|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Roger Partridge | Chairman and Senior Fellow | roger.partridge@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
But his treatment of Canada, America’s closest neighbour, defies rational explanation. Trump’s assault on Canada exposes a grim geopolitical strategy in ways his murky Ukraine policy never could. No historical complexities blur the picture. No security issues cloud our judgment. Here stands America’s closest ally – sharing the world’s longest peaceful border, buying more US goods than anyone, fighting alongside American troops for generations – facing economic warfare from a supposed friend. Trump’s 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods took effect this month. But not before he threatened to double tariffs on steel and aluminium to 50 per cent in response to threatened retaliation from Ontario. Trump also warned he would “permanently shut down” Canada’s car industry. Trump’s apparent aim is to force Canada to become America’s “51st state.” He telegraphed this ambition by repeatedly referring to Prime Minister Trudeau as “Governor Trudeau.” Recent history suggests we should take his words seriously. Trump’s aggression strains credulity. There are no legitimate grievances. No security threats. Just pressure against a peaceful neighbour. His justification is economic nationalism – using tariffs to force jobs back home. But this is economically misguided. It will harm both nations. Nor can it justify his territorial claims. Wall Street recognised this immediately. Stocks suffered their worst two-day drop since August, only recovering slightly when Ontario backed down. Mark Carney, selected as Liberal Party leader amid this crisis and poised to replace Trudeau as Prime Minister, faced an impossible choice: surrender sovereignty or watch methodical economic harm unfold. His pledge to fight “until Americans show us respect” contrasts sharply with Washington’s hostility. All this sends a clear signal to America’s adversaries. Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran watch as the US threatens its closest ally. They know a United States without friends stands alone. For New Zealand, the implications are sobering. The US’s protectionist tariffs of the 1930s deepened the Great Depression through global retaliation. Today’s trade wars risk similar damage. Our economy relies heavily on agricultural exports, with nearly NZ$4 billion annually in meat and dairy products shipped to the US. Similar tariffs, combined with disruptions from a global trade war and a US recession, could slash GDP by 1–2% and devastate rural communities. When even Canada faces economic threats, New Zealand must prepare for a world where rules matter less than might. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Jemma Stevenson | Research Fellow | jemma.stevenson@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Unfortunately, this tendency to invent new things has also extended to successive governments – they just can’t stop creating new portfolios! New Zealand has 81 portfolios, 28 ministers, and 43 central government organisations (public service departments, departmental agencies, and non-public service departments). Comparing New Zealand to other countries with similar populations shows how extreme this is. Norway (5.5 million) has just 20 portfolios, 20 ministers, and 17 departments. Ireland (5.3 million) only has 18 portfolios, 15 ministers, and 18 departments. A large executive is expensive. As outlined in Max Salmon’s research, 'When there are more ministers, governments tend to spend more, run larger deficits, generate higher revenues, increase transfers, spend more on government wages, and rely more on labour taxes.’. Because, while each minister benefits from spending in their area, political costs are shared through the doctrine of collective cabinet responsibility. As the burden of fiscal responsibility is diluted, New Zealand’s 28 ministers compete for a larger share of the budget without bearing full individual responsibility for subsequent deficits. Many of New Zealand’s departments are overseen by several ministers. More ministers oversee the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) than Ireland has in total. If the actions, successes, and failures of departments are the responsibility of multiple ministers, to whom are they truly accountable? Some portfolios even span multiple departments. Where inter-departmental approvals are required for policy initiatives, efficiency is thereby reduced, increasing costs and the risk of delays. A streamlined system must be established with clear lines of accountability and faster implementation. New Zealand should align its bureaucratic structure more closely to Norway’s, requiring many portfolios to be merged, and the number of ministers reduced. Portfolios with similar responsibilities could easily be merged. For example, there could be Ministries of Defence and Veterans, Housing and Building and Construction, and Environment and Climate Change Issues. Consolidating portfolios would reduce bureaucratic hurdles and conflicts between ministers holding similar portfolios, encouraging efficiency and cost reduction. In an upcoming report, the Initiative will outline in more depth how New Zealand can reap the benefits of heightened efficiency and cost reductions. Just think of all the apples and Marmite sandwiches that could be purchased for school lunches from these newfound savings! |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
InternetNZ has managed the process for 30 years. It has performed its function so quietly and efficiently that most New Zealanders may never have heard of the organisation. Until recently, InternetNZ’s mission was about as exciting as peacekeeping on the Chatham Islands. But it seems that InternetNZ has grown tired of obscurity. Its Council has recently made some very interesting statements and proposals. First, it strangely declared itself to be systemically racist. Its proposed remedy is to restrict its membership to those who agree that InternetNZ should be 'Te Tiriti centric' – a fashionable way of saying it will prioritise a politicised interpretation of the Treaty in all its decisions. Next, the Council proposed a new, more heroic role for InternetNZ. It wants the organisation to help protect people from harm on the internet. At first blush, this makes no sense. InternetNZ has no power to protect anyone. If it refuses a ‘.nz’ address, there are plenty of international providers willing to register a website. So, what is really going on? A cynic might suspect that it is just another case of performative virtue signalling. But the most plausible explanation is that it is a cunning plan to boost revenue. And it has worked. You see, InternetNZ's proposals drew fire from the Free Speech Union (FSU). The FSU wrote to its members warning them of risks: An InternetNZ with a mandate to prevent internet harm might be tempted to indulge in a bit of censorship on the side. The FSU worries that a new activist InternetNZ might start revoking the website addresses of groups with unpopular opinions. After all, why seek shiny new powers if one does not intend to use them? The FSU invited its members to pay the $21 fee to join InternetNZ and help vote down the proposal. Many did so. In the following days, InternetNZ membership rose from 360 to more than two thousand. InternetNZ's mission to end internet harm might be implausible, but it has increased its membership income from $7.5k to $44k. Now, the Council can quietly drop its proposal and book itself a nice junket in Fiji. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
Initiative Activities:
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |