Labour Must Refer Youth Wing Incident to Police

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Labour Must Refer Youth Wing Incident to Police




ACT Leader David Seymour has challenged the Labour Party to refer allegations that minors were drinking alcohol at a Young Labour camp to Police.

Section 241(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 stipulates that a “person who supplies alcohol to a minor commits an offence”. 

“In 2012, Labour MPs were incensed over National’s supposedly weak approach to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill, including provisions relating to the supply of alcohol to minors”, says Mr Seymour.

“At least 11 Labour MPs including David Clark, Andrew Little, Phil Twyford, Iain Lees-Galloway, Aupito William Sio, and Louisa Wall drafted amendments aimed at beefing up minimum pricing, advertising and sponsorship, warning labels, trading hours, and local alcohol policies. 

“Labour’s minority report on the Bill said that an ‘historic opportunity to address the problems that alcohol contributes has been lost.’

“Iain Lees-Galloway called the bill ‘insipid’ and accused then-Justice Minister Judith Collins of doing a deal with a “very well-resourced supermarket lobby” to weaken the bill. 

“Galloway said that supermarket shoppers should be able to shop without being exposed to alcohol. 

“I would suggest that teenagers should be able to attend events organised by political parties without being exposed to alcohol. 

“It beggars belief that the Labour Party – so strong on alcohol reform in opposition – has not referred this matter to Police. It must do so now”, says Mr Seymour.

Free Press, Monday 12 March 2018

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Free Press, Monday 12 March 2018




Who Needs Economics, Anyway? 

New Zealand’s economic fundamentals are under threat from a government determined to tax and spend more of your money. All of the evidence suggests that will make us much poorer. This week, Free Press looks at some of the recent local developments and international evidence with regard to Government spending.

Cullen’s Tax Speech

Michael Cullen says our attitude to tax is “atavistic,” and complains his Tax Working Group will be misrepresented as a “tax grab.” After he suggested we don’t pay enough tax, and then floated at least eight new taxes, Free Press wonders what might give New Zealanders the idea that this working group is a tax grab.

What is a “Behaviour Tax?”

Politicians and bureaucrats love nothing more than drawing up new social engineering plans. Cullen’s speech referred to “behavioural taxes.” Nanny’s back. One such tax will be on sugar. You see, you can’t be trusted to control yourself. There’s a catch with sugar taxes, though – they don’t work.

Whoops – The Evidence on Sugar Taxes

NZIER recently completed a report for the Ministry of Health on sugar taxes. Its conclusions were pretty damning. After reviewing forty-seven studies, NZIER concluded that no study based on actual experience with sugar taxes had identified an impact on health outcomes, and that it hadn’t seen any evidence that imposing a sugar tax would meet a cost-benefit analysis.

Robertson wants a Capital Gains Tax

There’s no doubt that Grant Robertson wants to slap a capital gains tax on New Zealanders. On Q+A this weekend he complained there wasn’t enough “balance” in the tax system, and that the system favoured property speculators. Robertson has misdiagnosed the problem as one of demand when in fact supply is the real issue.

Whoops – The Evidence on Capital Gains Taxes

Putting aside the fact that capital gains taxes are incredibly complex, there’s no evidence that a CGT would help house prices. You only need to ask the people of Sydney, Vancouver, Los Angeles, or London whether or not a capital gains tax has any noticeable effects on price levels in housing markets.

Lower Government Spending Good for Growth

The International Monetary Fund has published a study looking at the best way for countries to reduce their level of debt. It found that cutting spending is less harmful to economic growth than raising taxes. This contradicts the message of Keynesians on the political Left who suggest spending cuts lead to deeper recessions. The Labour-NZ First-Greens recipe of higher taxes and higher spending will deliver lower economic growth, fewer jobs, and lower wages.

Wasting 100K a day

Chris Hipkins’ didn’t get the IMF’s memo, but Free Press will send him a copy. Hipkins has confirmed the Government will this year waste about $38 million of your money on its flagship fees-free policy. In official documents, Hipkins confirmed the dropout rate for first year students studying a bachelor’s degree was 14 per cent. ‘Fees-free’ will cost $275 million this year, so New Zealanders can except about $38 million of their taxes to deliver nothing whatsoever.

Economics 101

We literally taught Econ 101, explaining concepts like elasticity to students. Elasticity measures how much more of a thing is supplied or demanded when the price changes. Things that are supply inelastic get more expensive when demand increases. It would be much easier to explain to students in Wellington today. Student flats are supply inelastic because it’s nearly impossible to build anything under the RMA. As a result, giving students an extra $50 per week has put the price up $50 per week.

Families Commission Makes Useful Contribution to Debate

It caught us off guard too, but we don’t judge the source if the policy is good. Superu (as the Families Commission was renamed a few years back) showed that land use regulations – rules that determine what can be built and where – are choking the ability of the private sector to build new homes.

How Much?

Supply can’t keep up with demand and so prices are going through the roof.  In Auckland, land use regulation could be responsible for up to 56 per cent, or $530,000, of the cost of an average home.  Even if Superu have doubly exaggerated the effect, and bad land use planning has only added a quarter million dollars to the average house price, it would be the most economically vandalous policy we have.

No Move on RMA

ACT can reveal from Written Parliamentary Questions that Cabinet hasn’t even decided whether to think about the RMA, after more than four months in the Beehive.

Will the Nats defend limited government and free markets?

National’s track record as a party of the status quo suggests they will disappoint. They had 9 years to deal with the ballooning cost of Superannuation, meaningfully cut taxes, reduce corporate welfare and corporate taxes, and replace the RMA to deal with house prices. Amy Adams’ elevation to Finance spokesperson isn’t likely to represent a radical break with the Nats’ woeful record. A few days ago, we set out some of the things Adams should do, but won’t.

And ACT?

ACT would cut election bribes and other wasteful spending to deliver a top personal and company tax rate of 25 per cent. That would make the economy hum. Our tax package is here.

ACT Regional Conferences

Our next regional conference is in the Central North Island region in Hamilton this Saturday. If you’re a member anywhere between Taranaki/Hawke’s Bay and the Bombays, you should have received an invitation. If you have not, please email the General Manager danae.smith@act.org.nz.

Phil ‘All Talk’ Twyford Should Get Off Twitter and Replace RMA

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Phil ‘All Talk’ Twyford Should Get Off Twitter and Replace RMA




“Phil Twyford needs to end his petty Twitter spat with Judith Collins and team up with Environment Minister David Parker to replace the Resource Management Act”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“While Phil and Judith are trading insults online, Kiwis are hurting big time.

ACT can reveal from Written Parliamentary Questions that Cabinet hasn’t even decided whether to think about the RMA, after more than four months in the Beehive.

“Twyford and Parker should take a glance at the report produced recently by Superu, a government agency that was disestablished late last year.

“It showed that land use regulations – rules that determine what can be built and where – are choking the ability of the private sector to build new homes.

“In Auckland, land use regulation could be responsible for up to 56 per cent, or $530,000, of the cost of an average home.

“Even if Superu have doubly exaggerated the effect, and bad land use planning has only added a quarter million dollars to the average house price, it would be the most economically vandalous policy we have.

“Twyford and Parker should seek urgent advice from their officials about replacing the RMA as a first step towards making housing more affordable”, says Mr Seymour.

Fees-Free’s Fatal Flaw

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Fees-Free’s Fatal Flaw




“Chris Hipkins has confirmed the Government will this year waste about $38 million of taxpayer money on its flagship fees-free policy”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“In response to a select committee question, Hipkins said the dropout rate for first year students studying a bachelor’s degree was 14 per cent.

“‘Fees-free’ will cost $275 million this year, so New Zealanders can except about $38 million of their taxes to deliver exactly nothing.

“This is a colossal waste, even by Labour’s standards.

“‘Fees-free’ is a subsidy for well-off kids who would have gone to university anyway and who will earn much more over their lives than non-graduates.

”Hipkins should admit failure and scrap it now”, says Mr Seymour.

History Suggests Adams Will Disappoint

Source: ACT Party

Headline: History Suggests Adams Will Disappoint




Now that Amy Adams has been promoted to be National’s Finance Spokesperson, here are a few predictions based on recent history.

Dealing with Superannuation 

By 2060, New Zealand will have 1.7 million superannuitants, or 27 per cent of the population. Every two workers will support one retiree.

Health and superannuation spending will rise to 18 per cent of GDP. As migration and labour force growth slows, so will economic growth and tax revenue.

The Government will be left with a massive fiscal hole. Net debt could hit $3 trillion.

Ardern and Robertson, like Key and English before them, have their heads in the sand.

Adams could make a big statement on the most pressing of our long-term issues by promising to raise the retirement age.

Prediction: National will retain its weak stance of raising the Superannuation age to 67 by 2040.

Actually cutting taxes (not just promising them) 

Steven Joyce talked a big game and promised tax cuts, but never delivered. He then cried crocodile tears when Labour cancelled them.

The fact is that the Key/English regime was Labour-lite.

If Adams is serious about boosting our economy, she’ll give a cast iron assurance that National will cut taxes on return to power.

Prediction: Adams won’t return money to its rightful owners. She believes she knows best how to spend taxpayer money.

Reducing corporate welfare and company taxes

Adams should “Just Say No” to the predilection Simon Bridges developed for corporate welfare while he was Economic Development Minister.

National spent about $13 billion in corporate welfare during its time in office.

There is no public appetite for handouts for politically trendy firms except from politicians seeking photo-ops.

Here’s a radical suggestion: business owners at the coalface know how to invest their money better than politicians sitting in plush Beehive offices.

If Adams promised to cut corporate welfare, the corporate tax rate could be cut to 25%, boosting investment, wages and jobs.

Prediction: The Bridges/Jones corporate welfare gravy train will roll on.

Dealing with tobacco tax

Adams should promise to cancel the four, annual 10 per cent tobacco tax increases National put in place in 2016.

Tobacco taxes have not significantly reduced smoking rates.

Eric Crampton from the NZ Initiative has estimated the new taxes will take $178 million out of the pockets of the poorest New Zealanders.

Aside from punishing the poor, the taxes are also fuelling hundreds of violent dairy robberies.

Prediction: The Nats won’t back down, meaning the poor and dairy owners will continue to be punished.

Dealing with housing costs

Adams should promise a future National government will overhaul the Resource Management Act to boost housing supply and get costs under control.

In 2016, 29% of households spent more than 30% of their income on housing. Only 10% of households did in the late 1980s.

The Government now spends $1.14 billion on accommodation assistance. Arguably, most welfare spending, including welfare spending on the middle class, is due to inflated housing costs.

Prediction: Adams utterly failed to get RMA reform over the line while she was Environment Minister. She won’t deliver this time.

Growing the economy to catch Australia

New Zealand’s economic underperformance relative to Australia is largely a problem of our poor productivity.

Adams should welcome foreign direct investment, which boosts jobs, wages, and growth.

She should promise to cut red tape, allowing firms to get on with their core business.

Adams should also promise to cut taxes across the board, creating incentives for New Zealanders to save, work and invest.

Prediction: National’s commitment to higher taxes, spending, and suffocating regulation will remain.

ACT Leader Pays Tribute to Old Foe

Source: ACT Party

Headline: ACT Leader Pays Tribute to Old Foe




ACT Leader David Seymour has today acknowledged Steven Joyce’s contribution to New Zealand politics.

“If Steven Joyce didn’t exist, we’d have to invent a new arch-enemy. Who else could sell Jim Anderton-esque corporate welfare and Soviet-style ‘economic development’ as business-friendly in a cool shade of blue?

“Thankfully, we will not have to invent a successor to Mr Joyce. When it comes to producing political heirs, Mr Joyce has been nearly as prolific as his namesake across the ditch.

“New corporate welfare czars and ‘economic developers’ are lining up to fill his place. Whether it be Simon “We Did It First” Bridges, Shane “Billion Trees” Jones, or David “Economic Development” Parker, Mr Joyce’s legacy will live on.

“By some estimates, National spent $13 billion on corporate welfare during its time in office. The new Government’s Provincial Growth Fund has simply given these handouts a new name.

“In all seriousness though, ACT wishes Mr Joyce well on his life outside politics”, says Mr Seymour.

Will Labour Repeat Nats’ Fail Mark on NCEA?

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Will Labour Repeat Nats’ Fail Mark on NCEA?




“The New Zealand Initiative’s new report Spoiled By Choice is a severe indictment on the National Party, whose targets for NCEA pass rates severely distorted the system, and a massive challenge for Labour, who are now promising change”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“The thoroughly-researched report calls New Zealand’s whole secondary school qualifications framework into question.

“I set this problem out in my election year book, Own Your Future, when I said: ‘The government understands the importance of education, but its Better Public Service targets have just helped disguise the problem by encouraging schools to massage data. While the Ministry of Education crows that more eighteen year olds are leaving High School with NCEA Level 2 qualifications, international evidence shows that in objective tests that aren’t graded by friendly teachers we are going backwards.’

“The OECD’s PISA rankings saw New Zealand schoolchildren’s ranking in English, Maths and Science achievement drop relative to other countries between 2009 and 2012. The most recent results, in 2015, saw our kids gain a few places in the rankings, but with worse test results. 

“The frenetic, grandiloquent diva that could only be Hekia Parata has exhorted them to succeed over the past five years. Nearly singing her way through her speeches, Parata would often say things like “we must get Pasifika Level 2 pass rates to 80 per cent by 2017!”

“Of course, setting such a challenge in 2014 was implausible. The students in question started school eight years earlier and preschool nearly a decade earlier. The whole point of the Government’s ‘social investment model’ is that a stitch in time saves nine; that a dollar spent on a kid early can get them back on track and save many taxpayer dollars later on. And yet we are expected to believe that students from 2010-16 made enormous improvements after the Government set targets.

“A more plausible explanation comes from a visiting British expert, Briar Lipson of the New Zealand Initiative, who said: ‘Between 2002 and 2004, NCEA replaced the traditional trio of School Certificate, University Entrance and Bursary. With its equal emphasis on academic and vocational programmes, NCEA puts course choices from nuclear physics to nail technology into the hands of teachers, parents and students. Then in 2007 the new New Zealand Curriculum was introduced. A high-level document, it leaves much of the selection of curriculum content to its teachers… It is hard to imagine a system more likely to accentuate the gap between our ‘haves’ and our ‘have nots’”.

“On average, our students compare well with the rest of the world, but outcomes have got worse for kids from poorer backgrounds. That’s a concern, because these are the students who need good education the most. But, surprisingly, outcomes have also dropped for kids from better off families. We’re often told by teacher unions that bad educational outcomes are the result of income, race, colonisation – anything, in fact, except the education system itself. But they are wrong. The fix for bad education is better education. The party that will provide it is ACT.

“The New Zealand Initiative report is meticulously researched and comprehensively damning. If we want students to leave school well-equipped for 21st century jobs, and if we want to have a high-productivity, high-wage economy, the new Government must take its recommendations seriously and restore basic educational standards so that students cannot avoid numeracy and literacy requirements”, says Mr Seymour.

Submissions on End of Life Choice Closing Soon

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Submissions on End of Life Choice Closing Soon




The chance for New Zealanders to submit their opinions on the End of Life Choice Bill closes midnight on Tuesday 6 March.

“Over 14,000 submissions have been received by Parliament’s Justice Committee with four more days to go,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“I’d encourage anyone thinking about writing a submission to do so this weekend and not miss the chance to have their voice heard by the Justice Committee.”

“I’d also suggest taking five minutes to watch a short video from our #MyLifeMyChoice campaign which I launched to highlight the personal stories of Kiwis suffering from terminal illnesses.”

Our campaign videos have been viewed over 100,000 times, and shared nearly 1000 times, on Facebook.

You can view the videos on the End of Life Choice NZ Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/LifeChoiceNZ/

Follow the link below to make your submission on End of Life Choice:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/52SCJU_SCF_BILL_74307/end-of-life-choice-bill

Free Press Monday 5 March Overseas Investment Act Disaster

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Free Press Monday 5 March Overseas Investment Act Disaster




The New Government’s Worst Legislation So Far

Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee sat for most of last week, including all day Friday in Auckland. We’re not complaining, but the reason is interesting. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill has received 220 submissions, mostly very substantial and from the business community, who are outraged at this bill.

What it Does

Currently, any overseas person or organization with more than 25 per cent overseas ownership has to jump through the Overseas Investment Office’s hoops to by more than five (sometimes only 0.4) hectares of land. Six months is considered a good time for getting approval from the OIO. The bill will apply this test to any ‘overseas person’ investing in ‘residential land.’ Treasury predicts the Overseas Investment office will go from processing 150 applications per year to 4700.

Why They’re Doing It

The Government believes they will reduce house prices by reducing foreign investment in housing. That’s bollocks, of course, the housing problem is one of supply, and the Bill will actually make it harder for local and foreign developers to source capital overseas. It is a monumental own goal.

The Fundamental Problem

There are so many possible ways of structuring an organization to shield overseas interests that any effective test must be draconian. Then again, any test that allows people to get on with their lives will have little effect on who has the ultimate interest in a piece of land.

Who’s Objecting

Almost everybody. We’d never realized how many companies and industries have a) overseas investment and b) an interest in owning residential land. Below we list just a sample of the submissions made to the Committee.

Electricity Companies

Roughly every 1,000 homes require a substation. There are a surprising number of these on residential land. Developing electricity infrastructure requires major investment with up to 20 year time horizons. Adding uncertainty at the outset is fatal to building anything. Electricity companies say they support the bill but want to be exempt from it.

Telcos

Telcos face basically the same problem as electricity companies. They need to have a cell tower in every suburb at least, and then there are data centres and future technology roll outs such as 5G. They are not necessarily opposed to the bill but would like an industry exemption.

The Mega-Rich

Queenstown Mayor Jim Holt and local man Sir Eion Edgar pointed out just how much wealthy foreigners have contributed to conservation in the Otago region. In at least one case investing $100m and putting the land in trust for everybody to enjoy. They are not necessarily opposed to the bill but would like an exemption for properties over, say, $5m.

Retirement Villages

Many of the big developers rely on foreign capital. They are developing residential land by definition, trying to meet the silver tsunami before it drowns us all. They are not necessarily opposed to the bill but would like an exemption for operators of registered retirement villages.

Build-to-Rent Companies

New Ground Capital, who specialize in building homes to rent out, think the bill is a good idea but would like to be given a Standing Consent for their type of business.

Mining Companies

Mining Companies are often required to buy houses near their sites who might be affected by noise and other pollution, in order to gain resource consent. They may find themselves unable to purchase in time to get consent. They would, of course, like this activity to be exempt.

Apartment Developers

Banks generally won’t lend to apartment developments, who often depend on presales to as wide a market of buyers as possible, including foreign ones. Shrinking the retail market to domestic buyers only will stop many developments.  You guessed it, they’d like an exception for overseas buyers who buy off the plan.

Bunnings Warehouse

How do you build more houses without building supply stores in residential areas? We don’t know, but the Aussie company made perhaps the cheekiest submission for a customised carve-out, suggesting ASX listed companies with more than 500 employees should be exempt.

Who Polices the Bill?

Working out whether a person is legitimate or not under the bill is a nightmare. The big banks, the real estate institute, and the lawyers all accept the objective of the bill. However, they would prefer the buck didn’t stop with them for checking whether a person has properly declared their status as an overseas person.

What’s Missing

All of the requests for exemptions should be taken seriously. All these submitters and more have well-grounded fears that this bill will badly affect their business. But hardly any of them are prepared to say ‘this bill is crap,’ it is wrong and needs to be stopped.

The Government’s Problem

They’re stuck between a rock and two hard places. The Rock is the TPP, which forbids this kind of nonsense and will be in force some time this year if all signatories organize their domestic legislation in time. The first hard place is Labour and New Zealand First’s xenophobic campaigns against foreign investment. The second hard place is the impossibility of designing a law that will cut off some foreign investment without accidentally cutting off the New Zealand economy.

National’s Problem

The National Party started this ball rolling when they introduced IRD number and domestic bank account requirements for foreign buyers of residential property in 2016. It took about six months for the industry to come up with work arounds. This legislation is no different in principle from what National did, it’s just far more byzantine.

And ACT?

We stand for a New Zealand that is not afraid of the world but stands proudly as part of it. Foreign investment is essential, and trying to cut us off from it, as every other party has done in the past two years, is offensive to our culture and fatal to our prosperity. The bill should be stopped, and we will repeal it.