clear in the wake of Howard’s demise that he wasn’t as “right wing” as he is made out to be…”
Late Howard wasn’t, but early Howard was.
“Our policies are not different enough for politics to be a large player in our differences.”
You may have an argument on your hands from Tane, Nome, et al, who insist the productivity differences between the two countries can be explained, almost wholly to hear them tell it, by Nationals policies in the 90′s.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
As someone living in Australia, Kent has a point, though I think he’s pointing in the wrong direction. There’s a vast amount of mineral wealth flowing in and state (Labor) governments in particular are simply amassing huge surpluses, then sitting on them and crowing about what great economic managers they are. Very little of it is refunded into the pockets of those who generated it, and virtually none is invested in the development of sectors of the economy which have the potential to generate wealth outside of selling resources.
The Federal goverment does benefit from the boom of course, but it’s mostly the State governments (also Labor across the board) who make the most hay.
But at least while the respective Treasurers count the cash and watch hospitals decay and Police fail to respond to call-outs so people end up murdered the government in most states also manages to refrain from telling us all how live our lives.
The Kiwis I talk to tend to cite both money and freedom as their reasons for staying, though to be fair it’s usually money that got them here in the first place.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Oh and Owen, DOC administers 30% of NZ’s land area. 44% of Australia is desert and it is within and adjacent to those areas that open cast mining can take place without affecting human habitation, tourism or delicate ecosystems.
It is important to look at the facts and not be led by emotive outpourings.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
While I do agree that this govt has gone too far and has to go…
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Does the truth hurt John, why shouldn’t I moan, is speech still not free, oh thats right Dear Leader is working to fix that. That mad cow you look up to and her assorted tossers are slowly killing this country. But if it helps you can pretend you are in disneyland.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Kimble – I think it was just after he won.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Kent,
DoC administered more than 30% of the NZ land area before the HIgh country accord, and when that is complete well over 40% will be in the DoC estate.
You forget that DoC also has special management powers over all land in the Coastal area of NZ via the RMA, and the Minister has power of veto over decisions made within any area subject to a coastal management plan. Then there are all the Outstanding Natural Landscape areas and other areas which are effectively under DoC control through the RMA.
If you want to challenge them they will drive you through the environment court and they have millions to spend.
You might like to refer to the Centres report on DoC and its remarkable reach at
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/latestnews.htm
The ranking of Natural Capital comes from the World Bank report on Natural Capital.
Go to:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/214578-1110886258964/20748034/All.pdf
DoC is active. In the 2004/5 year DoC participated in:
• 1,500 consultative processes, including formal and prehearing meetings.
• 60 submissions on draft policy statements and plans.7
• 190 submissions on applications for resource consent.
• 1,100 applications for resource consent agreed without public notice (section 94).
• 25 court or legal actions where other processes have failed.
(Source DoC Statement of Intent 2005-8)
It is very difficult to measure the area of land over which DoC exercises control but about 50% is near enough after the completion of the High Country accord.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
We’re hoping for the best with Kev……
Don’t forget his background is as political head of the public service in Goss’s Qld Labor govt. A proper little comrade.
Kev is the only thing between us and a reclamation of the ALP by the socialist left led by Dep PM Gillard. Which would be a good thing for the Libs.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Tina
With deep regret PM Gillard will win because she has the “people” behind her albeit her commie unions.,
Do not take any faith in the recent change to Liarbour in Aussie, they do not change
Rudd is short term with Gillard sharpening knifes already.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Let’s hope so Raff…means one term.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Maybe it’s about time Australia gave some of their ‘riches’ back to the Aborigines…?
aladin
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Raise the bar, and stop copping out, then things might improve a little.
Vote:December 28th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
For Kent to attack Owen on such a personal level (eg, get out if you don’t like it here; your argument is based on emotive outpourings, etc) is a bit like a pharmacist trainee challenging Linus Pauling. You may not agree with what he has to say but you really should recognise that your disagreement is based, merely, on principle. Find an authority and cite that authority – but don’t try and manage it on your own without at least something more than your own “emotive outpourings”. Then again, perhaps, you don’t know who he is – or what DOC is actually doing to the wealth base of the country.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 12:33 am
It’s so typical isn’t it, if you don’t like it we get told to get out.
Well I’m out and loving it. 700+ per week seem to agree with me. Hows that for cold hard fact. This game is Aussies to lose, as long as Rudd does what he means, then the 700 will turn into 1000 within a few years.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 7:55 am
You have said this before but fail to give any evidence. If you’re counting coal, then forget it, most countries have adequate resources of coal.
Yes Kent – please respond to your own criticism. You have stated many times that Australia’s got more resources per capita without any evidence;
Vote:With respect to the other resources shall we start with high grade aluminum, gold, silver and iron then move onto antimony, Chromium, Copper, Lead & Zinc;
Oh sod it go look for yourself:
http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/minerals/overview/overview-mineral-resources
December 29th, 2007 at 9:02 am
The Australian reformers mostly want to put in place reforms that are carefully measured to benefit the nation and actually improve productivity/wealth/standard of living. Hence the planned removal of the onerous WorkChoices, Australia’s answer to the Employment Contracts Act of the 1990s which led directly to a low-wage economy here.
Hurrah for them, (although it will be interesting to see how much power prices go up in NSW after their incompetent govt sold the state’s power company… How much money changed hands in that one I wonder.)
National/ACT reforms involve a quest for a “pure” libertarian state, in the misguided hope that this will somehow turn NZ into Singapore- this someow requires privatising schools, hospitals, all state companies; removing state institutions such as ACC and even MMP.
Never mind that Singapore has the advantage of being on the major Asian trade route, or that it is a non-democratic city ruled by an oligarchy of business interests. Or even that there is no evidence rolling back the state would accomplish this- the top countries in the OECD wealth list are mostly ones with a significant government sector.
Hence, New Zealanders are scared of reform- the last lot we had under National/ACT seemed designed to transfer as much money as possible from public to private hands, to the cost of all NZers.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Kent,
Vote:The argument – on non-argument – which goes “if you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave” is surely “the last refuge of assholes” to paraphrase the more famous line.
Well, I shall tell you, if you really want to know.
First, if I was a trained youngster in my thirties I would leave – and my wife agrees.I had the choice of staying in the US in the late sixties but chose to return. I would not do so today.
However, I am now in my late sixties and enjoy my life in Northland, developing gardens, practising my architecture on a tiny scale, and enjoying the company of my dog, cat, bantams and ducks, and of course the energy and enthusiasm of my wife Jenny the great gardener and book buyer. (There are always so many books to read.) Modern technology means I can continue an active life trying to remedy some of things wrong here, such as the Climate Change farce, and the implementation of the RMA by the new earth mother worshippers and animists.
Also, two years ago I had an aortic dissection and live from day to day, and am instructed to avoid stress. While I can cope with short trips to California to give papers at conferences and to Bali to annoy the UN, moving house to another country may well turn out the lights.
So what’s your excuse?
December 29th, 2007 at 10:27 am
iiq,
I followed your link and there is nothing in there to substantiate Owen’s claim that NZ is second only to Saudi Arabia in mineral resources per capita, unless of course you can find a ready market for greywacke, basalt or clay. Yes, NZ has gold, the Martha mine in Waihi produces the following stats p annum:
* Martha Mine direct income per annum: $10m
* Indirect income per annum: $4m
* Martha Mine direct output into the local economy: $59m
So the Waihi Gold Mining company contributes 47% or nearly half of the total output of the Waihi economy and around 35% – or just over a third, of the total income earned in the Waihi economy.
(Note only $10 mil is minerals)
However this fades into insignificance when set against stories such as the following from Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/13/1183833772710.html
and this story is nothing because there are plenty of other places to get Uranium from.
Yes, we have titanium in our ironsands, while this is a sought after material it does not quite have the same significance as uranium or iron in terms of bulk earnings.
Also iiq, I never “stated many times that Australia’s got more resources per capita”. I said that they have abundant mineral resources AND there is an increasing demand coming out of Asia for them.
Owen,
Whatever the stats, it does not concern me that DOC oversees 30% of the land area. At least they are democratically accountable, which would not be the case if owned by private individuals or groups.
What alternative do you suggest?
The “emotional outpouring” comment stands. I don’t see how you can stretch 30% to make it look like more than 50%, not that it matters.
I am sure that if NZ had similar mineral resources per capita to Australia someone would have found them by now and exploited them. We have the collective experience of NZ history telling us that the minerals simply are not there, and you guys on this thread stand up and claim it is not true on the basis of … What? Emotional outpourings.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Owen,
I am very positive about NZ’s future and have no itching to go to Australia. My brother has been in Sydney for decades and owns property there and in Bali where he now lives and I have ex-inlaws in Queensland. There is no point in NZ being ‘like Australia’. It is a bit galling at present that they are doing better than us and keep beating us at netball etc. but we will find ways to outdo them, if that is at all necessary.
The key to NZ prosperity lies in the kind of people it produces. We do not have natural resources. We have to be a sort of silicon valley of the cerebral kind; a knowledge economy. As an example, NZ private schools are being cited as best value for rich Asians. Your lifestyle in Northland is just the kind of lifestyle creating thinking patterns and knowledge systems that could well be sought after in a growing Asia.
The very thing that the right sees a blight on NZ society could well turn out to be one of its greatest economic assets. Here I am referring to bi-culturalism; the fact that we are succeeding to integrate Pakeha and Maori into some kind of mutually beneficial sovereignity. This could become a model for nations for which this remains a problem, such as Australia (which lags by decades in this respect) and Malaysia to name the closest. The politics that we are developing here in our naive parliamentary playground may turn into gold.
While not a Labour supporter I am a folower of social evolution. NZ is miles ahead of Australia in this respect. I am young enough to be at the cusp of development of the social and knowledge systems that will help define the NZ of 2020.
That’s my excuse.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Kent – Owen provided his own link for his per capita claim; I was providing the list of minerals that New Zealand has; and mainly chooses not to exploit.
Like Uranium (interesting that you bring that one up..)
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 11:47 am
iq,
I followed Owen’s links and neither of them even attempt to support his claim. The World Bank pdf is an obscure document about changes in natural wealth (which includes productive as well as mineral wealth). The second link is to his own site and repeats his yet to be supported claim that DOC manages 50% of the land area.
I am sure that NZ has deposits of uranium, copper, zinc, diamonds, even maybe plutonium, and that landfills may be some of the richest sources, but history has shown that there is little of economic significance. You can be sure that before DOC got their greasy little mits on the land that it had already been scoured by geologists and industrialists in search of mineral wealth.
If there is mineral wealth out there, and this is such a scandal of natioinal proportions and we could easily benefit from the wealth that could be simply scooped out of the land then I think you should make your case to some wealthy entrepreneurs and be part of the success story.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Actually I never intimated that it was a scandal; nor even that it was a bad thing that we were leaving it where it lies (that was Owen).
However indicating that NZ has no natural mineral wealth is incorrect, and belies the decision to leave it there. Iron Ore in particular is one that has mining interests perpetually interested but has been rebuffed every time so far.
With respect to Uranium:
There has been no recorded commercial production of
uranium from New Zealand deposits and there will be no
production in the near future due to New Zealand’s nuclear
free legislation and the Minerals Programme for Minerals
other than coal and petroleum which specifically does not
allow prospecting, exploration and mining of the primary
uranium and thorium minerals.
From http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/minerals/overview/resolveUid/754a4ed8e207ef682b2e46104f51296b
Vote:IE our crown institute of minerals.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
P.S. While there are no known commercially viable Diamond deposits your reference to Zinc is interesting:
The best prospects for large
Vote:lead-zinc deposits are VMS and SEDEX type deposits in
Fiordland and Northwest Nelson, however access to most of
these areas is severely limited by their protected land status
as part of the Fiordland National Park and proposed Kahurangi
National Park. A recent review of mineral exploration in
Northwest Nelson by Corner and Jennings (1994) summarised
a large number of lead and zinc showings and geochemical
anomalies, illustrating good potential for future exploration
December 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Those are some interesting references, iiq. It is true that Fiordland left as it is does have tourist value. Any mineral exploration has to be cost benefitted against that and the cost of mining and transporting it out of a geographically isolated area that also has a climate that may make work hazardous and cut down production. Maybe in the future when both detection and mining techniques are much more refined than they are now, then mining may become feasible. At present I would say that it is more cost efffective to extract from places like Indonesia and Sth America.
Vote:December 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Kent
Vote:NZ may produce superior people than Australia but if they emigrate to Australia they end up with the advantage anyway. Whilst not scientific I do notice a number of property sales in the mid/high price brackets were the reason for sale is emigration to Australia.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Cheers Kent -
Vote:Note that as I stated above – I’ve never actually advocated going after those mineral resources, but that it needs to be recognized that we have them and have chosen not to exploit them;
December 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Point taken. Owen was the one who was making unsupported claims about our mineral wealth. If what he says is true then we could probably get a National govt to do something about it, but I don’t think his claim holds water and his site is just another personal issue promotion place.
Vote: