Free Press: Popular Measure Passes
Free Press
ACT’s new
regular bulletin
Popular Measure Passes
ACT’s Bill to
extend pub and club licensing hours has passed into law in
time for the Rugby World Cup. Parliament voted for the Bill
five-votes-to-one so that people will be able to watch the
rugby when games (held in the UK) fall outside normal
licencing hours.
The Wowser’s View
Opponents approached the two week debate on the Bill as if New Zealanders should only have rights if they could justify having them. The common refrain was, you don’t ‘need’ to watch the rugby in a pub. If you really ‘need’ to do so then you don’t ‘need’ alcohol. It was a view that people are inherently bad and must be restrained by default.
A Victory for
Freedom
We started from the opposite position,
that people should be free to do as they please unless
restraints on their freedom could be justified. Nobody
strictly ‘needed’ this Bill, but by that logic we
don’t need pubs, alcohol, rugby or the RWC either. It
would be a dreary life if we could only do what the
busybodies believe we need. Thankfully Parliament
overwhelmingly voted for freedom.
The Most
Authoritarian Party
Three quarters of votes
against the bill were cast by Green MPs. The Greens have
cultivated an image of being the party of the young and
free. This is mainly thanks to the lingering suspicion they
all smoke a lot of pot, and slick graphics campaigns
featuring models standing in front of nice scenery. In
reality they are the party of aging professional politicians
who have a rule for everything (where you live, how you get
there, what you eat, how you feel about the Treaty, what
kind of school you attend, what sort of industries we should
all work in, and now where you can watch the
rugby).
Not as Authoritarian as
Muldoon!
When called authoritarian, new Green
co-leader James Shaw didn’t deny it. Instead he tweeted
that at least they’re not as authoritarian as Muldoon!
It’s a start.
Internal Chaos
In two
weeks on a simple bill, the Greens were opposed, supportive,
then opposed again. All of their concerns about the bill
were sincerely considered at Committee Stage – what was
going on? Free Press wonders if there is not already
a power struggle in caucus between Kevin Hague, who lost the
leadership and bitterly opposed the RWC Bill, and James Shaw
who won it.
Just Legislate Easter Sunday
Trading
The National Party has decided to make
Easter Sunday Trading a problem for local authorities. No
doubt this will lead to the kind of local wrangling that
made it necessary for Parliament to legislate the Rugby
World Cup opening times over local bodies’ heads.
IfFree Press was in charge, we’d just legislate
that folks can open on Easter Sunday. It shouldn’t be
complicated that in a free and open society, some go to the
altar, others to the gardening centre. Peace.
Paid
Parental Leave
David Seymour debated Sue Moroney on Q + A this
weekend. Moroney favours extending paid parental leave to
26 weeks, then 52 weeks, then…. who knows? It is classic
Labour playbook, more tax and dependency. Seymour is
negotiating with the National Party for premature babies,
multiple births, and babies with special
needs.
Social Insurance
Prem,
multiple, and special needs babies are perfect candidates
for the taxpayer to give something extra to. Why?
There’s no moral hazard, unlike many state benefits (think
claims to ACC for a ‘bad back’) there is no way to
deliberately take advantage of the scheme. It is easy to
tell if the event has happened (count the weeks, count the
babies, diagnose the condition). The event is unexpected so
difficult to plan for.
Vote Buying
The
opposite of social insurance is showering an ever increasing
amount of money on a particular cause or group. Labour
introduced PPL in 2002 (an election year) then extended it
in 2004 when National’s polling recovered. Jacinda Ardern
claims it was fiscally responsible to do so because the
Government of the day was in surplus, but Sue Moroney
introduced her bill for 26 weeks PPL when the government was
$9 billion in deficit. There is no fiscal responsibility or
principle behind Labour’s demands, but they know that
it’s a feel good measure that will win
votes.
Greatly Exaggerated
Importance
60,000 children are born in New
Zealand every year but only 26,000 parents take paid
parental leave so it is not even close to universal. Even if
it was, having kids is now a 20 year proposition and an
extra four weeks of $500 payments does not address the main
challenges faced by would-be parents. The real challenges
are the ongoing costs of tax and
housing.
Tax
Income tax, GST, petrol
tax, and company tax drag a third of all money out of the
economy. Behind housing, tax is the largest expense that
young couples face. The irony is that Moroney-style
tax-and-spend politics is one of the greatest burdens faced
by young couples.
Housing
Since the
early nineties the price of housing vis-à-vis incomes has
doubled. This is the greatest challenge young couples face
and, of course, Labour has Little to say about this issue
other than proposing the government build 100,000 houses
(where?).
Generational Fairness
The
PPL proposal is a band-aid on a generational grievance. If
Free Press did support extending paid parental leave
to 26 weeks ($130m), it could be paid for by raising the age
of entitlement to Superannuation by two months (i.e. you’d
get it at 65 years 2 Months instead of 65 years). How many
grandparents would work another two months to allow their
children to stay home with their Grandchildren? How many
parties other than ACT support raising the retirement age?
(Hint: not National, Labour, NZ First, the Greens, the Maori
Party or United Future.)
Handouts or
Dividends?
Late last week David Seymour put out
a press release saying, “It is incredibly arrogant, even
by their standards, for Auckland Council to include the
Auckland Energy Consumer Trust in its asset review as a
‘potential asset’.” He went on to note that "It would
be manifestly unjust for Auckland Council to expropriate
that asset and redistribute it to Aucklanders who did sell
out of their respective trusts years ago – especially as
this year’s dividend to each AECT household is increasing
to $345." For some reason this seems to have upset and
excited long term Auckland resident Brian Rudman, who
emailed David apparently distressed that he “and other
interlopers” keep helping themselves to “my money”,
getting what he described as “handouts” (FYI Brian, they
are dividends from an ownership right, not handouts, which
is why the council shouldn’t be trying to knick
them).
What Determines the Ownership
Right?
The owners of the AECT are all people
living in the area. The benefit is bundled with the
property ownership in the area. You don’t need to have
been living in the area since 1993, when the old power board
was privatised. You effectively get the benefit from it
when you sell a property, and pay for it when you buy a
property. It’s simple Econ 101. If we followed Rudman's
logic to its conclusion, any trust, company or co-op is fair
game for nationalisation if any of its ownership has been
transferred. That would include Fonterra, the entire NZX,
and all electricity trusts, but that's Rudman's logic for
you!