Libertarians rarely like the advance auction of stolen goods that are general elections. Politicians mindlessly throw around promises to spend money that isn't theirs, on projects they wont be accountable for (really), to give to people who didn't earn it, or to control people's property, or to tell them what to do, and send some people to prison for not doing what they say. It is a bidding war on borrowed money from future taxpayers by and large, and it is fundamentally banal.
The NZ 2026 election has been particularly woeful. However, there are choices
- Keep the National-led coalition government in power;
- Replace it with a left-wing variant led by Labour, but also with the Greens, Opportunity and maybe Te Pati Maori;
- Opt out of giving any of them your endorsement.
I'm tempted by Peter Cresswell's support of the last, but I think it is ill founded, because there really is a choice between a ragtag mob of people who sometimes do good, and a ragtag mob of people who rarely do good. The right to not vote is important though, Australians don't have it, because it is a much more rules based country than NZ. You don't need to vote, you can curse them all, noting your impact is miniscule although not zero. However, I think you should consider voting for a party at least (electorates are a different matter, which I will follow up on tomorrow).
There are nuances to these three choices of course, some think you can have the first with Opportunity, some think you can have the last without, but for a country with an electoral system now offering seven parties that are highly likely to be elected, it seems fairly binary. It’s not though, it’s a sliding scale as to the degree you want government to have power, control and your money to spend, what you want it to have power, control and to spend money on, and the philosophical underpinnings for doing that. You can make choices for options 1 and 2 that are variants on what matters to you. You can be moderate with the two main parties, or be more aggressive in various directions. There is only one direction I want to go in, which is a bit less government.
What about ACT?
Despite commentary by some of the shallow of thinking, there is no libertarian option on the ballot, so I should first address that elephant in the commentary. ACT is not a libertarian party. It isn’t even the party of Roger Douglas’s Unfinished Business – which was a manifesto in itself. ACT is neither radical nor bold, indeed where it lies today is perhaps where the National Party was in the late 1990s, with occasional flashes of inspiration on a handful of matters.
A libertarian party would be calling for significant cuts in state spending, not simply taking it down to levels proportionate when John Key was in power.
A libertarian party would be calling for decriminalising adult ingestion of any substances, as long as there is adult responsibility for the resulting behaviour.
A libertarian party would be calling for getting the state progressively out of the supply of most goods and services, fundamental reform of education and healthcare, and individualising national superannuation, ACC and social welfare.
ACT sometimes lights up on parts of these, from time to time, but it is mostly a party of the conscience of the National Party. It’s single greatest achievement is charter schools, even those these are somewhat hogtied by a National Party terrified of the teachers’ unions. Starting a more fundamental debate on the Treaty was useful, at the very least as a way of venting frustration and discussing what could not have been discussed for years – the role of the Treaty and what its application meant. On a side point, it is a disgrace, to the other parties, that ACT is the only party that doesn’t want to wage war on supermarkets. However, it is also extremely disappointing that Paul Henry will be in Parliament. Yes I've read his book, it didn't take long.
NZ First?
Beyond ACT, occasionally NZ First will emerge with something that is consistent with individual freedom, free market capitalism and supporting core defence/law and order roles of the state, but it is fundamentally a party of opportunism. NZ First is reverting to a mix of soft-nationalism, casual bigotry towards migrants and conservativism, even if it history in power has been largely to be happy with symbols and spending on baubles (railways seem to be one of the latest ones). It’s conservative-nationalism without the anti-semitism, white supremacy and militarism. While I admire NZ First’s rejection of critical theory, and baiting of the ethno-nationalists on the hard left, a party that calls variously for nationalisation, vast state projects and incoherent regulation on an ad hoc basis is not one I can support. I'm heartened though that it might hoover up lots of votes that might go to smaller loony parties.
Though I will give Winston Peters credit for ending funding of the Hamas infested UNRWA.
National?
National this past term has been more impressive than under the Key-English era, not least because it actually repealed laws passed by Labour. That’s no small achievement, as National usually just continues what Labour did, with a handful of exceptions. Most notable was repealing Labour’s Natural and Built Environments Act and Spatial Planning Act, which would have continued the nationalisation of land, although the replacement is a long way from being what many of us hoped for. Also notable is:
• Scrapping Three Waters which would have indirectly shared control of water infrastructure with Iwi.
• Scrapping the Maori Health Authority
• Scrapping the creeping ban on (legal) tobacco sales for adults
• Scrapping the virtue signalling ban new offshore oil and gas exploration
• Scrapping the grossly inefficient Lake Onslow Pumped Hydro boondoggle
• Scrapping the Auckland Light Rail project
• Scrapped the compulsory national Social Insurance programme
• Unwinding the centralisation of polytechs
• Scrapping legislation to impose industry-wide collective bargaining
• Scrapping the “ute tax” subsidy for new EV buyers
• Scrapping the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate
• Reintroducing applying the same tax deductibility on interest bills for residential property investment as with other investments
There is plenty of disappointment too. Reform of local government has been mixed, with semi-forced amalgamations, rather than stripping the power of general competence. The rates cap is a significant win, although it is much later than it should have been.
On education, the reinstatement of charter schools is a good step, as have been some reforms of the curriculum, but the fundamentals are still antagonistic to choice and diversity in education, and little has been done to strip out the significant leftwing/critical theory bias in curriculum, teacher training and recruitment. Nothing matters more than getting this right because education profoundly affects the futures of young people, as well as national culture, identity and philosophy. For many years it has been dominated by a philosophy and people whose views on this do not align with the government, let alone a free, open liberal democracy with capitalism, private property rights and individual responsibility.
That wont change while so much power is centralised in Wellington, and while a central focus of the system is preventing industrial action by teaching unions that openly back leftwing parties and oppose performance based pay, and opening up teaching beyond the heavily post-modernist oriented teacher training system. National has shown little interest in tackling these issues. What a disaster the free school meals policy has been as a distraction, set up by Labour in its endless effort to give people something paid for by future generations.
On healthcare, it is all tinkering. Beyond some arguments around centralised vs. devolved power, or having a specialist cancer hospital, almost all debates on healthcare are around how much money and where does it go. While the left debates bans and taxes on products that it disapproves of for being unhealthy (tobacco, alcohol, gambling, sugar, fat, salt), the “right” says little beyond enabling more private provision of healthcare. Nobody talks about how the current system, fundamentally, has little link between user demand and supply, nor how the rationing of public healthcare inevitably means people wait for services, and some are delayed, and they suffer and some die as a result. Talk of reform onto a partial insurance model, as seen in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, France, Germany and others will inevitably see shrieks of unhinged hysteria about “Americanisation”, which nobody advocates. Politicians who don’t advocate more socialism in healthcare (i.e. free dentistry supplied by whom?) are fearful of even starting a debate about how healthcare is structured and funded. So, nothing new is coming there. Don’t expect anything about ACC either, that lumbering state monopoly isn’t being challenged by anyone.
On welfare, it is tinkering as well. Sure, eligibility is somewhat tighter, and there is talk about drug testing (which is somewhat performative), but there is little about stripping back the scale of the middle class welfare state that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen set up to trap the National Party, successfully. Indeed, Nicola Willis has thrown more money at it with her Family Boost package subsidising (heavily regulated) childcare. Nobody has answers about addressing structural welfare dependency, and indeed the Opportunity Party wants everyone on welfare, and the hard-left parties want much more.
On the size of the state and freedom more generally, besides a few surprises (abolition of the Broadcasting Standards Authority), there’s little sign of any progress. Nicola Willis wont cut the public sector to the level to 2017 levels (adjusted for today’s population) because apparently that would be “too tough”. However, she’s and Luxon are keen to consider breaking up the largest NZ franchisee owned supermarket chain, to show off a commitment to lowering grocery prices. It’s only slightly more sensible than Labour’s policy of structural separation, which is economic lunacy and unprecedented anywhere in the world. Moreover, Luxon is also keen on following Australia’s unsuccessful ban on under 16yos accessing social media, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to compulsory ID for internet access because, well, the instincts towards individual freedom are difficult to see.
Finally, on the economy, the age of riding off the back of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s is well and truly gone. Clark did that, as did Key, but the gains from those reforms have ebbed away as regulation has creeped in, and the role of the state has grown bit by bit. It has become more and more difficult to set up business, hire people, open bank accounts and trade, and the competitiveness of NZ compared to other economies has waned as a result. Again, four of the parties vying for Parliament are keen to make that significantly worse, of course always with the best of intentions. Genuine interest in reforms that improve productivity exist in some. Addressing housing supply, reforming the planning system, even allowing road pricing all make small and useful differences, but none are fundamental. David Seymour’s Ministry of Regulation has surprisingly, made some small differences, but there needs to be a much more direct commitment to making starting and sustaining businesses and hiring people easier. The leftwing parties don’t believe in that.
Perhaps, by far, the most disappointing element of the Luxon Government is Luxon himself. He is one of the most uselessly uninspiring and awkward Prime Ministers in recent history. He lacks authenticity and seriousness. He is so unconvincing it is painful. He laughs awkwardly at questions or things he said, and nobody really knows what matters to him, beyond his family. To his credit he has largely let Ministers take charge of their portfolios, like CEOs do to sectoral managers, but he is not a CEO. He is expected to provide leadership, gravitas, philosophical and “national” authority as he represents NZ globally and presents a vision that is convincing, not always popular, but grounded in something, anything.
The fact that few opinion polls put National at 30% or above is a testament to his failure. It remains quite the paradox that on the one hand so many in the country think Luxon is a poor Prime Minister (but even more think Hipkins could be worse), but a majority of National’s caucus don’t think so (or merely dislike the alternatives). It’s obvious that, short of a remarkable turnaround in the next week, Luxon will not be Prime Minister at the 2029 election. Even if he can manage to retain power this time, he will have lost authority, especially if he has also lost Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop because the party vote has fled elsewhere out of sheer frustration and fear.
Overall?
A great government? No. A good government? In snippets. A better one than Hipkins had? Yes, but what a low bar that was.
Could it be better? Of course. It could cut spending, it could liberalise education from the bureaucracy, the unions and the stultifying ideology that cauterises real critical thinking. It could embrace private property rights as so many of them want to. It could focus relentlessly on productivity, and on an outward looking mindset, and a belief that individual freedom and responsibility are to be cherished and encouraged, and for people to be judged not on their background, but on their deeds. It could believe in retaining internet anonymity and freedom, and promote parental and business responsibility in changing the online culture of bullying and harassment.
A party vote for ACT might inch that a little closer. I doubt one for NZ First will. I’m unsure one for National really would.
What is clear is that the other four parties turn away from this. Their main driver is how to take more money from people and businesses, and to funnel it through Wellington to pay for more public sector employees or more welfare, and more spending. They want to control and regulate more, they want to more judge people based on their background, than on their deeds. They want more state. They talk of freeing people from burdens, but they want to take charge, be our parents, and to divide people into those who must be taken from, and those who should receive. Moreover, they have become more radical, more militant, more strident. Some want wealth taxes – taxes on what you own, after paying taxes on the income in the first instance, all want to sacrifice your standard of living to reduce emissions for zero measurable gain, all default to more spending, more regulation and more control.
So yes, vote for one of the three coalition parties. I’ll be party voting ACT, with many reservations, but it’s not like 2008, when the choice between Clark and Key was largely one of style, not substance. This government has many weaknesses, the biggest one is at the head of it, but it’s much less dangerous than the side led by activists, unionists, race supremacists and haters of capitalism, liberal democracy and private property.
No comments:
Post a Comment