You are subscribed as | Unsubscribe | View online version | Forward to a friend


Insights 20: 6 June 2025
The Australian: Dr Oliver Hartwich on NZ's regulatory barriers
 
NZ Herald: Roger Partridge on New Zealand's real economic problem
 
The Post: Dr Eric Crampton on enabling supermarket competition
A golden opportunity for New Zealand's universities
Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz
It is hard to feel sorry for Harvard University.  

For two years running, Harvard has come at the bottom of the free speech rankings according to the Foundation Individual Rights and Expression. It has a shameful history of deplatforming speakers and censuring academics who express views at odds with progressive orthodoxy.  

But none of this justifies Trump’s punitive ban on international students enrolling at the university. His treatment of Harvard is at least as illiberal as anything the university has done itself. 

Trump’s attack on American universities doesn’t stop with Harvard. He has put new international student enrolments at universities across the nation on hold. Even already-enrolled students face uncertainty about whether they will be able to complete their studies in America. 

Trump’s moves are being challenged in American courts. Even so, the bans have created a climate of extreme uncertainty. As egregious as they are, they present a unique opportunity for New Zealand.  

New Zealand’s universities, like those across the Anglosphere, are highly dependent on income from international students. Their fees effectively subsidise those paid by domestic students.  

With the pandemic-related closure of the border in 2020, international enrolments at New Zealand universities plummeted. While numbers have now largely recovered, five years of disruption has done significant financial damage.  

Our universities could offer a safe haven for international students in America and reap a windfall in the bargain. If Immigration NZ were to offer fast-track visas to international students, we could pick up American-enrolled students wanting some insurance against the uncertainty there. 

Many students will simply want a temporary haven while the American situation plays out. They would hope to return to America if the courts overturn Trump’s bans.  

For these students, New Zealand’s Study Abroad programme would be ideal. The scheme enables international students to complete part of their degree here. If things do not improve in America, they could transfer to New Zealand degree programmes later. 

More broadly, there are opportunities to pick up far more international students, of higher quality, than in the past. Historically, international students have preferred universities in America, the UK, Canada and Australia to New Zealand’s. But with Trump’s disruption in the US, and Australia and Canada capping international student numbers, New Zealand stands to gain a greater share of the international student market.  

In Trump’s parlance, New Zealand “has cards.” All we need to do is play them well. 
Dangerous belittling of New Zealanders’ liberty and property rights
Dr Bryce Wilkinson | Senior Fellow | bryce.wilkinson@nzinitiative.org.nz
Governments have many roles, but some are of fundamental importance. A vital role is to secure citizens in their persons and possessions. 

I am amazed by the extent of public opposition to this long-standing principle. It has been triggered by its inclusion in the government’s Regulatory Standards Bill.  
Some prominent academics deny it is fundamental. At least one is vitriolic, asserting it is partisan and ideological.  

Some assert it elevates the individual over the collective. Others that it puts profits before wages, or big business over everyone.  

Thousands see the Bill as anti-Treaty and thereby anti-Māori. 

It is none of these things. Magna Carta established that King John could not rule his subjects by improper decree. Especially not the barons at Runnymede. The US Declaration of Independence similarly objected to King George III’s tax on tea.  

Long-standing English common law traditions guard against despotic government rule. These gains were hard won. One king lost his head in the process. Rule by Parliament, not divine right, won the day. 

Take the liberty principle. You own your own body. You are not a slave; you can choose what job to pursue and where you will live. You own what you earn, be it a wage, self-employed income, profit or interest on savings. 

In the words of Adam Smith in 1776, the property we have in our own labour “as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is it the most sacred and inviolable”.  

The prime importance of security in the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions follows. Theft and trespass are illegal. Police searches need a warrant. And the state must enforce these laws well. Many victims of crime could tell us that.  

None of these and other venerable protections are absolute. Parliament is the sovereign law-maker. Its tax and other laws trump all. It can override any guiding principles. 

It could deny due process. It could ban anything on a whim. It could imprison political opponents. It could seize out of malice or envy any individual’s property without compensation. 

Of course, it should not do such things. It should act in a principled manner. Its justifications should have integrity. But must they? 

People need to be clear about which principles are fundamental. Otherwise, hard-won liberties are easily lost. 

The government’s Legislation Guidelines spell out the fundamental importance of respect for the dignity of the individual.  

To undermine its importance by spurious assertions is dangerous. 
Learning from letters
Dr Eric Crampton | Chief Economist | eric.crampton@nzinitiative.org.nz
We can learn a lot from newspapers’ Letters to the Editor pages.  

This week, I had a column in the Stuff newspapers on the Initiative’s proposed fast-track for new supermarkets.  

I noted that existing district plans block new supermarkets that might compete with existing ones. So, we suggested enabling large-scale entry by a new player, overriding anticompetitive parts of district plans, and handling plan changes and consents for all sites at one go. 

A retired RMA hearings commissioner wrote to the Christchurch Press saying that I had succumbed to a commonly believed myth. The RMA already forbids councils from considering ‘trade competition’ and its effects. Plans and decisions not allowed to consider competition couldn’t possibly restrict competition. 

Nothing to see here, I suppose.  

Or, perhaps more accurately, a whole lot to see – in how RMA hearings commissioners understand the world.  

Let’s take a few examples. 

Ashburton set a planning rule forbidding a new retail development from taking on new retail tenants. Why? Taking customers away from the downtown shops would hurt downtown amenities. Very anticompetitive in effect. But the planners never considered competition, so all is well. Somehow. 

Homebase Mall in Christchurch was initially prohibited from having any supermarkets at all, for fear they’d reduce the amenity provided by The Palms shopping centre down the road. On appeal, Homebase was allowed one supermarket.  

Christchurch’s Plan Change 84, for the area around the airport, also prohibited more than a single supermarket. And downtown hoteliers objected to there being too many hotels. But none of that has any effect on competition - apparently.  

As far as RMA hearings commissioners are concerned, these sorts of things are fine so long as effects on competition weren’t the intent.  

Imagine claiming, during a Commerce Commission cartel inquiry, that you never considered competition when colluding with your competitors to restrict output. It was instead about preserving scarce resources, fighting overconsumption, and helping the environment. If they could avoid laughing too loudly, they would weigh those considerations against effects on competition. And you would face penalties. 

The country’s RMA hearings commissioners know or care not about the anticompetitive effects of what they do. Forgiving them for that failure requires someone more charitable than me. They have caused substantial harm.  

But it’s always better to change the game rather than blame its players. A fast-track to enable greater supermarket competition would help while more comprehensive reform is in progress. 
 
On The Record
Initiative Activities: ​ To listen to our latest podcasts, please subscribe to The New Zealand Initiative podcast on iTunes, Spotify or The Podcast App.
 
All Things Considered
Copyright © 2025 The New Zealand Initiative, All Rights Reserved


Unsubscribe me please


Brought to you by outreachcrm