ACT calling for voluntary student union membership

which is welcome. It is one reason people voted for ACT (I thought they also supported less local government, but not a peep about that).

So come on Anne Tolley? Do you believe in change and freedom, or do you support compulsory membership of the youth training camps for Labour and Green politicians called student unions?

Sorry Rodney, it doesn't answer the question

Rodney Hide attempts to answer concerns about the Auckland super-city in the NZ Herald.

He makes a minor mistake:

"Instead of .... eight local transport entities.... there will be one of each." No Rodney, there will be three core transport infrastructure agencies, Ontrack and the NZ Transport Agency will both be responsible for the railway and the motorway networks. ARTA is the single local transport entity that is meant to co-ordinate local road network development. So no material change here.

However, more fundamentally he evades the core issue.

What should be the role of local government in Auckland?

The government's answer appears to be "whatever local government wants it to be".

ACT's policy appears quite contrary to this.

It states:

• Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity, thereby eliminating the need to separate regulatory and commercial functions between local and regional councils.
• Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.
• Abolish the local government power of general competency.
• Require councils to focus on their core functions.
• Ensure there is much greater scrutiny of regulations that undermine property rights.
• Promote contracting out of many council services.
• Lower the cost of complying with the Resource Management Act and other regulatory regimes.
• Review the two-tier structure of local government.

It's a lot less than I'd want, but it's a start, but all we are seeing is the last point.

So why is Rodney Hide doing next to nothing to implement ACT policy on local government?

It isn't good enough.

If an ACT Minister of Local Government is just going to maintain the Labour/Alliance/Green policy - then what was the point?

Time for ACT to do something for freedom

It doesn't take much. Given this repulsive childishness from the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association (of which I was a member under protest, without choice), which I now understand includes the following in the past:

"In 2007 exec member Heleyni Pratley laid a communist wreath on ANZAC Day, reading “To the dead and the dying in the struggle against imperialism, victory shall be theirs”. The same wording featured in the wreath laid by 1973 VUWSA President Peter Wilson in protest against the Vietnam War and again 30 years later by 2006 President Nick Kelly."

No different from putting a swastika down - unspeakably vile.

Rodney it is time to set students free from being forced to fund these lowlife scum, enjoying the freedom of liberal democratic Western capitalist civilisation to spread their filthy philosophy of theft, death and denial of truth.

They have ever right to be Marxist fools, but no student should be forced to fund the cheerleaders of the most murderous philosophy of the 20th century.

I said it earlier this year here. What's stopping you?

Say no to big local government!

So according to the NZ Herald the government is going to support a modified mega city. A proposal born of the Labour inspired Royal Commission, has support from the National/ACT/Maori/Dunne government.

I already have blogged about what I think should be done with the proposal - it would make a good doorstop. How local government needs to be constrained. How a super mayor will end up being some less than competent personality with more control over your life. Owen McShane described it as fascist.

Without a cap on rates, Auckland property owners will be forced to pay more and more as the megacity grows its functions like a cancer on the life of Aucklanders.

So are Aucklanders going to put up with this? The "strengthening of democracy" only counts heads, not what's in them.

If ACT goes through with it, without a rates cap, without severely constraining the power of local government, it will prove ACT can't even drive policy when its leader is a Minister.

It is time to give the government a strong message if you're fed up with rates increases well above inflation year after year, fed up with central planning local government, fed up with petty fascist politicians and bureaucrats who think they know how to spend your money and regulate what you do with your property.

Say NO to big local government, it's time to put it on a diet, and repeal the power of general competence.

UPDATE: Not PC is eloquently making the same point in a different way.

ACT and crime

I've blogged before about how I believe that "three strikes" as a concept is a good idea, but not in the blunt way it has been proposed, rather by granting to REAL crimes, points so that recidivism is reflected in sentencing. For example, two murders should probably see someone in preventive detention, like three rapes. That concept has merit. My chief concern was extending it to victimless crimes.

However, when ACT MP David Garrett, who we have been reminded drunkenly linked homosexuals and pedophiles on TV, dismisses the Bill of Rights Act, you have to really wonder why the hell the man is in a so-called liberal party. Lindsay Mitchell expresses reservations about Garrett's comments, quite rightly. Now I'm willing to have a debate about three strikes being compliant with the Bill of Rights Act, but the latest dirty deal about gang insignia is sickening.

Blair Mulholland calls it "Nazi" and a dirty deal
Lindsay Mitchell says "I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter."
Tumeke covers it well too.

David Garrett cheering on the bill that would "also ban intimidating tattoos" should scare the bejesus out of Rodney Hide. This guy should go. He is a NZ First MP in drag.

His maiden speech was about a justice revolution, and indeed there was little I could disagree with. However, he has shown himself to have little regard for individual freedom, and an intolerance of people who are "different" to him, but otherwise harmless.

If ACT proceeds to vote for a bill to ban clothing and tattoos it deserves to be utterly eviscerated internally by its members. The efforts Rodney Hide has made since 2005 to move ACT away from the conservative elements in the party and be more liberal will have been smashed up in one move.

It is right to be tough on real crime, and reoffending. It is right to take ideas LIKE three strikes, and as David Farrar wrote, the Broken Windows methodology. I'd also like, if not a repeal, a significant shift in Police efforts away from victimless crimes to genuine crimes, everything from vandalism and car conversion to violence.

It IS after all the core role of the state to discuss and implement policies that best address protecting citizens from criminals. However, in parallel is ensuring individual liberties of the innocent are not curtailed.

Sadly, not only does David Garrett not get it, but ACT seems to have sold out in the process. It is without any glee that I can say thankfully I didn't vote ACT.

Hide makes a start on local government

Kiwiblog cheers on Rodney Hide's speech to Local Government NZ. Now I saw how Local Government NZ worked with the Labour government, and it was a very symbiotic relationship. Local Government NZ wanted more power, Labour gave it more power (not as much as LGNZ wanted). Local Government NZ wanted more money from central government, Labour gave it a some more money. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to support its policy initiatives in housing, transport and environment, Local Government NZ did. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to help it rewrite legislation on local government, Local Government NZ was involved in partnership to help develop the Local Government Act 2002.

So when Hide says:

"I don't represent councils.I represent the people whose hard work and savings pay the rates"

About time!

"First, I want to keep rate rises down and encourage you to focus on core activities. On the necessities, not the luxuries" So I will be pushing for councils to accept that rates rises should be capped at the rate of inflation, or less. Sure, councils for good reason may need to increase rates faster than inflation"Well I'd cap rates permanently to squeeze local government out of non core activities, and encourage a progressive disengagement. I can't think of a good reason to increase a property tax faster than inflation, especially when property values grew beyond inflation until very recently. Nevertheless, it is a better direction than the past.

"what should be the core roles of councils ...Providing public services such as rubbish removal, road maintenance, parks, libraries, and light handed-regulatory controls."

Rubbish removal can be privately done, road maintenance of local streets could eventually be privately done, parks can be privately managed, as can libraries. Regulatory controls should only be the application of private property rights. However, if all councils just did this we would all be a lot better off.

"When I look at the expanding breadth of activities that councils engage in, the answer must surely be, "Businesses should be doing this - not the council."

Indeed!

"Even if it is a job appropriate for local government, the answer may still be "No, our ratepayers can't afford it."

In fact it may better be, ratepayers shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

"Ratepayers want to know who is responsible for council decisions - and who to hold to account"

Sadly all the transparency in the world wont get back money wasted, but it should put people in fear of losing their jobs.

"I want to see respect for private property rights. I want the freedom of individual New Zealanders enhanced."

Wonderful stuff!! When did you last hear that? Will National Party Cabinet Ministers say this?

However then he talks about changes to the RMA and the Building Act, which um aren't exactly about private property rights and individual freedom.

"It's taking nine months to get a resource consent to put in a cable car ... so that an elderly lady can get to her house easily up a steep cliff from the street."

Exactly. Sheer nonsense.

So I expect Local Government NZ is scared, fearful its members are about to get their hands tied, their petty fascist ways over and the age of nanny cities and nanny districts is over. It wont be, but it sure sounds like the tide is changing.

Now read the speech by Sandra Lee, the first Minister of Local Government when the Labour/Alliance coalition was elected in 1999.

"I believe our communities are, overall, very well served by their local authority elected members. I have yet to meet a district, city or regional councillor, or community board member, who was not deeply committed to the service of his or her local community."

Well she was one, she'd wouldn't want to say there is always some deadwood out there and blithering idiots.

"I agree with your President that the powers it (new Local Government Act) contains should, in general, be more enabling and empowering rather than just an updated version of the prescription contained in the current legislation"

Do more not less!

"One of the more unusual aspects of our work as elected representatives is that we get to spend other people's money"

Shock! Really? Unusual is it? I thought that was state socialism par excellence. Indeed the nonsense of accountability through local democracy is palpable, as most local body consultation responses are from vested interest groups wanting the loudest voice - not the average ratepayer fed up with being fleeced and pushed around.

The change in attitude is to be welcomed. If only Hide can do as he says it will help, as a first step. It is time to roll back the creeping hands of local government, and no Labour style partnership with local government will enable that. Rodney is going to have to get legislation drafted to not only cap rates, but cap what local authorities do.

The report at No Minister about how the ARC wasted $1.7 million of Auckland ratepayers' money on the David Beckham exhibition soccer game is only the latest example of why the "power of general competence" of local authorities is to many ratepayers a rather sick joke. They have the power, but how often do they have to show rank incompetence?

An amendment for three strikes

Here's a thought.

Besides amending three strikes and you're out to being weighted to different crimes, how about excluding it when any crime does not have a specified victim?

That means:
- Consumption of drugs;
- Censorship violations that didn't involve recordings of people being victims;
- All traffic offences when no harm was caused, or likely threat;
- Blasphemy;
- Sex crimes that don't include force or minors;

Or how about simply saying it applies whenever force or fraud is applied to people's bodies or property?

Go on ACT - be the liberal party.

A politician who understands

Sir Roger Douglas is showing his value as an MP, by opposing the government's economic "package" in words, although he is unlikely to vote against supply in the House. At the very least he isn't following the sheeple Keynesians who think there is one solution, when that medicine may prove to simply delay the inevitable economic realignment.

Stuff reports Douglas saying:

"When international credit is particularly tight, the Government has announced plans to borrow and spend on infrastructure projects.

"We have now been put on notice that our credit rating may be downgraded."

Sir Roger said New Zealand needed lower spending and lower taxes.

Unless both measures are adopted our children will have to pay back the borrowed money, and interest, in the future, he said.

"The Government is now mortgaging our children for the next round of spending increases."

Citizens have become more concerned with "dividing the pie rather than growing it" and politicians "merely mirror the sentiment" of voters.

He's right of course, but then he shows Bill English up so easily.

Douglas has a far more useful solution than spending your childrens' taxes:

He wants a tax system where an individual's first $30,000 would be tax-free, above that they would be taxed at a flat rate.

The flat rate, and company tax, would be reduced to 15 percent over the next 15 years.

Families with children would receive their first $50,000 tax-free with an increased tax-free threshold based on the number of children.

Families would be guaranteed a minimum income boosted by tax credits if they earned below the threshold.

The flip-side is that individuals would have to foot the bill for their own retirement, healthcare and insurance.

Yes amazing, low flat tax and you'd have to pay for healthcare and your retirement. Sadly though, most New Zealanders are too lazy, too scared and too much like children to want to actually be responsible for themselves.

The report shows a lack of understanding by the reporter, as Douglas says it would be optional to either go for his choice or pay taxes at the moment. THAT is where the real policy revolution should be.

Imagine that - pay the current taxes to access state health, education and promises of pensions OR opt out, get most of your income tax back and don't go crying to Nanny if you stuffed up.

You wont get it voting National.

Hide not getting his way?

Newstalk ZB reports ACT is unhappy with the portfolios John Key is offering, which given ACT has already pledged confidence and supply, isn't that surprising.

In 1996 Winston gained a huge amount from National because he COULD play off Labour and National. ACT has no such bargaining power, indeed National could entice the Maori Party if it so wished, which ACT - if it were strategic, would let it. After all, what better way to shore up ACT votes than for Hide to say National gave us nothing, and went to the Maori Party - if ACT only gets consumer affairs and say local government (although that does have potential).

National, you see, wants to dictate the terms of government, which it can only do if ACT lets it. ACT rightfully is arguing that Dunne being a Minister is absurd, as he got less than 1% of the vote. Even Jim Anderton's Progressives had over 1% of the vote in 2005. Be clear, Hide can't demand to be Deputy PM, but he can demand a single major portfolio and a minor one - National needs him, unless it wants to be painted as a party that prefers the Maori Party to ACT.

I'd like Hide to get Environment and Local Government - because it would deprive these from the obvious creature who aspires to the first one.

Roy for Consumer Affairs?

Wow, gripping stuff so says the Dominion Post. A job so tough it is currently Judith Tizard's!

To be optimistic, Heather Roy should be able to run rings around the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (a subset of the Ministry of Economic Development). I am heartened by Consumer New Zealand Chief Executive Sue Chetwin saying "an interesting person to do it", which is code for "oh shit, a Minister who might not want to regulate everything so consumers are protected from their own stupidity". Sue Kedgley will be barking like the hysterical harpie that she is, but Roy should say "caveat emptor" over and over again.

Now of course she should do as I recommend and ask the MOCA chief executive what good the Ministry does, why she shouldn't recommend scrapping it in next year's budget and giving all the money back to taxpayers (who are consumers after all). The right answer is NOT because it exists due to legislation, as that will only delay the scrapping a little bit longer.

After all, three years should be long enough to do away with a Ministry that didn't exist before the fourth Labour Government - yes, this was a creation of the halcyon years of Roger Douglas and David Lange.

Dear Rodney Hide

Well done Rodney, you're now the best hope (with your team) to be the conscience of the incoming government. You did better because National did "me too" far too much, and now you've brought Sir Roger Douglas back to Parliament. John Key needs you, and you want him to need you instead of the Maori Party. So, the next three years are a chance to do what Helen Clark fears, and to lead John Key down a path of reform that is meaningful.

Firstly make it clear that you will only accept a coalition agreement if you get one Cabinet and one outside Cabinet position. Sir Roger Douglas needs to have a special role, because he is too valuable to not use. Your vote partly came from people wanting him to form a part of this government, he has more experience with economic crises than the rest of you combined, him having a role should be a bottomline.

Secondly, make it clear you will support Peter Dunne as Speaker, but not in Cabinet. If a party that gets 0.9% can get a Cabinet position then all your MPs deserve one. Remember Dunne brought us the Families Commission, and that should go.

Here are some ideas when you see John later today:

1. Education. Your policy on scholarships is radical for National, but it was the policy for National back in 1987. Grab this with both hands and make it a bottom line to change education. It means taking on the unions, who are blatantly self interested and will blackmail you all with doomsday scenarios and industrial action, so it needs to be done with extraordinary planning. Go with John Key to Stockholm, sell it to him and talk about what can be done. This will have a far more profound long term impact than almost any other policy.
2. RMA. Yes your policy isn't about getting rid of it, but you understand the problems more than Key. Insist that Nick Smith doesn't get his dripping wet hands on this. He is a Green Party member in drag. The RMA needs a bottom up review as to why such legislation is even needed, and how private property rights should be at the centre of planning policy (if it must exist).
3. Local government. Yes you could have this portfolio, National hasn't a clue on this, you do. It's time to put caps on rates, to repeal the power of general competence and to require water and roads to be in arms length entities. The left's second front is in local government, you can already see the ARC holding National to ransom about electrifying Auckland's rail network.
4. Law and Order. You see eye to eye on this, and three strikes and you're out is a great policy in principle. However, you do need to do a couple of things to stop it all getting worse:
i. Refuse to support a DNA database of all those arrested for imprisonable offences. Restrict it to those convicted of violent and sexual offences. The innocent should not be under surveillance.
ii. Refuse to support "three strikes and you're out" for drug offences and other victimless crimes. Make the "liberal party" slogan mean something, and ask for a review of criminal law with the point of identifying victimless crimes.
5. One law for all. Now you wont get rid of the Maori seats, National just wont do it, but you can address funding and government that is racially based. You could suggest a threeway dialogue between National, ACT and the Maori party to handle this issue, both in terms of reality and perception.
6. Getting rid of useless bureaucracies. Produce a list of departments and agencies that could go. The Families Commission would be a good start, but the Office of the Commissioner for Children should follow. Get Sir Roger to help out, and invite John Key to nominate a couple of Nat MPs to do the job.
7. Tax cuts. Support John Key's tax cuts with one addition, farewell to the 39% top tax rate. It is Labour's envy tax, a tax on the successful, a tax on New Zealanders who would return from overseas, and it has to go at the same time as the other cuts. Yes the left will whinge and say tax cuts for the rich, but remember what "rich" means now.
8. Welfare. National said it would do a little to reform this, it's time to do a little more. Talk to Lindsay Mitchell about the DPB and steps to take to drastically curtail the criteria for claiming it, for starters no more money for additional children whilst on it.
9. Trade. As I said to John Key, he, Tim Groser and perhaps Sir Roger should all go to Washington after Barack Obama's inauguration (and then London and Brussels) to demand a rethink of global trade. That means taking on Obama's protectionist instincts and pushing for a revitalised WTO round. This is critical, make the case before the portcullis of Democratic Party protectionism shuts down hope of an open trading market for agriculture.
10. ETS. You know you need to demand a rethink here. Yes New Zealand is in Kyoto, but it need not lead the way, it's time to renegotiate and consider how best to meet NZ's national interests. A carbon tax is NOT the way, but strangling this close to bottom of the OECD economy will not see you thanked by voters.

Good luck, it's the best chance New Zealand has in the next three years to move forward.

ACT - no tax cuts for two years?

ACT's launched its campaign, it's clearly aiming for the disenchanted National supporters who want more than Labour lite. With Sir Roger Douglas at number three on the list it definitely tempts those who want less government to give Roger a second go, if only to give National the coalition partner it ought to have, instead of the Maori Party or Peter Dunne.

Rodney Hide's interview with the NZ Herald certainly seems promising. For the first time in ages I have seen an ACT leader prepared to be honest about health:

"I believe that the state health system has been a failure and that what it does is take our money and then ration health care by queuing us up in pain and agony. "

Indeed.

"I much prefer that we use the private system and focus the Government's attention on ensuring that everyone has access."

Sounds a lot like Unfinished Business, and is half of the libertarian solution. It is one I can see being a big leap forward for healthcare. So what else is new? Well it's all in this policy PDF.

Well ACT wants to keep growth in government spending capped to inflation, EXCEPT for law and order and a one off injection into health spending. Hardly ambitious, something National ought to embrace if we were lucky. This means government growing slower than GDP. Oh how far we have slipped back when this is seen as radical.

39% top tax rate would be gone immediately, again good, but National voted against this tax rate and isn't promising to abolish it.

Then two years of NO tax cuts. Yes ACT offers you nothing till 2011. Presumably it's about fiscal prudence, because after then there is a rolling programme of cuts to a flat rate of 15% by 2018 (12.5% on the first NZ$20,000). Yes 10 years from now! Yes better than nothing, but this ought to be mainstream. National supporters should be embracing this.

GST down to 10% as well, in the same timeframe. Hmmm, public servants really have nothing to fear.

However there is one gem in ACT's policy, but not one I expect the mainstream media to publicise widely.

It is offering a taxfree threshold of NZ$25,000 for those who want to opt out of ACC, the right to claim sickness benefits and state healthcare. It talks of offering a top up for such people to cover their children too for all of that, and education.

So, a chance to opt out of nanny state. THAT is revolutionary, but in parallel with two years of no tax cuts, it is hidden in the mix.

This is what National should be offering, at the very least slower growth in government spending, progressively lower tax cuts to a low flat level, and the chance to opt out of state provided health cover. However ACT should be offering more. ACT offered a flat tax in 1996. It should be pushing for tax cuts every year. It should be calling for serious cuts in spending.

I did think that there was much promise with Rodney Hide, and with Roger Douglas back on board, and yes, ACT shows National what a change in direction could be.

However, it remains profoundly disappointing. I do not see the point in voting for no tax cuts for two years, besides abolishing the 39% top rate.

ACT voted with Labour?

Well so says Brian Rudman. Apparently ACT voted for the Public Transport Management Bill, which Rudman thoroughly approves - instantly sending alarm bells off in my head. ACT with Labour and the Greens?

What IS that Bill about? Well it is quite simple. The Auckland Regional Council has long been upset that so many of Auckland's bus services were commercially provided by the private sector. In others words, people paid fares, companies ran buses and they were all happy - except the ARC of course, which has long wanted to regulate fares, frequencies and plan Auckland public transport endlessly (and shut down commercial bus services competing with its own highly loss making rail services).

The ARC has long missed owning and operating Auckland's buses, ignoring that it did such an abysmal job at it. When the ARC and its ARA predecessor ran most of the buses in Auckland, patronage had its longest continuous decline in patronage from the late 1960s through to the late 1990s. At the same time, the bus fleet progressively aged, services were planned endlessly and Aucklanders continued to drive, and subsidies increased. After forced privatisation (which by the way helped create the assets of what is now Auckland Regional Holdings (formerly Infrastructure Auckland)), Stagecoach Auckland invested heavily in new buses and commercial services thrived, and patronage grew.

However it wasn't trains.

You see the bus companies would sometimes drop routes and frequencies of services operating commercially, upsetting the ARC which believed it needed to subsidise services to plug such gaps. This happened more frequently after millions of dollars were poured into rail services, as subsidised trains undermined unsubsidised bus services.

The ARC is not forced to subsidise any bus services. When it chooses to do so it is required to competitively tender them, so like any business seeking a contractor, it faces choices. It can also set terms and conditions for those tendering. Rudman's claim that "As the law stands, despite these huge subsidies, ARTA cannot inspect operators' books to check whether they are gouging the system" is only true if you think ARTA's contracting processes are robust and it seeks the best value for money.

ARTA could deny increases in subsidies, but it wants to deny increases in fares and to increase services beyond those commercially sustainable. Reality is that fuel prices put up the price of providing services, subsidising rail services undermines the fare revenue of certain bus services, so subsidies rise if fares don't rise.

This bill aims to dodge reality. It means that commercially provided services can now be more heavily regulated - services that get no subsidies may be forced to integrate with a ticketing system specified by ARTA, and which may not deliver any benefits to the companies, because it wont attract enough passengers to pay for the cost of the system. It means that regional councils can contract over commercial services, so that instead of a mix of subsidised and unsubsidised services by different companies, you get subsidised services by a single one.

Rodney Hide has made a mistake. He has voted for local government control over private enterprise and central planning of public transport over entrepreneurship, and incentives to minimise subsidies. National voted against it, it would be nice if it promised to repeal this legislation which would only increase what ratepayers pay to subsidise public transport.

ACT stabs one of its own, favours a (former?) socialist

Just when I was thinking that ACT was looking like a seriously viable option it goes and puts out a list, and stabs blogger, former Hutt South candidate Lindsay Mitchell in the back by offering her a list place that effectively says "no thanks". Which was indeed her response.

Whilst the placings of Rodney Hide and Heather Roy are appropriate, and putting Roger Douglas in third place is a wise move, stabbing Mitchell in the back, when she has long been the voice of reform on welfare reform shows at best that politics is a nasty game, and at worst that loyalty and hard work aren't what ACT wants to be known by.

The rest of the top 10 I have mixed views on. John Boscawen has emerged after not being on the list for years, but is at least a core part of the campaign against the Electoral Finance Act and an accomplished businessman. Number 5 is a secret. Number 6 Hilary Calvert is an unknown, but a woman and a lawyer. Number 7 is Peter Tashkoff, standing in Te Tai Tokerau, showing where ACT stands on the Maori seats! He has a blog and I guess it is good for ACT to have a Maori candidate, and will be interesting to see what views he has. Number 8 is John Ormond who's been around for ages, long been on the ACT list somewhere. Number 9 is Colin du Plessis, another unknown, South African born scientist, ex National Party.

Now it gets interesting - Number 10 is Shawn Tan, Chinese ex. Green Party - which gives plenty of cause to wonder what sort of "Road to Damascus" experience he hopefully has had, although since he has spent the last few years working in unions and supporting "Students for Justice in Palestine" (which isn't quite as it seems).

Tan opposed the war on Iraq and put his name to a statement that was clearly bog-standard leftwing anti-Americanism. Hmmm great!

Now will ACT get more votes with a (former?) leftwing unionist than with a libertarian welfare campaigner? Well we'll see.

Sorry Rodney?

Blair Mulholland reports that Rodney Hide at a recent ACT regional conference stated that "he supported making it illegal to insult cops"

Blair understandably is outraged - the Police SHOULD be accountable when people are upset due to negligence, recklessness or being bloody minded bullies.

So is this true Rodney? Does the liberal party want to make it a crime to tell a cop he's being useless? Can other ACTivists enlighten, enquire, confirm or deny? Just when I was starting to give ACT the benefit of the doubt.

ACT on law and order

Gonzo Freakpower (Will De Cleene) posts on his concern with the ACT law and order (or as they call it "Crime and punishment" policy) as it seems to approve of extensive surveillance. Specifically he mentions this comment:

"It is easy - if we have the right relationship with our traditional allies and they provide us with intelligence - to observe the movement of cars and individuals without the need for kicking in doors or planting bugs and GPS locators (although, clearly, the latter technologies have their role)."

and more. Which is somewhat disturbing. The trend towards surveillance of the innocent has been increasing in the UK and the US, and should stop in NZ. Sadly ACT doesn't get this.

However, I did think Heather Roy just touched upon something important when she said this is a political initiative:

"* Disruption to the gang's 'customer market'. Prostitution reform helped this. State run gambling helps this. Banning marijuana and party pills does not help, but provides them with customers."

Yes it implies some form of legalisation of marijuana and party pills. May not be full legalisation, but it might see some liberalisation that takes attention from peaceful adult use and focuses on children and harm minimisation.

So ACT, give up on surveillance and the big brother state - but think more about how to not use the criminal justice system to deal with how people run their own lives. One step back, one step forward?

Why voting for Libertarianz can make a difference

It's rather straightforward. Assuming the Nats don't completely drop the ball and Labour can't be Santa Claus, the Nats will be the largest party in Parliament after the next election, by a reasonable margin. I'm expecting the 56% or so in the polls to be more like 45-46% on election night. Anyway, National wont need your vote to do this, hundreds of thousands of people know only that to get rid of Labour they vote National.
.
So National will be looking to coalesce with who? Like Labour it will prefer to go to the centre, like NZ First, United Future and, dare I say it, the Maori Party. That's what you face, none of that will scare the electorate at all.
.
ACT is proposing 20 changes in policy that are frankly no more radical than the sort of policies that were around in the late 80s, early 90s, IF that. A tax free threshold almost double that of NZ First, dropping the top tax rate (was National policy in 2000). Education vouchers was National policy in 1987 and more market oriented health care from 1990 to 1993 (but got seriously curtailed by lack of courage). ACC competition in 1999. Labour market freedom was 1991. Privatisation was policy from 1987 to 1999. The ONLY Act policy that is a shift beyond that is to shift social welfare to an insurance based model.
.
So what happens if ACT gets a sizeable vote, and National needs ACT to stay in power. Well ACT's policies get compromised. You get a smaller tax cut, you probably don't get education vouchers (but get bulk funding), you get ACC competition, but not insurance based welfare. You get RMA reform, but nothing too serious. In other words, you get what is already not that ambitious being less ambitious. Now if ACT pushed the 20 policies I suggested a few days ago instead, then you might get the compromise looking like ACT's CURRENT 20.
.
Ah, some may say a more moderate position gives ACT more room to say its policies are reasonable. Well shifting the goalposts to the left means the destination point remains closer to the left too. Rather unambitious for a party putting up the man who pioneered privatisation, proposed flat tax and shifting the entire social sector to insurance based models.

.
So how about Libertarianz? Ah your first point is "it's a wasted vote". Well let's just see how important your vote is. Don't forget, for all the hype your head is being counted along with a lot of others - it is a tiny influence, National isn't winning a seat just because of you, neither is anyone. What it SHOULD be is an extension of what you want. If you worry about what other people vote then you're making the influence of others important on your own decision.
.
Then you might say "well the policies are lunatic or too extreme". That's your judgment, but let's assume you want a lot less government and want some serious tax cuts and reform. Who is more likely to send the signal that there should be? The party calling for abolition of GST, the first $50,000 tax free and a flat tax, or the one calling for $10,000 tax free and getting rid of the 39% rate. The party wanting an end to state welfare, health and education or the one wanting to reform it with insurance or vouchers? The one wanting to cut it to core functions of law and order and defence, or the one wanting to cut it to - the level of Australia?

.
Imagine if there were 6 MPs who always voted no to more government spending on non-core activities and no to higher taxes and no to more regulation of people's day to day lives. Would you rather them or some National MPs? Even if Libertarianz fail to get 5%, imagine if 2% of the vote was for freedom. Other parties would start wondering why they didn't get the 2-3 seats those votes would entitle them too. ACT would certainly be more bold, and the next election more would notice they could vote for freedom too.

Look at the Greens. They influence government and policy considerably, with a core 5% of the vote on the hard left, and they certainly wield influence beyond that number. Shouldn't they be countered by a party of principle on freedom? ACT has had a chance to show it could be as radical as its founder once was, and as radical as it was in 1994. It doesn't seem to want to do that, although if the polls continue to show little change, it may change tactics closer to the election.

So voting for Libertarianz can make a difference, it wouldn't mean Libertarianz would be in government, and it might not mean it is in Parliament, but it does mean you've voted for individual sovereignty over your life, body and property, and for the state to exist to protect not to initiate force. So many people believe that, many vote for second best, and many more vote for third (?) best.
.
As the election campaign rolls on, we will see how all the parties perform and for now, I wont be making a final judgment, as much can happen. It is time to be bold politically and stand up for beliefs and philosophies, not pander to fears and prejudices. Your vote is a very small influence, so it should be one that says what you believe in - and that should be more than simply "I want rid of Helen Clark".

A different 20 point pledge card

Ok, having reviewed ACT's effort and marked it as being, at the very best, barely a pass, here's my go at it. This is NOT Libertarianz policy, consider it maybe a halfway house between it and National, in other words what I think a bold ACT could say.


1. Government waste. Cut all government spending to the lowest of the OECD: These means cutting local government as well as national government, and being bold about waste. A smaller government than New Zealand's competitors is more ambitious than matching Australia, which is bloated by mineral wealth.

2. Cut and flatten tax rates: OK, time to repeat the already announced policies of having the first $10,000 tax free, abolishing the 39% top tax rate AND abolish the 33% tax rate. Drop company tax to 19.5%. That means flat tax at 19.5% for all.

3. Limit local government to core activities: Abolish power of general competence and cap rates, permanently (no inflation indexation). Councils would need to find new ways to raise funds (no new tax powers), and cut spending. Councils would be prohibited from entering into new activities, from subsidising businesses and the arts.

4. Reform the public service: I don't care about limiting Parliament or Cabinet, but let's require all departmental CEOs to give a report within one month of office explaining what would happen if the department was abolished. All must give two options. Those that aren't convincing would be abolished. CEO's of Ministry of Womens' Affairs, Youth Affairs, Families Commission and numerous others would be better resigning and using the time to find a real job.

5. Red tape: Require remaining government departments to report on options to eliminate costs to business, and rely upon contract, tort and private property rights instead of licensing and regulation.

6. Reform the Resource Management Act: Amend the RMA, to make private property rights pre-eminent, and make its primary purpose the extension of private property rights onto rivers, foreshore, seabed, airspace, sight lines, air quality and the like. In other words, create private property rights to enable owners to do as they wish with their OWN environment. Of course it wouldn't look much like the RMA any more.

7. Create a competitive market in education: Yes to education vouchers, extend it to university, but they should only cover half the cost of tuition. Abolish state involvement in early childhood education. Give schools full autonomy on pay and curriculum, make each school into an independent corporate entity.

8. Same in healthcare: Offer insurance model in exchange for tax cut, payment of premiums. Public can opt out of state healthcare and switch insurance providers, or can choose state healthcare which receives budget based on hypothecated tax revenue from those paying for it. Make all government healthcare facilities into businesses again.

9. Reintroduce competition to accident compensation: Competition for employer, motor vehicle and personal accounts. Compulsory cover with review to consider merits of returning right to sue for personal injury by accident.

10. Welfare: Support ACT's announced policy of shifting welfare to unemployment, sickness and invalid insurance, extend to DPB and transfer Kiwisaver to individuals to ultimately replace national superannuation.

11. Immigration: Open door with the following limits. No right to claim welfare or social assistance of any kind. No admission for those convicted of crimes that have NZ equivalents. Must have financial means (or sponsorship) for at least 3 months and airfare to return.

12. Labour reform: Shift employment law to contract law, abolish minimum wage.

13. Privatisation: Sell and give away shares for all SOEs, give away shares in hospitals, schools to the public.

14. Infrastructure: Abolish electricity and telecommunications commissioners. Return Telecom's property rights in its infrastructure, and abolish laws requiring cellphone operators to resell competitors' services. Convert Transit NZ into an SOE and privatise Auckland Harbour Bridge and its approaches, allow road users to contract directly for road use and opt out of fuel tax. Require local authorities to transfer roads into SOE equivalents. Privatisation of water/sewage.

15. Cut the remaining tariffs on imports: Perfect.

16. Free up more land for housing: Abolish urban growth limits, privatise state housing by offering Thatcher style "buy your state house" scheme, use RMA reform to reintroduce private property rights.

17. Strengthen law and order policies: Yes private prisons and get the private sector to do Police work that ISN'T about arrest (e.g. assistance, traffic control) and speed up the courts. However, introduce "points" scheme for crimes. If a criminal gets 100 points, it is permanent detention. Good behaviour inside allows for a 10% discount on sentence and points. Full review of all criminal laws to eliminate victimless crime, legalise medical use of cannabis and review laws on drugs consistent with changes to health and ACC policy (to ensure individuals are accountable for their actions).
.
18. Climate change: Declare climate change policy to be abolition of subsidies for activities likely to be contributing to climate change (in fact all activities), and reducing taxes on low emission activities (and all activities). Abolishing transport subsidies and price controls on energy will help too. Quite simply, taking pro-freedom steps that are consistent with trying to reduce the theoretical impact of climate change, but nothing else.

19. Strengthen our constitutional framework: Yes to a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, but also abolish the Maori seats, include private property rights and right to control one's body in the Bill of Rights, and eliminate references to the Treaty of Waitangi in all legislation.

20. Appoint mentors to families at risk: All very well and good, but to help this along, abolish additional welfare for children born to families or individuals already in welfare. Also deny convicted serious violent or sexual criminals the right to custody or cohabitate with anyone under 16, or the right to welfare. The stick as well as the carrot.

So there you go, it felt rather unambitious not scrapping the RMA, not introducing a libertarian constitution, not fully privatising schools and hospitals or the roads, or legalising drugs, but well this isn't for Libertarianz, it's for ACT. What do you think?

Scoring ACT's 20 point plan

Act's come up with its own version of Labour's pledge card and seems to be showing a bit more backbone than it ever has before. Of course perhaps it was a political miscalculation to have 20 points, as nobody will remember most of them. Far easier to have 3 or 5 at the most as the key messages, but we'll see if this fires up enough of the public to give ACT a go. Rodney Hide's speech on Sunday where he announces the 20 point plan has some juicy tidbits that are hard to disagree with:

"Who would you trust to manage New Zealand's $175 billion economy in a crisis?

Michael Cullen - who's squandered the best global conditions of a generation to make us poorer than Greece?

Bill English - who did nothing much the last time he was Minister of Finance, and is proudly promising to do nothing much again?

Or Sir Roger Douglas - the Finance Minister who transformed New Zealand from the East Germany of the South Pacific into one of the freest and most respected economies in the world?"

Quite.

So what are these 20 points? Are they substantial, or are they waffle and would they make a positive difference? Here's my verdict one by one (this will take some time). I'm judging ACT on clarity of policy and contribution to economic or personal liberty. To make it slightly more interesting I'm giving up to 5 points for being bold:

1. Government waste. Cut state spending to Australian levels: I presume this means as a proportion of GDP, but isn't entirely clear. This is clearly positive, modestly ambitious, but only worthy of 2 points, after all Australia is far from free from government waste.
.
2. Cut and flatten tax rates: Well yes, but what does this mean? This could be anything from getting rid of the 39% top tax rate to promoting a single flat tax rate. Last election ACT promoted a two tier rate of income tax, in 1999 and 1996 it advocated flat taxes. Make your mind up. Lack of clarity shows lack of commitment to what this means. National may cut tax rates and you flattening is a point further, so only 2 points here. If ACT comes out with a single low income tax rate then it would deserve 4 points.
.
3. Limit local government to core activities: Again, lack of clarity. What does this mean? Does it include owning water, rubbish collection services and running roads? Does it include subsidised housing? In principle, it is good, but again lacking clarity means what am I to judge? I'm giving ACT 1 point for this, it could be 3 if it was specific to what are often referred to as "public goods".
.
4. Reform the public service: This is described as cutting Parliament to 100 (fine but symbolic really), close departments "we don't need" (like?) and limit Cabinet to 12 members (again symbolic). The first and last proposals do little, and closing departments without naming them is rather odd. I'll give ACT 2 points for this if only because it has promise, but little more.

5. Red tape: Back into the vagueness brigade. Saying things like "Get rid of all nutty regulations" without one example is fuel to fire Labour. The Regulatory Responsibility Bill would be a small step forward, but there already are Regulatory Impact Statements prepared, albeit often ignored and with poor analysis. Only 1 point with this, as it sounds like little more than rhetoric.

6. Reform the Resource Management Act: Again nothing in terms of substance. If I'm optimistic it might mean including private property rights, but Rodney says nothing else useful about it. I'll give him 1 point for reform, but it's woefully inadequate to not say more. He gets four if he RMA makes private property rights paramount (three if dominant).

7. Create a competitive market in education: At last something more substantial, education vouchers. Now this would make a positive difference. The need to tackle education is critical, and this will break the centralised bureaucracy and the unions, I'm giving it 3 points for being a worthwhile step forward.

8. Same in healthcare: Well I'm not sure ACT means health vouchers or being able to buy health insurance with a tax rebate, for that it loses a point for being unclear. However, having competitive delivery and choice in healthcare would be be worthy. 2 points for that assuming it does really mean choice.

9. We'd reintroduce competition to accident compensation: This isn't that vague, although remember competition was only for employer accounts, not motor vehicle cover or personal cover. If it is just employer accounts then it is only 1 point, the Nats are already going to do that. Add motor vehicle and it gets another, and personal accounts adds another two. So more clarity needed there.

10. Welfare. We'd create competitive markets for sickness, invalid and unemployment insurance: Now this appears bold. Presumably this insurance would be compulsory (which knocks a point off), and doesn't mention the DPB (which is rather critical too). However, having people buy insurance rather than pay taxes for welfare is a bold step forward indeed. ACT gets 4 points for this, as it has the potential to be a quantum leap forward in how the public treats welfare and insuring against misfortune, I'll assume not mentioning the DPB is an oversight, as not including that would knock a point off, because it is too important to ignore.

11. Immigration: Uh oh vagueness returns with talk of "welcoming more high quality migrants". There is literally nothing to hang an opinion on here, so I give it 1 point to be kind assuming something positive might be done.

12. Labour reform: Rodney says this means "Allow freedom of contract to make it easier to trial new workers and replace poor performers". Nothing to argue with there, assuming this is further than the former Employment Contract Act then it deserves 4 points.

13. Privatisation: Rodney says "Sell state businesses where private firms can serve customers better". Now limiting it to businesses (not hospitals, schools and roads) easily knocks a couple of points off, but also limiting it to selling AND the condition that "private firms can serve customers better" seems a little odd. It gets 2 points for being less bold than it should be, and because the next policy wouldn't be necessary if it was more bold.

14. Infrastructure: Rodney says "We need to build better networks, like roads, water and electricity", well you could sell electricity and water with little effort, and roads with a bit more. He then says "replace user charges with tolls that reward off-peak use". This means roads of course. Electricity and water can do this easily, now. Roads you could allow this by following the commercialisation/privatisation model you talked about before. It gets 1 point for noting the economic point, but no more for failing to note how this best can be done.

15. Cut the remaining tariffs on imports: Excellent, clear policy, cut appears to mean abolish. 5 points for this, all of New Zealand being a free trade zone is clearly bold.

16. Free up more land for housing: I'd like to know what this means. It could mean getting rid of urban growth limits, it could mean the government selling land. It could mean changing property rights. I don't know, how can I give it a single point, unless it is a combination of all of the above, and four points if private property rights were paramount (I can hope).

17. Strengthen law and order policies: A perennial favourite. This time it means private prisons (a point for that), private sector helping the Police (a point there too, as long as civil liberties are respected), then speed up the courts (Night Court time apparently) and zero tolerance of minor offences all seem rather positive. Of course no talk of reviewing victimless crimes or the war on drugs. I'll give ACT 2 points for this because although it is positive, the truth is it isn't that particularly bold. A bit more commitment to zero tolerance might squeeze a third point out of this policy.

18. Climate change: Now this is very unclear. It appears ACT supports a carbon tax by Rodney saying "A low carbon tax would be a lot more affordable than carbon trading". Then he talks about the US, Australia and British Columbia doing this better, though they all have different policies. There is definitely a minus three from this one. This policy wont add anything positive to the status quo.

19. Strengthen our constitutional framework: This means a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (a point of that), return to the Privy Council (maybe a point for that at best), and a referendum on MMP (no points for that Rodney, it's neutral). Nothing on private property rights, nothing on getting rid of the Maori seats, nothing about treating the Treaty of Waitangi as historically important but no more. 1 point for the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. I wont double count the Regulatory Responsibility Bill.

20. Appoint mentors to families at risk: Hmmm one point for this. How about denying convicted criminals welfare? How about withdrawing custody from those convicted of violent or sexual offences? How about dealing to the DPB?

OK, so what does ACT get. It could get 100 for being radically bold and innovative towards pushing freedom and personal responsibility. If it gets 50 I'll say it will have taken the chance to be a major difference from National and staked a claim for reform ala the 80s, early 90s. So now I'll count. 33 points at worst, and if the vagueness I identified came out as positive as is likely it would be 47. Of course to get 47 would mean advocating a single low flat tax, reforming the RMA meaning private property rights were paramount and local government reform made a serious difference.

So I give ACT a D, but showing promise. If it dumps talking about a carbon tax as being positive, advocates flat tax, advocates private property rights, spells out what local government should do explicitly and is bolder on privatisation (such as giving away shares and going beyond the SOEs) it could get a pass. Its brightest points appear to be on welfare and trade, shifting welfare to an insurance model and abolishing tariffs are two rather bold innovative steps. I hope the vagueness is clarified, and a bit more boldness can be squeezed out.
.
Of course the Nats should hold their heads in shame. Five of these policies were once Nat policies, now they are not.
.
On the other side, Libertarianz have nothing to be concerned about. There is plenty of room for practicable pro freedom policies on all of these areas, and I'll be blogging on what these could be tomorrow. Frankly if it was 1987 or 1991, I'd expect almost all of the ACT policies to be mainstream with either Labour or National - oh how times have changed.
.
UPDATE: Lindsay Mitchell describes it as "what real commitment looks like", even though it doesn't explicitly even mention the DPB, which is a passion of hers (and rightfully so).
.
Clint Heine provides a handy link to the pledge card (PDF) and is enthusiastic as well saying "The pledgecard is a briliant piece of work, and something EVERYBODY of any political persuasion should look at and debate. I personally think this IS the agenda the right in NZ should be following and I challenge National/United and any other centre right party to come up with anything that will be as successful as this is." Yes , centre right is the term. I could see most of this being National policy on a good day, but I can do better, and it isn't even going as far as Libertarianz.

Is ACT prepared to support a Labour government?

From ACT's website:

"Rodney Hide: Does the Minister feel so strongly against giving parents a choice of school, including independent schools, that he would resign as Minister of Education if that were a condition of support from MMP parties for a future Government?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I think the likelihood of Labour going into coalition with ACT is nil, especially with the addition of Roger Douglas to its party list."

.

According to this, Rodney Hide is teasing Labour into considering whether it engages in, at least, a confidence and supply agreement with ACT if it needed to do so to remain in power after the 2008 election. Tactically of course, given National's unwillingness to consider Sir Roger Douglas for Cabinet, this might make a little sense for ACT, so that there is some leverage over the Nats after the election. However, if you voted National in 2005 and now are contemplating ACT, because the Nats are a shoo in, Rodney Hide seems safe in Epsom and you want a CHANGE in government to implement more free market policies, you might hesitate if Rodney Hide actually keeps Helen Clark in power.

.

Now if you think this is unlikely, consider this. It has seemed both in 2002 and 2005 that Labour's natural partner would be the Greens, but it has avoided confidence and supply and coalition agreements with it after both elections. The Greens were hardly going to support National were they? By contrast, did the average Labour voter expect United Future to keep the government in power for two terms and NZ First for one? Is it inconceivable that a Phil Goff lead Labour Party (let's say Clark is rolled before the election, highly unlikely unless Labour's polling drops below 30%) would seek confidence and supply from ACT, if Labour did implement some modest tax cuts and uh.. did something else? (help me here). After all, it is far from inconceivable that National will partner up with the Maori Party, and the feelers have been out between the Nats and the Greens (although that does seem like hard work).

.

So what would be ACT's bottom line for a confidence and supply agreement with Labour OR National? Not the details, it's clear that would be worked through. However, I'd hope it included the following:

.

- A tax free income threshold, abolition of the 39% top tax rate and lowering of company tax;

- Education vouchers for primary and secondary education;

- Including private property rights in the RMA if not replacing it;

- End to the growth of the state sector and identification of opportunities to privatise by sale AND issuing shares directly to the public.