Kiwiblog

An interesting post from Jordan Carter on Sir Roger Douglas, whom he will be up against in Hunua. Some extracts and comments:

He is the prime salesman of the concepts which created poverty in New Zealand for the first time in two generations.

Okay so there was no poverty under Muldoon. Must remember that.

He stands for an unfair society based on concepts of right and privilege that are abhorrent to ordinary New Zealanders.

Now note here he doesn’t just attack Sir Roger’s policies but says Sir Roger is motivated by privilege. He can’t possibly concede that Sir Roger (as someone who served in Labour for far longer than Jordan) wants the same outcomes as Jordan, but just disagrees on the way to do it. No, there is an inability to credit your opponent with noble motives. You disagree with them, so they must be bad people is what he is saying.

His agenda is the same agenda he had in 1988: it is pulled right out of the deep freeze, an obsolete, out of date prescription for the problems our country faced twenty years ago. Everything has moved on except the Year Zero fanaticism of Sir Roger Douglas, ACT and most of the National Party.

Nice allusion to Pol Pot there. And note that Jordan doesn’t just paint Sir Roger as that, but all of ACT and most of National.

So I appreciate ACT’s honesty: Sir Roger and friends know what they stand for and are prepared to talk about it. Which is why having him as an opponent in Hunua is just brilliant. We’ll be able to debate reality, not the faux shadowboxing that is my National Party opponent’s only offer.

What would be nice is if he debates policies, instead of slogans.

Two announcements were made yesterday regarding Sir Roger Douglas. The minor one was regarding which seat he would stand in, and the decision to choose Hunua is no surprise as he lives there. His brother, Malcolm Douglas, is a former MP for Hunua and will be his campaign manager.

The more significant announcement is that he accept whatever list ranking the members give him. Previously indications are he would be lower down the list to give ACT supporters a target to work towards (such as “If we get 5% we get Sir Roger back), but now it seems Sir Roger will be No 3 or maybe even No 2.

To get three MPs ACT needs around 2.5% of the vote which is certainly plausible.

Who from ACT would become a Minister, if an agreement with National can be achieved, would be interesting. You see if you do only have three MPs, then they won’t all get to be Ministers. In fact realistically only one of them would be. So would Rodney (who would be in his 5th term) and Heather be content being backbenchers if they push Sir Roger to take up a ministerial role? And the converse also goes – would Sir Roger be content being a backbencher with Rodney in Cabinet?

Yes that is Rodney, with his 15 year old co-star in school pantomime. This sets a new standard for what local MPs will do for their constituents

ACT have released a 20 point plan on an A4 pledge card. I have to say I think it is very smart work, and a good combination of the skills of Roger Douglas and John Ansell, plus of course Rodney. Sir Roger loves having 10 and 20 point plans for everything, while John’s use of plain language shines through. Each proposal lists other countries where the policy is working well (showing it is practical), spells out the benefits in clear language and estimates what a difference it will make to economic growth and the average weekly pay for a NZer.

I enjoyed that under their privatisation line, the countries they list as successfully implementing that policy are “Practically all except Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea”.

Their full list of proposed policies are:

1. Government waste. Cut state spending to Australian levels.
2. Tax. Cut and flatten rates.
3. Local government. Limit to core activities.
4. Public service: Close departments we don’t need, Reduce bureaucracy, Return bureaucracy to non-political role, Limit Cabinet to 12 ministers, Limit Parliament to 100 MPs.
5. Red tape. Get rid of all nutty regulations, Appoint Minister of Regulatory Reform, Pass Regulatory Responsibility Act to set checklist for good lawmaking.
6. Resource management. Reform the Resource Management Act.
7. Education. Create competitive market.
8. Healthcare. Create competitive market.
9. Accident compensation. Create competitive market — as used to work well here.
10. Welfare. Create competitive markets for sickness, invalid, and unemployment insurance.
11. Immigration. Welcome more good quality immigrants.
12. Labour. Allow freedom of contract to make it easier to trial new workers and replace poor performers.
13. Privatisation. Sell state businesses where private fi rms can serve customers better.
14. Infrastructure. Build better networks (e.g. roads, water, electricty). Replace user charges with tolls that reward off-peak use.
15. Tariffs. Cut remaining tariffs on imports. Strengthen bonds with the US.
16. Housing. Free up more land for homes.
17. Law and order: Bring back private prisons _ now best practice overseas, Let private firms free up cops for ‘zero tolerance’ policing, Speed up courts (e.g. night courts) to reduce unfair delays.
18. Climate change. Adopt saner policies. Low carbon tax better than carbon trading.
19. Constitutional framework. Strengthen. Adopt Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Pass Regulatory Responsibility Act _ to set checklist for good lawmaking. Return to Privy Council. Hold referendum on MMP voting system.
20. Families at risk. Appoint mentors to teach parenting and life skills.

Again congrats to ACT for putting up very clear policies, in an well articulated manner. Of course I do not agree with all of them, but there are certainly some that have wide support from the centre right.

Scoop has an in depth interview with Rodney Hide. This is what I like about online media – one can see a full transcript. Some interesting extracts:

Campbell : So you consider yourself a libertarian?

Hide : Yeah.

Campbell : But you don’t regard taxation, in principle, as theft ?

Hide : I don’t see that argument helps. Saying that something is theft. Because technically. it isn’t. I understand that taxation is a compulsory taking – but its not theft in the sense that…however you look at it, Parliament has made it legal. It doesn’t make it right.

Campbell : So it is wrong in principle, but OK in law?

Hide : Having excessive tax of course is wrong in principle. But I don’t think saying that taxation is theft is correct. Our definition in New Zealand of what is theft is : what is against the law. And amazingly, our Parliament makes…you know, tax legal. I don’t think its on the cards that we could live in a totally voluntary society, where there is no tax.

Don’t tell Lindsay Perigo that Rodney called himself a libertarian, but I think he gets it right when he says some tax is okay, but excessive taxation is wrong. Taxation is a privilege, not a right!

Campbell : I’ll re-phrase. Do you see human beings as being responsible for the global warming that the IPCC sees as occurring right now ?

Hide : OK, that’s a better question. Um… whether its anthropogenic. I think there is an influence. I think its arguable how much. And that’s not clear. We do not know the exact influence that humans have had on the world’s climate. It requires a theoretical understanding largely based on models. If we accept the IPCC – which isn’t a bad starting point, right? The political question is what then do we do? I think that has two components. The first is that we have to worry seriously about our trade, and our international standing because we could find ourselves very easily shut out of the world. Which would be horrific. So we’ve got to be, to use the phrase, ‘ global citizens’ on this one. I think Kyoto One was a mistake.

It is worth reading the full exchange. Like the religion it has become, Rodney was asked if he “believes” in global warming. He refused to play ball and kept pointing out the wrong questions were being asked until a sensible question was asked.

Campbell : Some people use private schools and healthcare. Would Act give them a tax break for doing so, and why?

Hide : Better than that, we would actually provide the full amount for everyone. So we think the state shouldn’t have a preference for state schools over private schools. So we think we should fund every child and that means essentially a scholarship for every child. So those who are already sending their child to an independent school would basically receive the money they are saving today, by sending their children there. Parents currently sending their children to a state school would have the option of sending their child to an independent school, without the financial burden that’s there at present.

Campbell : Isn’t that just education vouchers by another name?

Hide : Sure.

Nice to see an MP not try and do an Orwellian spin.

Campbell : Can you tell me exactly how educational vouchers would lift everyone’s boat, and raise educational outcomes nationwide?

Hide : Sure. This is the experience since 1992 in Sweden. Which is hardly a shining bastion of libertarianism. Or freedom. But they adopted Act’s policy in 1992. To show you how effective its been, all the political parties in their Parliament now support it. The only party to oppose it are the former Communists. Why they found was…only a small percentage, and I forget the number of students, took advantage of the opportunity to shift schools, But as soon as schools were in danger of losing their roll, they actually lifted their game and they took parents seriously.

Where new schools most appeared were in the disadvantaged areas – most obviously amongst the new immigrant areas. Which is quite logical. Where people are sort of well off, well heeled and well incomed even within the state school system they get schools that are, you know, good. Where you find poor areas you find it harder to maintain even a decent state school, And where you have minority cultural groups that don’t necessarily reflect their requirements for education….and so, that’s what happened in Sweden.

This hits the nail on the road. When you get stronger incentives to perform, then performance lifts. Anyone who argues that incentives don’t influence behaviour, has little experience outside a textbook.

Campbell : Could you clarify for me – is Sir Roger intimating to you that he’d like to be in an electable position on the party list?

Hide : Yes.

Campbell : So one could expect him to be two or three – not nine or ten?

Hide :Well, I’m thinking and not because I disrespect Roger…but I’m thinking five or six. Because I want people…if they want Roger in Parliament, to vote for the party. And I also want Roger to come back into Parliament and have some influence. And that requires we get more MPs. But that will be a decision for Sir Roger, and for other members in the board, not for the leader to dictate the list.

I have long suspected he would be placed at around No 6, to encourage people to give ACT 5%. Whether they will, is quite another matter.

Roger Douglas defends his proposals in the NZ Herald and rejects the “hard right” label.

Now most people know my personal economic views. If I was designing a country from scratch, I would adopt many of Sir Roger’s policies. But that is not the same as putting forward a policy platform which reflects NZ today, yet moves in the right direction.

What is interesting is that Sir Roger mentions his proposals on health and education and taxation, but doesn’t cover the aspect which I suspect most set off glee in the Beehive – namely to cut current spending by $3 to $5 billion. That is what made his proscription somewhat toxic to many. The fact he does not repeat this in his article, suggests to me he knows it.

It is one thing to say we will not increase spending as fast as Labour (which does reduce it as a % of GDP).  But it is quite another to start talking about a 10% reduction in current spending.  NZers will equate that with a huge cut in education, health and other public services.

The proposal to tax exempt the 1st $20K of income is a desirable end goal, to minimise the deadweight cost of tax churning.  But suggesting one can end up there in just a few years is not credible. Peter Costello and now Kevin Rudd are heading towards that goal, but only by having a small reduction every year consistently year after year – not a big bang solution. It will take Australia 15 years of tax cutting to get to that situation.
In fact one thing which I have wondered,  is how much less revenue would occur under the proposed tax policy.  Let’s take them one by one:

1. Reduce top tax rate to 33c = $900 million according to Treasury budget documents
2. No tax on 1st $20K of income. This is a bit harder to work out as you need to go to the tax tables showing income in each band.  I calculate there is $26.2 billion at the 15% rate which is $3.9 billion and $22.6 billion between $9,500 and $20,000 which at 21% is $4.7 billion.  That is a total of $8.7 billion.  However Treasury advise to offset this by 17.31% to allow for extra GST etc so net change is $7.2 billion
3. Adjusting tax brackets to 1999 levels takes a bit of calculation also.  The CPI increased 24% since Dec 1999. But we have already got rid of the bottom rate and the top rate. Hence the only threshold we need to adjust is the 21c/33c threshold at $38,000. It would move to $47,000 with CPI adjustment ad would cost $1.1 billion

So the total annual revenue reduction would be $9.2 billion.

John Armstrong is puzzled by ACT:

Thursday morning’s press briefing was designed to garner more publicity for Act off the back of Sir Roger’s high-profile return to the party’s inner sanctum.

It sure did that. But it was sloppy tactical thinking on Act’s part.

When the party is on 1%, and it presents a programme as if it is the party on 50%, then no wonder it got short shift. It would be like Jim Anderton demanding that the Government abolish the armed forces, increase all benefits by 20%, and hike taxes.

Key was immediately put on the spot. Would he be torn between loyalty to a centre-right ally or preserving his party’s support? It was no contest.

Key was forthright. National would not sell voters down the river by presenting itself as a pragmatic, moderate conservative party before the election only to run an Act-instigated far right agenda in Government afterwards. And no, Sir Roger would not be a member of his Cabinet.

It was a faultless display from the new “decisive” Key – but one once again made on the defensive.

High praise – a faultless display. I’m actually fairly annoyed that the media demanded that what was an incredibly hypothetical question – having Douglas in Cabinet – be ruled out.  As Bill English had said earlier, the party is at 1% (2% in latest Morgan pollI note though) so it is far from certain Douglas would even be an MP.

Act may need Sir Roger’s agenda for re-branding purposes. His ideas are a lot more exciting than Hide’s endless mention of his red-tape cutting Regulatory Responsibility Bill. But there is a consequent risk Sir Roger could overshadow Act’s leader.

I must say as Sir Roger outlined his prescription, I did wonder if he had been given the power to unilaterally set ACT policy.

The other question is how Sir Roger’s broad-brush reforms would square with Hide’s strategy of developing bottom-line positions on just two or three issues from which Act hopes to extract policy concessions from National. The lesson from Thursday is that parties on the same side of the political spectrum are mutually obliged not to do things which end up disadvantaging both.

Exactly. Hide’s strategy is sound – a modest number of bottom-line positions which will give ACT some wins, but not make it look like the tail is wagging the dog. Obviously the more seats a party gains, the more influence they get.

If Act can win three or four seats, it will make it easier for National to form a Government. It is win-win for both parties.

However, Thursday’s behaviour was lose-lose by jeopardising National’s grip on centre-ground voters and in the process Act’s big chance of being in Government.

Act cannot afford to upset National by overplaying its limited hand. Its bargaining power is weak. Hide has to vote with National or feel the wrath of Epsom voters.

If Douglas is seen as the de facto leader or policy setter, and is proposing too radical an agenda, then Epsom voters may get nervous.

NZ First is the obvious candidate. Ignored this week was Winston Peters’ reinforcement of his earlier declaration that NZ First will negotiate first with the party that wins the most seats. He has now added the following: “We will work with the party the voters tell us to.” It is a signal he is willing to enter serious negotiations with National.

It was highly significant. NZ First did not say they will give first priority to the biggest bloc, but the biggest party. So even if Labour/Greens combined get more seats that National, National still gets first negotiation.

Several items re ACT.

Claire Trevett in the Herald talks to John Ansell:

He said right-wing parties internationally had difficulty portraying that they had “heart” – and his main job was to put heart into right-wing policies.

The strategy showed in a presentation he made to Act’s conference at the weekend, when he showed an ad depicting “the priorities of Labour.”

It said Labour could afford $25 million to save an endangered snail, but could not afford the same amount to fund Herceptin for women with breast cancer.

“We’ve got a default socialist country, but we are killing people with kindness.

“People think if you throw money at people, you’re caring for them. It’s not only incorrect, it’s immoral … ‘

I think people will be hearing more on the $25 million on snails instead of Herceptin.

Tracy Watkins says Sir Roger is being lined up for Cabinet. I think people should wait to see his list ranking before they get excited.

And finally Blair Mulholland gets so excited he wants to be ACT’s candidate in Mt Albert.

Roger Douglas is interviewed in the HoS, and they suggest he may stand in Hunua, where he lives.

His motivation for standing is closing the economic growth and wage gap with Australia by 2020.

To a standing ovation, Sir Roger Douglas has announced he will stand for ACT – as an electorate candidate, NZPA has reported.

This is smart politics.  The people who hate Roger Douglas will never vote ACT anyway, but it is a fairly strong symbolic gesture to those who supported the 80s reforms.

As far as I understand Douglas does not wish to actually win a seat, and is not after a high list ranking.

The ACT conference is this weekend. ACT are showing some promising signs of recovery, even though early days. Having Sir Roger Douglas back in the mainstream will send a strong message to core supporters that ACT is still needed, and should be supported.

John Key’s move to the centre has opened up ripe territory for ACT. They should be able to at least get a third MP if they position themselves smartly.

They’ve also recruited the very talented John Ansell to help with their campaign. John will now have the distinction of having worked on a Labour campaign (1993), National (2005) and ACT (2008).

UPDATE: A very good article was in Wednesday’s Herald on ACT, by Geoffrey Miller who wrote his honours dissertation on them.

Just received an automated voice spam call on my voicemail.  From Roger Douglas, promoting his speech at the ACT Party Conference.  Presumably is being done by ACT.  I have serious doubts that the annoyance it causes to so many people is worth the number of positive responses they get.

It looks like Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide have made up. Good. ACT needs to be united to do well. A centre-right Government is more likely is ACT and United Future both do relatively well.  If both parties are restricted to one seat each, then National really needs at least 59 seats to govern without having to be reliant on the Maori Party.  Maybe more than 59 if there is more than one overhang seat.

But if ACT and United Future can each get say three MPs, then National/ACT/United Future can govern with National just getting say 55 or 56 MPs.