|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
This is a sensible conversation to have. But predictably, it has already veered off track. The opposition calls it a typical right-wing move that betrays Kiwi values. The government, meanwhile, is defending itself against privatisation accusations. Both sides are arguing about the wrong thing. Selling assets is the straightforward part. What happens to the money afterwards is where it gets interesting. When New South Wales pioneered asset recycling, it did not just sell assets. It created a political locked box. The bulk of the asset sale proceeds flowed into a special fund called Restart NSW, which is ring-fenced by law for infrastructure investment. Politicians could not touch it. Infrastructure NSW, an independent body, determined which projects were feasible based on evidence. The money could only build new, additional infrastructure. Sales were not short-term cash-grabs to fill the budget, but a means of funding what the state needed most. Sydneysiders could literally see the old, state-owned electricity company turning into their new metro system. They watched ageing ports become modern hospitals. When residents could track every dollar from asset to infrastructure, 61% supported the programme. Not because they had always loved privatisation. They were thrilled to finally have the infrastructure they needed. New Zealand owns assets that do not need to be owned by the government. Why have a state bank when private banks perform better? The Crown owns commercial buildings and hundreds of farms. Why is this so, when our infrastructure needs are enormous and pressing? The current debate about ownership ideology does nothing to solve this mismatch. Asset recycling with proper governance stops politicians from “selling the family silver to pay for the groceries.” It creates a binding commitment to turn underperforming assets into desperately needed infrastructure. If we are going to have this conversation, let us have the right one. The question, therefore, is not “Do you support asset sales?” The real question is “How do we ensure the government is investing in what the country needs the most?” Without that governance mechanism, asset sales are just asset sales. With it, they become an infrastructure revolution. That is a debate worth having. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Benno Blaschke | Research Fellow | benno.blaschke@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Last week’s amendment to the Fast-track Approvals Act, now before Parliament, intends to enable greater competition. It will also allow ministers to issue policy statements to guide decision-makers. One of these will focus on grocery competition. This is a sensible stopgap while the resource management system is being reformed. It signals to investors that Wellington is serious about expediting the approval process. Yet it may not go far enough. The biggest barriers sit within the planning system: local zoning rules, transport requirements, and council policies make large developments slow and costly. These rules discourage large-scale retail investment and other kinds of productive development as well. Removing undue barriers will take time, patience and political will. The fast-track amendment, by comparison, is a minor procedural tweak. But other problems remain. One is how fast-track decision panels have been interpreting “long-term regional and national benefits.” For example, existing processes can block new supermarkets if they might take too many shoppers away from other neighbourhoods. But entry to displace incumbents can drive innovation and competition. If a new supermarket aims to capture market share from less efficient rivals, it should not have to de facto prove its entry does not hurt those rivals. Another problem is that panels second-guess the commercial viability of businesses. Investors are often better informed about their businesses than officials are. Their willingness to take risks and commit capital is itself a signal of public value. Confidence in that principle will matter not only for supermarkets but for all sectors seeking to grow. The Government is right to want a more dynamic economy. It has taken a modest, pragmatic step. The next challenge will be to ensure the new process works as intended. Allowing new supermarkets, even if they draw customers away from other places, would be a strong start. If investment still stalls, deeper planning barriers will need attention that continue to hold New Zealand back. Ultimately, the Fast-Track Act serves as a temporary expedient while more comprehensive reforms are being implemented. For now, the legislation before the House is a welcome step in the right direction, even if the journey is only beginning. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr James Kierstead | Research Fellow | james.kierstead@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
The obvious answer is the story of Ned the snail. You may remember Ned going viral (as well as spiral) in August this year after illustrator Gieselle Clarkson happened upon him while she was doing some weeding in her garden in the Wairarapa. What makes Ned special is that his shell spirals the opposite way to the overwhelming majority of his peers, making him unable to mate with 99.9975% of them. His situation is thus almost as bleak as that of centre-right singles in Wellington. That’s despite Ned’s many advantages, including owning his own home. There followed an international campaign to find Ned a mate, but all Clarkson received was thousands of photos of ‘optimistically misidentified right-coiling snails.’ Biosecurity only made things more difficult, with closed borders limiting international arrivals. Ned’s current dating status is unknown, but his story holds some important lessons. First, as my colleague Michael Johnston points out in a Herald column this week, if we want to maintain our population at reasonable levels, we’re going to have to embrace immigration. We can’t just retreat into our shells. Second, New Zealand is kind of a weird place. When we hit the international news, it’s as likely to be because of our Bird of the Year competition as for any other type of electoral fowl play. Even sluggish, garden-variety performers like Ned can streak through the international headlines if conditions are right. And finally, New Zealand is all round, a pretty nice place to be. Of course, like anywhere else on earth, we have our travails and tragedies. We also have our challenges (see Insights, passim). But New Zealand life isn’t generally punctuated by civil wars or military coups. Local news stories can still move at a snail’s pace. Whether things move too slowly here is, of course, for each individual to decide. At the time of going to press, it was unclear whether Ned had departed for pastures new with everything he owned on his back. Nor was it clear how he felt about leaving an environment where he always felt right at home and, at the same time, oddly out of place. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |