Lindsay Perigo blogs on ACT, with a unique perspective having worked for them briefly. He notes with the cannabis speech:
On the night after the speech, Don appeared on Campbell Live to defend it. The programme ran a poll on decriminalisation to coincide with his appearance. A record number of people—15000—responded; 72% supported him! Not for the first time, we saw that this is one of those libertarian issues where the voters are much more enlightened than most politicians. As the Press noted at the time, on this matter Banks rather than Brash is the dinosaur.
Here was Don’s chance to re-brand ACT unambiguously as the live-and-let-live party across the board, not just on economic issues. But he needed to hold his nerve. I had texted him a line from Rudyard Kipling just before his Campbell Live appearance: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you … “
I agree with Lindsay that the speech was not a mistake per se. However where I have been critical is that key stakeholders were not in the loop, and talking points agreed in advance. If that had been done, then the speech could well have worked as intended – showing Don as a social liberal, not just an economic liberal.
Just blogged at Stuff on the long overdue cannabis debate. I note:
The Law Commission has also advocated a mandatory cautioning scheme for anyone charged with a personal possession or use offence. For Class C drugs such as cannabis they recommend that a person only be prosecuted from their fourth offence. This could be a sensible compromise between full decriminalisation and the current law.
The debate will not go away, just because some do not want to admit the current approach is failing.
Act leader Don Brash is calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis.
He says prohibition of the drug hasn’t worked, and policing it costs millions of tax payer dollars and clogs up the court system.
He’s told TVNZ’s Q&A programme there are other ways to restrict the use of marijuana.
“It’s estimated thousands of New Zealanders use cannabis on a fairly regular basis, 6,000 are prosecuted every year, a $100million of tax payers money is spent to police this law,” says My Brash.
I’m delighted to see ACT pushing socially liberal policies as well as economically liberal policies. And I agree with Don – I do think cannabis should be decriminalised, with the emphasis being to treat it as a health issue.
It is with a heavy heart that I withdraw my membership, not only of the National Party, as I explained in my previous letter, but also from the National Party Social Bowling Club of which I have been a proud member for twenty-three years.
I do not take this decision lightly and I have made it after observing, with mounting alarm, your lack of commitment to the activity of bowling.
When I had the privilege to serve as President of the Social Bowling Club and you were my treasurer, I railed against the inefficiency of the sport as I saw it. Despite repeated attempts to destroy the little pins at the end of the lane with our heavy balls, there was never any reduction in the total amount of pins. We spent many hours knocking them down but the next time the Club met there they all were again, standing upright just as before, presumably placed there by some malign, unseen state agency.
I gave many speeches, John – which you endorsed – calling for the cessation of bowling using balls, arguing for the deployment of hand grenades and fragile crystal globes filled with acid. Have you forgotten those plans?
And he continues:
The things I discovered shocked me. I learned, and reported back to you, that the pins we knocked down during each game were the SAME PINS EVERY TIME. Concealed at the back of the lane was a large, complicated mechanical apparatus that picked them up and set them standing again! I was literally sick with terror and disgust! All our previous efforts had been for naught!
I appraised you of these facts, John, but your response to them staggers me. You have not disconnected this equipment, as I advised. You have not smashed the pins with heavy mallets, even though, as we now know to our terrible cost, their total number is small, no more than a few dozen at best, and they could easily be annihilated. Instead I have looked on with uncomprehending horror as, under your leadership, National MPs now bowl from the start of the lane instead of standing directly above the pins and hurling the balls at them as was practise during my presidency.
Below is the letter Don Brash sent to John Key recently and has just released publicly. No great surprises in it, but it indicates to me that ACT plan to target National voters pretty aggressively.
We’ve been contacted by a number of supporters asking about the voting record of new ACT party leader Dr Don Brash, who may be a key player in forming the next government. …
On the positive side, he voted AGAINST Civil Unions and Relationships Bills, FOR Parental Notification for teenagers seeking an abortion, AGAINST the Care of Children Bill, and FOR the Marriage Amendment Bill which defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Most importantly, while in Parliament, he voted AGAINST the Anti-smacking bill …
On the negative side, he voted
FOR the decriminalisation of Euthanasia,
FOR the decriminalisation of Prostitution,
AGAINST Raising the Drinking Age back to 20,
and AGAINST the ability for Manukau City to ban the problem of Street Prostitution.
It should come as no surprise that what FF lists as negatives, I regard as positives. While Don was not entirely consistent, he generally has been a social liberal on “moral” issues. He did flip on civil unions, having voted for at first reading and then against at second reading. It would be interesting to know what his stance is today on issues such as civil unions, the drinking age etc.
ACT PARTY leader Don Brash’s coup has hit problems with a smear campaign that party insiders blame on supporters of the man he replaced, Rodney Hide.
The campaign has seen widespread rumours of affairs and even a “love child”. Last night Brash dismissed the accusations as appalling, while commentators labelled them a “new low” on the Kiwi political landscape.
I was interviewed for this story. [DPF: have removed the sentence which was here so it doesn't identify anyone]
I’m not sure if the rumours are being pushed by any person or faction maliciously, or whether it is just an old joke that has turned into more wide-spread gossip. Most gossip spreads without malicious intent.
The man named as Brash’s son – who the Star-Times will not name – said the rumours were “fanciful”. He said he was aware of the rumours being spread about him by Hide supporters, and that the “mud-slinging represented a new low in New Zealand politics”.
Hide said he was not aware of any rumours, let alone being behind any smear campaign.
Last night Brash said he was staggered by the rumours, especially given that when he first met the family, the man at the centre of the allegations was already two-and-a-half or three.
“I’m not prepared to discuss this kind of issue, it’s just not appropriate at all. All I can say is categorically, [name withheld] is not my son.”
Heh that sounds so much like a Star Wars quote.
Right-wing commentator David Farrar said the country was headed for a more polarising debate than the bland campaign between Phil Goff and John Key that most commentators were tipping at the start of the year – and it was not just Act supporters shaking things up. Brash’s positioning on government spending and welfare could see some of National’s “soft” vote panic, and switch back to Labour, putting National under pressure.
He said no amount of rumours would shake Brash’s electoral appeal. “He could have half-a-dozen love children and it still wouldn’t change anything.”
Heh I must remember to turn down the hyperbole when being interviewed. The point I was making is that Brash attracts support for his policies on government spending and one law for all, not for being a family values crusader.
Talking of Don, he was on TV this morning with Hone Harawira again – on Marae. It was I think a better debate than the one on Close Up, and I think both of them benefit from going into battle against the other – they are almost in a symbiotic relationship. Don is the anti-Hone and Hone the anti-Don.
In an ealier blog, I highlighted how Hone praised bin Laden, and wondered whether he would also have praised Hitler as a freedom fighter.
Well talking of Hitler, he is seriously insisting that Dn Brash is like Hitler. Not as some throw-away comment – but as a serious proposition. Stuff reports:
MP and Mana Party leader Hone Harawira has accused new ACT leader Don Brash of aiming to destroy Maori in a testy television debate.
Harawira again compared Brash to Hitler, echoing comments he first made six years ago.
“The politics you talk about are very much like Hitler’s, Don. You target Maori very much like Hitler targetted the Jews. You are aiming to destroy us the same way that others haved done.”
Yes advocating that there should be no race based seats is of course the same as marching six millions Jews into concentration camps, where they were systematically killed.
And this ManaParty is the great hope of the hard left.
I thought Don did well. Initially I was hesitant about the wisdom of mixing it up with Hone, but I think Don managed to get a clear message across which will appeal to a fair few people.
Don Brash wants to be finance minister, and claims the Act Party could gain 15 per cent of the vote in this year’s election under his leadership.
“I’d love to be finance minister,” he said last night.
“When I went into Parliament in 2002, that is what I was hoping to be. I wasn’t planning to be National leader. I was planning to be finance minister in a Bill English-led National government.”
Finance Minister is unlike any other portfolio, as it is so central to the Government, and affects every other portfolio. I would think a party would have to poll at least 15% to be able to make a serious bid for that role.
If ACT make it back into Parliament, the role I’d love to see Don Brash take is education, and have him introduce performance pay for teachers, bulk funding for all schools, abolish school zoning and introduce full parental choice of schools. I think such reforms are vital to improving our country’s future prospects.
He indicated he would ask Mr Key to give Mr Hide’s portfolios to another MP, citing as a precedent Mr Hide’s decision to strip Heather Roy of her portfolios because of her coup attempt.
I can’t imagine he is going to ask Hilary Calvert to become a Minister, so this looks like he is seeking Heather Roy to be reinstated as a Minister.
Last night, Mr Key distanced himself from the “extreme” views of Act and said Dr Brash had “virtually no chance” of becoming finance minister or deputy prime minister after the next election.
The Prime Minister said Act was “not likely to be a party of such size that would be commensurate with those portfolios”.
He said Act had always had extreme policies compared with National’s moderate approach and “my view is that nothing has changed here”.
I doubt anyone can point to an economic issue on which Rodney and Don disagree. So the PM is right that ACT’s policies and views are not changing. What has changed is that ACT may now be able to attract greater support.
Don has said he thinks he can attract 15%. John Ansell has gone even further and claims ACT can get 40% and Don will become PM. Either way, this suggests that ACT will not be expecting National to “take it easy” in Epsom. If they poll over 5% they don’t need Epsom (even though it is always useful to have it as backstop). So my guess is that National will campaign actively for both votes in Epsom.
So the first target for ACT led by Don is to make 5% – otherwise they may not be there at all. But if they get just 5% or 6 MPs, then they will represent 10% of the Government, so their influence would be roughly 10%.
If however Don can lift ACT to 10% then they have 12 MPs, and would roughly be 20% of the Government. So they would have significantly more influence.
Again, the next couple of sets of public polls will be interesting.
Rodney Hide resigned as Leader of ACT at midday. Don Brash will be elected Leader at the next Caucus meeting.
I’d like to pay tribute to Rodney at this point in time. It is primarily due to Rodney that ACT survived in 2005 and 2008. Over his 15 years in Parliament Rodney has had a greater and more benficial impact on Parliament than most MPs.
I’m glad he is so happily married to Louise, and has become a Dad again. That will remind him of what is truly important in life – far more so than politics.
It looks like Rodney will remain an ACT MP and Minister until the election.
The immediate issues for ACT are:
Does John Boscawen remain Deputy Leader, or does that revert back to Heather Roy.
Does John Banks stand in Epsom for ACT.
List Ranking
While I have said previously that I’m not sure how good a fit John Banks is to ACT, there is considerable logic to having a candidate in the seat who will clearly win it for ACT. If they look guaranteed to win the seat, then they can campaign that voting for ACT is not a wasted vote, and that the more people who vote for them the more influence they will have on policy.
It is possible a Brash led ACT will also make it harder for Winston Peters to get traction (which is of course a good thing). Winston planned to campaign hard on the foreshore & seabed issue, but a Brash led ACT may be more effective in appealing to the coastal coaltion supporters.
Where NZ First, and Labour and Greens, will attack is on economic policy – especially wages, asset sales and superannuation. Goff is already suggesting that it was a cunning National plot to have Don roll Rodney (which is hysterically untrue).
The reality is that Don and Rodney are near identical minds on economic policy. What will determine their influence on Government is not so much who the leader is, but how many seats they win. At 10 seats you roughly expect twice the influence of 5 seats.
So as I said earlier, the next few polls will be interesting.
Don Brash believes he has the numbers to roll Rodney Hide and become the new ACT leader as soon as today after furiously lobbying MPs.
The fates of Brash and Hide rest with the party’s newest MP, Hilary Calvert, who pledged her support for Hide at the weekend – but spent yesterday afternoon in a meeting at Brash’s Auckland apartment with Hide opponent Sir Roger Douglas.
Calvert did not return calls and refused to comment as she left. But after the meeting, Brash said he was “cautiously optimistic” of securing the ACT leadership, suggesting he believes he has her support.
He told National Radio that if she switched votes it would be “logical” for Hide to resign as early as today.
Brash also made it clear he saw no place for Hide in any party he led, suggesting it would be his advice to Hide “to go, quite frankly”
Most of the speculation has been on whether Boscawen would back Brash, not Calvert.The Herald reports:
On Sunday, she said that she backed Mr Hide and would vote for him over Dr Brash, and on Tuesday she repeated that position.
But yesterday, when the Herald asked if her position was still the same after her meeting with Dr Brash, she said: “I’m not prepared to make any comment.”
There’s been a fair amount of disinformation flying around, so we’ll see how things play out today.
However if the media are correct, then Don has won and will become Leader. I still stand by my comments about the nature of the coup. It is about winning the war, not the battle. And my concern is that Don has damaged his brand which was almost being above politics.
If Don does become leader, all eyes will be on teh next set of public polls. I have no doubt ACT will go up in the polls. The two key questions are how much, and from whom will they pull their extra support. I’d also caution not to take the first set of polls as gospel – there is a honeymoon effect. The second set of polls are likely to be more indicative.
Anyway let’s wait to see if the media have it right, and if Don has won. If he has, I’ll blog some ideas for key policies he can campaign on – apart from closing the gap with Australia.
I have been somewhat surprised at how amateurish the attempted ACT coup has been. In fact, I’d go further and say it somewhat resembles a cluster fuck. I’ll explain where I think mistakes were made, and what I would have done differently.
But first I should make clear that I am in fact highly supportive of the aims or “ends” of Don Brash. I just don’t think the means have been well chosen.
I most definitely want a coalition partner for National that is economically more reformist than National, and can attract enough support to survive the tidal ebbs and flows of politics.
I have been worried for some time that National’s long-term prospects (post Key) could be somewhat bleak as if ACT (and United once Dunne retires) disappears there are no partners for National. Over time I expect the Maori Party will go with Labour more often than it does with National.
I would like National to be more economically reformist. I doubt I disagree with Don Brash on many significant economic issues. However I do believe you have to take the electorate with you – otherwise you get thrown out and all your reforms get reversed. It is only by getting re-elected for multiple terms can your reforms become too entrenched to reverse
So in principle I’m supportive of what Don is trying to achieve – a more popular and hopefully permanent coalition partner for National, that will lead to more economic reform (which will help close the gap with Australia).
But I think the campaign to try and bludgeon ACT into handing over the leadership to Don has been clumsy, not thought through, and has in fact significantly damaged Don’s brand, and hence the brand of any new party he sets up. My criticisms are:
Demanding the sole leadership, not even co-leadership, while not even a member of the party. This makes it look like you see the party as purely a vehicle for your ambitions.
Openly threatening to destroy the party if they do not make you sole leader. This not only pisses off ACT party members, but also damages your standing with voters.
Negotiating through the media. Never a good strategy.
Not leaving room for a dignified compromise. By publicly demanding that the leadership be handed over to you, or you will destroy the party you place the board and caucus in a position where if they then agree they get left with no dignity. In politics you should always be thinking about how to make something look like a win-win (even if it isn’t).
Only commissioned polling data after you launch your public bid for the job. This should have been commissioned weeks ago.
So what would I have done if I was advising Don
Negotiate privately with ACT to see if there is a suitable role.
If no agreement can be reached, then start the work on forming your own party. Do not publicly demand ACT hand over the leadership or you will destroy them.
Announce you are creating a new party.
When media asked why not join ACT, then reveal you tried to, but no agreement could be reached. Then explain that you are doing a new party because you think at best ACT will only be able to win up to five seats again and that you want to win at least 10 seats, so you’ll have more influence on economic policy.
If they ask about the ACT leadership, reply that there is no vacancy there. If they ask whether you considered challenging Rodney, reply that you and Rodney have been friends for over 15 years, and you would never challenge him. Also make clear that you will not stand in Epsom.
Announce you will be standing in Tamaki but your aim is to win 5%. However if Tamaki voters want him as their local MP he would be happy to do so.
Differentiate the new party from ACT by saying the party will be primarily focused on just two areas – economic reform and choice in education. Say that you hope ACT and your party will both be in Parliament to help drive better policies, but that you believe you can attract the most support based on the doubling of National’s vote in 2005.
By demanding ACT hand the leadership over to him or be destroyed, Don has pissed off the very activists that his new party would want to attract. He’s made it a Rodney v Don issue, rather than an issue of how to get better economic reform.
Don’s tactics in 2011 are very similar to his 2003 coup. Coups are normally done behind closed doors and with no media statements. But the key difference is that in 2003 Don was already in caucus. It is different when you are not even a member of the party you seek to lead.
As I said at the beginning, I support what Don is trying to achieve. And I agree with most of what Don says economically. But I don’t think the way he has gone about it has put him in a good light, and hence actually lessens his chances of being able to achieve his goals.
Unless something dramatically changes, it looks like he will not be leading ACT, and he will presumably set up his new party. This is more complicated than one might think. You need a set of rules. You need an initial board. You need rules on who selects candidates, who elects the board, who elects the leader etc. You need principles and policies. You need offices and staff. You need members and activists – and you need money. The last should not be a problem from the sounds of it.
Don Brash says ACT leader Rodney Hide offered to stand aside for him in the blue-ribbon Epsom seat during a secret meeting over the party leadership.
The revelation comes as the fight for ACT’s leadership turns increasingly personal, with Dr Brash putting aside his 15-year friendship with Mr Hide to challenge for the leadership.
Dr Brash spent the weekend phoning ACT MPs and lobbying for their support, with Dunedin-based MP Hilary Calvert and deputy leader John Boscawen holding the deciding votes in the five-person caucus.
His pitch is likely to include a promise that funders will turn the tap back on if he is leader. …
If his leadership bid is rejected, Dr Brash intends launching a new Right-wing party and says he has the backers and funding to do this.
He rejected suggestions that that would split the Right-wing vote: “If I’m successful, it won’t split the vote on the Right; it will collapse the ACT vote.”
Make me your leader or I will destroy you. I never knew Don came from Chicago!
Former National Party leader Don Brash will seek the backing of the Act board on Saturday for an attempt to oust the leader of the party – which he has yet to even join.
It is understood he will form a new party if his bid for the Act leadership fails.
If I was a member of the ACT Board, I would be asking why are all these National Party members trying to take over ACT.
Don Brash and John Banks are both members of National. The rumoured financial backer is not a member of ACT as far as I know.
It is understood he will form a new party if his bid for the Act leadership fails.
Not exactly a deep devotion to ACT then. I won’t join your party unless you agree in advance to make me leader, and if you don’t I wiill set up my own party.
Can you imagine if ACT get 3% but loses Epsom and a Brash led party gets 4%. That 7% wasted vote helping Phil Goff and Winston Peters form a Government.
Former National leader Don Brash is making a bid for a political comeback as ACT party leader – if it will have him.
Dr Brash confirmed yesterday that if he was offered the ACT leadership he would take it, after previously rejecting behind-the-scenes efforts to woo him back to Parliament either as ACT leader Rodney Hide’s deputy or as co-leader.
Dr Brash said he would not contemplate returning to Parliament under either of those scenarios but would if offered the leadership.
I do hope for Don’s sake, that he is not offered it. I don’t think he’ll find it a pleasant experience, and I don’t think he’ll achieve what he wants to achieve. My thoughts are:
Don will not become a Minister, regardless of how ACT polls. John Key declined to offer Don a significant role straight after he replaced him as leader, so I can’t see that he will be of a different mind now. All Don will achieve is a different platform to complain spending is too high (which incidentially I agree with him on). But he won’t actually get to change that.
ACT’s internal politics are toxic at the best of times. If Don replaced Rodney as Leader, he’ll inherit all the infighting and bitching. If he thinks the party will unite behind him, he doesn’t realise ACT is very different to National where there is greater discipline and loyalty.
Don leading ACT will force John Key more to the centre. in fact Key will come under pressure to rule out more and more policies in advance, as the left will have greater ability to scare-monger on them.
Don will be seen as a temporary leader due to his age. No one will thinks he would be leading the party into the 2014 election as he would be 77 by the end of that term.
Don is such a convenient target for the left, that his assuming the leadership will be a significant help to Labour. Problems of morale, activists, union support and even money will be partially solved if he offers himself up as their target. You’ll have Matt McCarten and Chris Trotter both praising Phil Goff as the only man who can save NZ from the spending cuts seen in Ireland and the UK.
The article also says:
There is also speculation that former Auckland mayor John Banks would be keen to stand in Epsom if approached by ACT, suggesting he could be on a Brash ticket. The two men have business ties and speak regularly. Polls have shown that Mr Banks would win Epsom if he stood.
First of all, polls have not shown any such thing.
Secondly I consider John Banks a friend, as I do Don Brash. I certainly think John could still make a contribution to national politics. However I am not sure his brand is that compatible with ACT.
ACT at its heart is a classical liberal party – economically and socially liberal. They have not always kept to that, but many of their key activists are classical liberals. I don’t think John would describe himself as a classical liberal.
There is in fact a nice spot in the political spectrum for a party, which John Banks would be a potential leader of. That is a traditional conservative party – like the Nationals in Australia. Think of it as a party for talkback callers. Now at present NZ first sort of occupies that spot on the spectrum but Winston is of course toxic. But once he is properly buried, then there could well be a role for a conservative party, as well as a classical liberal party.
If I was on the board of ACT, I would not be panicked into anything. They should focus on lifting the party vote and winning Epsom. If going into the election that are polling at 2% or more, then that should give Epsom voters enough of an incentive to vote tactically to ensure John Key remains Prime Minister.
UPDATE: John Banks has said he is definitely not standing.
I was dismayed that the government had taken no action to reinstate youth minimum wages.
This despite National knowing that after Labour abolished youth rates, youth unemployment shot up by 12,000.1
Thanks to Labour’s action and National’s failure to reverse it, thousands and thousands of young people now leave school or training and quickly become demoralized.
These young people don’t have the skills to earn the minimum adult wage – but they’d be quite happy to take a job for a couple of dollars an hour less.
Maybe you can remember doing the same thing – you were thrilled to get a foot on the bottom rung of the job ladder, and it wasn’t long before you worked your way up.
But the Government says these teenagers have to find a boss who’s prepared to pay them an adult wage for no relevant experience and few skills.
Otherwise they have to go on the dole.
If they can’t get a job for $12.75 an hour, they’re not allowed to accept one for, say, $10. They have to go home and lie on the couch for $4.50!
16 year olds with no work experience and skills struggle to find jobs when they have to be paid $13 an hour.
And on the economy generally:
New Zealand’s economic decline over the last half century is one of the steepest on record anywhere.
Reversing that decline won’t be easy.
To use a phrase sometimes used in another context, we dare not settle for the soft bigotry of low expectations that says “ah yes, but New Zealand is a nice place to live”.
Of course it is.
But we need to transform our economic destiny too.
We need to give our people a reason to believe that we can once again offer a standard of living similar to that in other developed countries – as we had only 50 years ago.
In 1975, another National leader, Rob Muldoon, campaigned on “restoring New Zealand’s shattered economy”.
Sadly, he didn’t. By the time he’d finished with it, it was almost totally shattered.
This generation of political leaders must do better.
Don Brash’s speech to the Orewa National Party last night was titled “Return to Orewa”. He covers all the good stuff the Government has done, but also his deep worries. First the good stuff:
The New Zealand economy is out of recession and is growing.
At 6.4% of the workforce, unemployment is lower than in most other developed countries.
Personal income tax rates have been cut significantly.
The Government has moved to allow employers and employees to agree a 90 day probationary period in employment contracts, bringing us broadly into line with all other developed countries.
Steps have been taken to streamline the process of approving building consents for multiple dwellings.
A start has been made on reforming the Resource Management Act.
The Government has ended the moratorium which has prevented the establishment of new aquaculture areas for the last decade.
And to cap it all off, the Government, and the Prime Minister personally, stand high in the polls!
And one can add some more around cutting bureaucracy, better use of the health dollar, tertiary education changes and national standards.
The last bullet point is also rather important. If you lose the goodwill of the people, then you lose the next election. And the problem isn’t that some MPs lose their job, but that all the good policy changes you have made, get reversed and worse by a change of Government.
I worry that, despite knowing that the Labour Government’s abolition of the youth minimum wage has very substantially increased youth unemployment – by 12,000 according to Canterbury University economics professor Eric Crampton – we have taken no action (indeed, we voted against Roger Douglas’s Bill to reinstate the youth minimum wage), so that thousands and thousands of young people leave school or training and quickly become demoralized, deprived of the opportunity to support themselves, with all the social and personal harm that that does.
This is a topic I have blogged on often, and do agree with Don on. The abolition of the youth minimum wage has been devastating to the employment prospects of young people.
I know the Government doesn’t want to be seen to be “cutting wages”, but what disappoints me is they have not even attempted to have a discussion with the voting public on this issue. And there are compromise options such as freezing the current youth rate in place, and allowing the adult rate to increase over time, so there will be enough of a difference for employers to have an incentive to give that 17 year old their first job.
I worry that, despite telling New Zealanders before the electito on that we should be fast followers and not leaders in the race to reduce carbon emissions, we have introduced an all-sectors Emissions Trading Scheme in a situation where none of our three largest trading partners – Australia, China, and the United States – has yet done so, nor in two of those cases seems likely to do so.
This one I am okay with. Firstly the 2008 manifesto said National supported an all sectors all gases scheme. Secondly I think the scheduled review in 2011 will take pragmatic steps such as agriculture not entering, if there is no sign of a global post-Kyoto agreement.
I worry that, despite being a party which believes in allowing people the maximum freedom to make choices for themselves, we have to date done nothing to allow more freedom for parents to choose the school their children attend.
I’d love to see National campaign in 2011 on school choice, full funding of schools (incl salaries) and performance pay. But that was not the 2008 policy, or indeed the 2005 policy if I recall it.
First, it is absolutely imperative that Government gets its fiscal deficit under control quickly. Bill English knows this of course, and has started the process by putting a much tighter limit in place for new government spending. He’s also doing his best to condition opinion by warning that restraint on government spending will be needed for years ahead.
The Government is trying to get rid of the deficit by restricting future spending increases, rather than cutting existing spending. It is pretty finely balanced as to whether they will pull it off. Those with larger deficits like the UK and Ireland have had to actually cut spending. It isn’t popular but it is necessary in those countries.
If National had known in mid 2008 what would happen with the global recession, I don’t think it would have promised to leave Working for Families and interest free student loans untouched. I am not someone who advocates they should break their word on those policies. But what I do advocate is that National should seriously consider whether they should signal changes in the 2011 election manifesto. I do believe the public understand that you can not spend money you do not have. In the UK, polls have shown that a majority of people support spending cuts to reduce the deficit.
As the 2025 Taskforce argued in its recent report, the argument for privatisation is different today than it was in the eighties. No longer are government trading operations grossly inefficient; nor is our government debt yet at dangerous levels. Rather, the argument for privatisation today is that, by selling SOEs into the private sector, we empower them to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the future in a way which is impossible while they remain in state ownership. Nokia is today one of the world’s foremost producers of mobile phones, but it began life as a company producing lumber and electricity. If it had been in government ownership, it would still be producing lumber and electricity.
Interestingly, even Labour have started to edge away from their previous zealotry on this issue. I will do a separate blog on this, but Labour have talked about private ownership stakes in subsidiaries of SOEs. That is progress.
As a Party, we need to be at the forefront of challenging why the state should be:
• The biggest owner of dairy farms in New Zealand;
• The biggest fund managers in New Zealand;
• The 50% owner of a large chain of petrol stations;
• By far the biggest owner of rental properties;
• The dominant generator of electricity;
• The dominant owner of our trains and planes;
• The owner of our most aggressively growing bank.
What frustrates me is when parties freeze the status quo, and have blanket bans on any sales at all. Decisions on ownership should be taken on a case by case basis.
One of the problems in any democratic society is that when left-of-centre parties are in power they tax heavily the high-income minority to win votes from the majority. For at least a time, they can be almost guaranteed of winning if they take $1,000 off one voter and give $200 to each of five voters (after clipping the ticket on the way through of course!). Right-of-centre governments feel obliged to continue that policy, even where it violates their constitution and destroys the country’s future. The problem is that, unless those policies are reversed from time to time, we get a steady increase in the size of government, and a steady increase in the tax burden carried by the most productive members of our community. It takes courage, vision and moral purpose to reverse that trend.
I agree, and this must become a goal of the Government – to have a minority, not a majority, dependent on the state for income. When you add up all those on welfare, all those who receive Working for Families, those on national super, and those directly employed by the state, you end up with a lot of people whose personal interests are bettered by having a larger state, even if over time it inevitably means a smaller economy as a whole.
I’ve embedded Don’s speech below, so people can read it in its entirety, rather than just the few quotes that the media take from it. I don’t agree with all of it (as one would expect) and think it is important for National to be seen as keeping their word, but the issues Don raises are ones the Government needs to keep at top of mind when they start putting together their 2011 manifesto.
The way in which the National and Labour parties slapped down a welcome entrance by Don Brash into the vexed issue of superannuation did them absolutely no credit.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, and Labour’s deputy leader, Annette King, were guilty of burying their heads even further in the sand as they insisted, in effect, that there was no problem.
Both said there was no need to change either the qualifying age or payment levels of NZ Superannuation.
And they are both wrong. The changes don’t need to be made today, but they do need to be made by 2025 (in my opinion) and the earlier we do it, the easier the transition period is.
Now Dr Brash has offered a further alternative. He suggests, as have many others, that the age of entitlement should be raised from 65 to 67. But he would also allow people to retire earlier or later on different superannuation rates.
Under Dr Brash’s scheme, people who chose to take the pension early would be paid at a lower rate over the rest of their lifetimes compared to those who claimed it later.
This would not directly reduce the cost of NZ Superannuation – the amount paid out would be equivalent to drawing the pension at the age of eligibility – but it would encourage people to continue working longer, and to continue paying tax.
Don’s proposal has some interesting aspects to it.
As Maori have lower life expectancy than non-Maori, the option to retire earlier at 60 could be appealing to many Maori. If you are likely to be dead by 70, would you rather than ten years on a pension at a lower rate or five years at a higher rate?
On the other hand, if you are in good health and reckon you will be okay until 80, you might well be happy to not claim superannuation until you are 70, if it means then a higher pension for the rest of your life.
There are challenges with Don’s proposal also. But it is a debate worth having.
The controversial 2025 Task Force – which recommended slashing government spending – blew its entire three-year budget for chairman Don Brash’s meeting fees in just one year.
Dr Brash was paid $1200 a day to chair the commission, and the Government expected to pay him for eight full days of meetings and preparation in 2009-10 and four days for the following two years.
But documents made public by Treasury show Dr Brash received $39,450 in the first year – four times the amount earmarked for his first year on the taskforce.
Other members, who were paid $1000 a day, received $34,000 – $2000 above the estimated budget for 10 meetings.
The task force came in under budget, however, because it did not spend as much as anticipated on outside experts – out of a $100,000 budget just $18,913 was spent.
Dr Brash said the cost of his fees reflected the fact that he was working “close to fulltime” on the 2025 report. “I certainly worked a lot more than 10 days … working with the author, working through drafts etc.”
So in fact the taskforce under-spent by around $50,000 but that isn’t as good a headline. Neither is a headline about how Don saved the taxpayer money by doing more of the work himself, rather than engaging external parties.
Incidentally an hourly rate of $150 is massively cheap for a former Reserve Bank Governor. Hell junior lawyers get charged out at more than that.
Loading ...
