Debate on Brash speech ban avoids critical issue

I am going to write some more in this post about the banning of Don Brash from speaking at Massey University, not because I don't think enough words have been cast into the ether on the subject already, but because I believe most of those who have commented on the affair have missed a crucial point. On the surface, the matter has been about free speech and it has been a credit to our country that the overwhelming consensus has been that Brash shouldn't have been banned from speaking.

There is another aspect to this matter that, in my opinion, is almost more important than the general issue of free speech. The reason Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas gave for banning Brash was that "Mr Brash's leadership of Hobson's Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Māori wards on councils was clearly of concern to many staff, particularly Māori staff." She went on to say, "In my opinion, the views expressed by members of Hobson's Pledge come dangerously close to hate speech. They are certainly not conducive with the university's strategy of recognising the values of a Tiriti o Waitangi-led organisation."

Hobson's Pledge is an organisation whose vision is listed on its website as "New Zealand is a society in which all citizens have the same rights, irrespective of when we or our ancestors arrived." That seems innocuous enough, but the truly contentious part of its mission is its opposition to the constitutional and legal privilege that has been accorded to Māori tribal organisations under the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi adopted by the courts, Parliament and almost all public institutions over the last few decades. The issue about Māori wards for council elections was a subject in one of my recent blog posts. We have had Maori seats in our national parliament for 150 years but the idea of having exclusive Maori city councillors is a significant extension of this.

Both of these issues are significant and are at least legitimate questions for public debate, and Brash's views on them are shared by a large number of New Zealanders (and, in the case of the Māori wards, an overwhelming majority of those who have voted on the issue).

Jan Thomas said that Brash’s views were not conducive to the university’s strategy of being a "Treaty-led organisation”. What exactly that means is open to interpretation, but we can assume she means the university is committed to the post-modernist view of the Treaty that seeks to turn New Zealand's constitutional structure into a bicultural 'partnership' between Maori tribes and the Crown. This anti-democratic, racist arrangement would see governance of New Zealand shared between Maori tribal leaders and an unrepresentative government, a situation in which non-Maori New Zealanders would become second-class citizens in their own country.

Thomas’s actions in banning Brash is part of a broader movement to ensure that any view contrary to this post-modernist interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is wiped out. The Massey vice-chancellor has made it clear that the university has a doctrinal position and it won’t countenance any dissent from that doctrine. That is the sort of thing that was typical of universities in Maoist China during the Cultural Revolution and that ought to have no place in a New Zealand university or NZ society as whole.

I think it is clear that the Treaty gives no superior political rights to any tribal leaders today and claims that it established some sort of on-going partnership between tribal political entities and the government of today are entirely spurious. Irrespective of whether I am right or wrong, I am entitled to express this view on an issue that is so vital to New Zealand's future. If this country has become a place where we cannot even debate such matters, then we are no longer a democracy. I am encouraged that so many New Zealanders have come out in support of free speech, but almost no one has addressed the elephant in the room - that we should be free to debate the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our modern society.

Brash ban is a tipping point

Don Brash is an avuncular, elderly politician who was once leader of the National Party, New Zealand's longest-governing political party. He narrowly missed out on becoming prime minister when he was defeated by Helen Clark's Labour Party in 2005. There were many who thought he was robbed of election victory because Helen Clark illegally used taxpayers' funds to publish a 'pledge card' that was distributed to every household in the country. The Electoral Commission, which oversees the conduct of elections in New Zealand, referred the matter to the police, who declined to prosecute. Had Labour been tried and convicted of electoral fraud, there almost certainly would have been another election with a different result.

This is the man who has been banned from speaking at Massey University in Palmerston North after he was invited by the Massey University Young Politics club to talk about his experiences as Leader of the Opposition. The university's vice-chancellor, Jan Thomas, cancelled the event because of Brash's "leadership of Hobson’s Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Māori wards on councils" (as well as some very dubious "security concerns").

Hobson's Pledge is an organisation whose vision is listed on its website as "New Zealand is a society in which all citizens have the same rights, irrespective of when we or our ancestors arrived." That seems innocuous enough, but the truly contentious part of its raison d'être is its opposition to the constitutional and legal privilege that has been accorded to Māori tribal organisations under the post-modernist interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi. The issue about Māori wards for council elections was a subject in one of my recent blog posts here. Both of these issues are significant and legitimate questions for public debate and Brash's views on them are shared by a large number of New Zealanders (and, in the case of the Māori wards, an overwhelming majority of those who have voted on the issue).

I believe this fairly minor matter of a university cancelling a speaker may turn out to be a tipping point in New Zealand politics, for several reasons. Firstly, the issue of banning speakers for their controversial views is already a hot topic after the cancellation by the Auckland Council of an event by Canadian speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern. Secondly, I believe there is a sense of disenfranchisement amongst many New Zealanders that is similar to that amongst Britons before Brexit and Americans before Trump's election. I think we are ripe in New Zealand for a trigger issue to ignite this disenfranchised group in the same way that Trump ignited the support of those Hillary Clinton called "deplorables". Thirdly, I think the Treaty of Waitangi has become that sleeper issue for many New Zealanders who are far from content with the increasing demands from Māori tribal elites and the escalating concessions from successive governments eager to appease those demands. New Zealanders have bitten their tongues on the Treaty issue for fear of being called racist but have been biding their time, waiting for an opportunity to make their views known. 

New Zealanders are a impassive bunch most of the time and it takes a lot to rouse us to anger. But we have a keen sense of justice and I think the idea of a former Leader of the Opposition being denied the right to speak on a public university campus will strike most New Zealanders as unjust. The idea that it is unacceptable to voice any opposition to the establishment position on important issues is exactly what will turn many people against the establishment position. I may be wrong, but I suspect Jan Thomas and Massey University will come to regret their decision, and the New Zealand political establishment may end up with a shock of Brexit proportions.

As I said on Twitter earlier, if you think that Don Brash is extreme, wait until you see the alternative.

Why New Zealand is well on its way to Third World status

I read in Not PC's blog that the assets controlled by the NZ Government (including local government) are six times the value of the listed companies on the New Zealand stock exchange. I found this such an incredible statistic I decided to look into it myself. This discussion was in the context of Prime Minister Key proposing to look at the partial sale of shares in some state owned enterprises (SOEs) if his government is re-elected later this year. The proposal is only to sell minority stakes and is hardly a wholesale reversal of the previous Labour Government's steady nationalisation of companies such as Air New Zealand and the Tranzrail but it was enough to set the fox among the chattering chickens of the media and political commentators.

Amazingly, the statistic is true. I believe Not PC got the statistic from ACT MP Muriel Newman's blog, who in turn quoted it from former National Party leader Don Brash's last "state of the nation" speech to the Orewa Rotary club (a tradition started by 1970s/80s prime minister Muldoon). One thing you can say for Don Brash is that he does his research. My own investigations reveal that the total value of shares listed on the NZSE is currently about $56B. The total assets of the Crown in the latest Treasury financial accounts is $223B. Local government assets are approx. $98B. So the total value of all government assets is around $320B or six times the value of the shares on the stock exchange. The government has $95B invested in SOEs and investments including the government's superannuation fund, although the net asset value would be somewhat less than that. New Zealand has a total "capital stock" of about $570B, so the Government's share of that is around 56%.

It is difficult to do direct comparisons with other countries but New Zealand's figure seems to be unusually high. The US Federal Government's assets are only about US$3 trillion of a total US asset base of approx. US$200 trillion (1.5%). Okay, that doesn't include the assets of state governments but even if they are ten times the federal value they are still a much smaller proportion of national assets than New Zealand's. The last figures for Australia I could find had the Federal Government assets at about A$350B compared with a total national asset base of more than A$5 trillion (7%). Again, it doesn't include state governments but you get the picture.

When commentators look at government involvement in the economy they only tend to look at government spending as a proportion of GDP and on that measure (39%) New Zealand is on a par with other countries. But based on these asset ownership figures, our government completely dominates the economy. In fact, I'd guess we have one of the highest levels of government asset ownership in the world.

I hear the lefties saying, so what? Well, I believe that this is a significant factor in New Zealand's poor economic performance over past decades. We have slipped from number 3 or 4 on the OECD table of GDP per capita in the 1950s to number 23 today. That is an appalling decline that we should be ashamed of. In the 1950s we were ahead of Australia in GDP per capita and now they are 45% ahead of us (and unlike us they are still well above the OECD average).

So why has New Zealand done so poorly in comparison to almost every other Western nation? The asset ownership figure provides an obvious answer: our inability to grow wealth in our private sector (which, after all, is the only place wealth is ever grown). Every country that has prospered over the last few decades has done so on the back of building large numbers of significant new private sector enterprises. In Scandinavia it has been high tech industries such as mobile phones and software, in the United States it has predominantly been in IT and entertainment products, and in Australia financial services, manufacturing and mineral exploitation. What has happened to New Zealand by comparison? Well, we've destroyed all our large companies through mismanagement and heavy-handed Government intervention. Think about it. What happened to Fletcher Challenge, Carter Holt Harvey, BNZ, Watties, Brierley Investments, and pretty much all the other big companies we used to have. They have been either taken over by foreign owners or are shadows of their former selves or they don't exist at all. And don't quote Fonterra as an exception - that's a state sanctioned monopoly that hasn't progressed beyond the low-value commodity producer it has been since the 1930s.

Oh, what about all the new technology success stories, Navman, Xero, TradeMe and so on? Well, even the largest of these are small fry in comparison with a Fletcher Challenge.

But, I hear you say, no one likes big business anyway and most New Zealanders are happy with their lot. Standard of living is not all about financial measures and aren't we one of the happiest societies in the world? So let's examine what will happen if we continue to slide further down the OECD ladder.

In another decade or two, at current rates of decline, most New Zealanders won't be able to afford to travel overseas at all. The tradition of overseas experience, especially for our young people, will be beyond our reach. We won't be able to afford to pay the welfare benefits we currently pay or the generous superannuation scheme we have for our retired people. We won't be able to keep our hospitals and schools running at current levels and certainly won't be able to buy the best drugs and medical equipment. We won't be able to have all those neat technology devices we crave, like iPhones and flat screen TVs. Forget the late model motor vehicles and the fancy imported foodstuffs and seeing foreign artists perform in our stadiums, or any of the other miriad of First World luxuries we take for granted.

You don't believe me? Just take a look at Greece or Portugal or Ireland at the moment. These countries lived beyond their means for too long and are now paying the price. Some of my friends and relatives in these countries, even the well-off ones, can no longer afford to travel. Interestingly, of these three countries, in spite of their economic troubles, only Portugal is below New Zealand on the GDP tables.

So what is the solution? It's simple really; we need to double the size of our private sector without increasing (and ideally reducing) the size of the public sector. That means a massive shift of investment and expenditure from the public to private. It means providing huge incentives, through tax breaks, for investment in the private sector and cutting our public sector cloth to suit. It won't be sufficient to match other country's tax incentives, we will have to be well below them to attract the investment we need. That is the simplest and the only solution. Don Brash and his 2020 Taskforce have been saying it and most economic commentators worth their salt have been saying it. I'm sure many New Zealanders don't want to hear the message but they need to understand the consequences of not doing it. Hopefully they will wise up before we drop completely off the bottom of the OECD list. Then we will be Third World, perhaps the only country in history to suffer the ignominy of going from the mansion to the poorhouse.