|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
That is great. But what might it mean in practical terms? There are important big-ticket items the government must address, among them the fiscal deficit, the affordability of superannuation, and the broader welfare state. However, there are also ideas which could be implemented quickly and yield results fast. Start with a glaring problem: when businesses invest in new machinery to boost productivity, our tax system gets in their way. Businesses need to be able to count depreciation against their revenues. But the Tax Foundation says that New Zealand has the second-worst provisions in the OECD. This discourages investment and needs to be fixed. Next, the government must tackle the truly mad stuff: infrastructure developers spend $1.29 billion annually navigating consent processes. For small projects, paperwork can account for 16% of total costs. We used to be known for our “can-do” spirit. Our ranking for regulatory burden has dropped from 2nd to 20th since 1998. Something has gone badly wrong. The government could fix this by setting a bold overall target: first measure and then slash all business compliance costs by 25% by 2030. In the early 2000s, the Netherlands pioneered this systematic approach to measuring and cutting administrative burdens, reducing them by 25% in just four years. Their model has since been copied widely. Why? Because it works. New Zealand should copy it too. Next, speed up building approvals. Allow private certifiers to approve straightforward projects. Inject competition into the approvals industry. Speaking of approvals: implement the ‘Rule of Two’ for medicines. If a drug has already been approved by two trusted regulators overseas, approve it here automatically. But hang on – this is already in the coalition agreement! It should have been one of the easiest reforms to implement. The policy is ready. The evidence is clear. The agreement is signed. Just do it! Then introduce sunset clauses for all new regulations. Make them expire after five years unless explicitly renewed. No more rules lingering for decades after their use-by dates. These changes would signal that New Zealand is serious about success. They are practical. Achievable. Most importantly, they do not require massive spending – just smarter, faster government. The Prime Minister is right. It is time to remove the obstacles to growth. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Nick Clark | Senior Fellow | nick.clark@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Corngate has cast a shadow over New Zealand's approach to GM ever since. For over two decades, the political fallout has contributed to an ultra-cautious regulatory environment hampering scientific progress and innovation. New Zealand’s outdated approach to GM is a potent illustration of the culture of ‘no’ holding the country back. However, the recent introduction of the Gene Technology Bill marks a significant shift towards a more balanced approach. Current restrictions are so severe that New Zealand scientists often conduct their research overseas rather than navigate complex domestic approval processes. A prime example is AgResearch's ryegrass project, which could help reduce livestock greenhouse gas emissions. Field trials had to be conducted offshore, a lost opportunity for New Zealand agriculture. The Bill, inspired by Australia’s Gene Technology Act, would replace the current one-size-fits-all approach with a risk-based system. Medical researchers would be able to develop new treatments more efficiently. Agricultural scientists could work on climate-resilient crops and innovative pest control solutions. Oversight would focus on managing genuine risks rather than on bureaucratic compliance. Critics have raised concerns about potential impacts on agricultural exports and New Zealand's "clean, green" image. These concerns can be effectively managed. Australia's more enabling legislation demonstrates that a thriving organic sector can co-exist with significant GM research and development. Co-existence approaches include buffer zones, adjusting planting dates to avoid overlapping flowering periods, using sterile GM plants or seedless varieties, and other measures like crop rotation, dedicated machinery for GM and non-GM plants, and clear labelling. The Bill would see an independent regulator within the Environmental Protection Authority, supported by technical and Māori advisory committees. It should allow applications to be efficiently assessed and make conditions on approvals proportionate to the risks posed. Prime Minister Luxon has emphasised that embracing growth and innovation is essential for New Zealand's future prosperity. The Gene Technology Bill will be a key contributor. Productivity growth has stalled. New Zealand needs new tools to give it a kickstart. The time has come to move beyond the restrictive legacy of Corngate and create a regulatory environment that enables rather than impedes innovation. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
It is true that you are much less likely to die in a workplace accident, on the road, in a war, or from an infectious disease than in the past. But the foremost threat to safety today is not physical, but cultural. The Pharmacy Council has risen to the challenge of combatting cultural peril. It has introduced a cultural safety requirement in its professional standards. To remain licenced, pharmacists must demonstrate “progress towards pharmacy practice that is culturally safe”. Perhaps you think the main safety focus of pharmacists should be to avoid poisoning their customers. But by failing to embed cultural safety in every aspect of their practice, the Council warns, pharmacists become unwitting culprits in perpetuating health inequity. But what is culturally safe practice? Does it simply mean respectful and courteous interactions with people of all backgrounds – in other words, not being a dick? If only it were that simple. In its guide, Towards Culturally Safe Practice, the Council informs pharmacists that it is patients who decide whether an interaction is culturally safe. But, the guide helpfully admonishes, “it is not their responsibility to then teach you.” Fair enough. When customers fulfil prescriptions at pharmacies, most probably don’t want to get involved in extended conversations about their values and social conventions. But how, then, are pharmacists to develop the knowledge they need to keep customers clear of cultural jeopardy? The guide is less helpful on that question than it might be. Pharmacists are enjoined to recognise how their own cultural biases and power might put their customers in cultural danger. To do this, they also need to inform themselves about their customers’ cultures. This is where it gets a little complex. The guide provides a long list of factors that might influence a person’s culture: Age, gender, sexual orientation, occupation, ethnicity, nationality, religion and disability. That list, the guide points out, is not exhaustive. But even considering that many factors presents a dizzying array of potential combinations – and therefore potential cultures – with which a pharmacist might have to contend. Just to add further complexity, as the guide goes on to say, “not everyone from the same culture will have the same needs and expectations.” It’s almost as if everyone has their own individual identity. Now there’s an idea. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |