Free Press
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&A 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&A 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