Free Press
Assisted Dying Debate Intensifies
With public submissions to the select committee inquiry on assisted dying closing today, coverage has gone wild. A very
balanced piece from Nick Jones at the Herald here. A reader Q with David Seymour on Stuff here. An interview with Paul Henry here. And while some opponents continue their breath-taking dishonesty on the matter David Seymour takes them to task courtesy of Metro Magazine here. The official site for David’s private members’ bill including a detailed Q is here: www.lifechoice.org.nz
Conference Registrations are Strong
ACT’s conference will have a bumper line up, we won’t run through the whole program here but please have a look, it is on February 27 in Auckland.
Glory Days
Winston Peters hoped that making a speech about Maori rights at Orewa Rotary Club might give him a Don Brash style
boost. He turned up an hour late and his speech was barely reported. Winston is no Don Brash.
The Water Problem
The issue of water ownership has been bubbling away over the summer. Who owns water? Does that question even make sense?
What changes are being proposed? Is the government going to effectively gift water rights to Maori nationwide or
compensate certain Iwi who have legitimate claims? How should legitimate claims by Iwi be dealt with?
ACT’s View on Water
Peters probably writes his policies out on the back of a coaster, but ACT takes these matters more seriously. Leader
David Seymour has written a comprehensive opinion on the water issue (with a nice short summary at the front). You can read it here.
Money for Votes
While Peters was trying to relive 2004, Labour was in 2005. Last time they were popular was when they won an election by
handing over taxpayer money to tertiary graduates in the form of interest free student loans.
Junkies
The trouble with election bribes is that you need bigger and bigger ones to keep getting a hit. Labour started bribing
tertiary students with no-interest-while-you’re-studying in 1999. The students’ gratitude lasted them through an
election cycle then they needed a bigger hit. They offered no interest forever in 2005 and now they propose just
scrapping the loans.
A Short History
Once upon a time people were practically paid to study, if only they could get admission. It was a great system for
those sitting their exams at Auckland Grammar, less so for those doing physics by correspondence from Eketahuna. It was
an inequitable system, and it relied on the government deciding which courses to fund.
Market Reforms
In the late ‘80s Labour introduced a new proposition from taxpayers to students: We’ll fund your tertiary education up
to 75 per cent if you’re committed enough to pay the other 25 per cent. Then the government started loaning students the
25 per cent with no security on generous terms.
The Latest Offer
Labour is now proposing to whack the hapless taxpayer for $1.2 billion to fund three years of free tertiary education
for everybody. Students having skin in the game is critical for course quality, but under Labour they won’t even have to
borrow one quarter of their costs interest free.
The Result
Universities New Zealand, who represent the Universities, are already worried that Labour’s policy will affect course
quality. Interest free loans had a similar effect on course quality. Since the introduction of interest free loans, the
University of Auckland has dropped from 46th in the world to 82nd, and Otago from 79th to 183rd (only those two are
regularly ranked worldwide).
ACT’s View
The student loan scheme is reasonable. The average debt after three years’ study is $28,000 by graduation time. However,
over the past three years the average house price has risen $76,000 nationwide (we were too scared to look up the figure
for Auckland). The runaway housing market is hitting students’ long term aspirations three times harder than the student
loan scheme. If Labour wanted to help young people they would reform land use planning, among other housing measures.
A Scarier Proposal
The Greens’ big policy idea is far more dangerous. On the face of it, who could be against Treasury costing political
parties’ proposals?
Democrats, That’s Who
For hundreds of years in democratic countries people have sent representatives to parliament to restrain the King or
President or whoever was threatening their liberties. When the government starts interfering in the very elections
designed to restrain it, we have a problem. New Zealand actually sends observers to third world countries to make sure
this isn’t happening.
Treasury Starts Costing Proposals
ACT nearly always supports cutting tax. We do this partly because government is wasteful, but also because high taxes
discourage wealth creation and cutting tax stimulates growth. How much growth? There is a debate about this, so how much
tax cut stimulus would be allowed for in a Treasury costing?
Rule by Elites
If it’s taken seriously, the Greens proposal means that Treasury, not the voter would have to settle the tax stimulus
argument among many other inevitable policy disputes. Would they be subtly influenced by the elected government of the
day, which government departments are supposed to loyally serve?
The Most Authoritarian Party
The Greens’ plan was to shift to the centre, showing business they believed in Treasury costings, but they have now
advocated undermining democracy at a fundamental level. The irony of the Greens is that they are the most authoritarian
party despite their breezy
ENDS