On one side is freedom, on the other totalitarianism

It has been interesting watching the reaction of different people to the banning by Auckland Mayor Phil Goff of 'alt-right' commentators Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern from speaking at a Council venue. There has been a heartening groundswell of support from New Zealanders of all political views in favour of the legal action to challenge Goff's decision (of which I am a financial supporter). Unsurprisingly, there has also been plenty of support for Goff's decision, including from some people I would have thought would be more supportive of individual rights - some of whom, if they paused to think about it for a moment, are likely to be next in line to be banned.

I believe that the right to free expression is the bedrock of all other individual rights. It is the most powerful weapon against tyranny and its abrogation is always a necessary element of political repression. Many of those who have supported Goff's decision have argued that there are limits to the rights to freedom of expression and the views held by Molyneux and Southern do not warrant the protection of such rights. But rights are innate and universal and are not granted by any person or government - or they are not rights. And who gets to decide? The people who want to decide are the people we would least want to make such decisions.

Some have argued that that the Auckland Council, as the owner of the venues, has the right to determine who says what on its property and that freedom of expression doesn't extend to the right to be provided with a platform. I agree that this is correct in the case of private property, but in the case of public property the denial of a platform is the denial of free speech itself. The Auckland mayor's action in respect of Molyneux and Southern is no different to banning them from speaking on a street corner or a public park. There is no freedom of expression if it doesn't apply to a public place. Of course, no one is arguing that a city hall should be open to all comers at all times at no cost, but the reason Goff gave for denying the facility to Moyneux and Southern was the unacceptability of their views. It would be sad day indeed when only those views that in Goff's opinion 'unite' Aucklanders were allowed to be expressed at Council venues.

The court action against Goff and the Auckland City Council has gained international attention and will be seen as a weathervane of this country's respect for individual liberties and rights. Make no mistake, this is the most important issue of our time. On one side is freedom, on the other side, totalitarianism. Pick your side.

Little in name, small-minded in policy

Three terms in opposition will make any political party desperate and the New Zealand Labour Party is no exception. That is why we have seen Andrew Little, the leader of the Labour Party who was elected not by a free vote of individual party members but by the block-voting of union affiliates, push two new policies that are cynical in the extreme. Firstly, he has proposed Labour will introduce three years' free tertiary education. Currently, many tertiary students take advantage of the government's no-interest student loans policy, a significant financial benefit over previous interest-bearing loans that was introduced (at considerable taxpayers' expense) by the previous Helen Clark Labour Government. The new policy is expected to cost around $1 billion per year.

Let us examine the impact of this new policy on two young people. The first chooses to study law and after graduating will quickly rise to be amongst the highest income earners in the country (probably representing Maori tribes seeking even larger Treaty of Waitangi claim payouts from the government - the most lucrative legal gig in New Zealand these days). The second chooses to leave school and use self-taught web development skills to start a small business building websites for local companies. This latter person takes the most risk and while he or she may make a reasonable income they are unlikely to make anywhere near the eventual income of the law graduate, and yet the web developer will have to pay more even taxes to support the lawyer's tertiary education. How is that fair?

The worst thing about this policy is that no one is demanding it (apart from, perhaps, the heads of the university students associations). It is so obviously an attempt to buy young people's votes at the next election that one wonders whether Andrew Little has any shame.

The second policy Little has announced is his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. This is despite the fact that it was the Clark Labour Government that signed the original agreement and that all the latest version of the agreement does is to extend the deal to more countries (including the United States) and to more goods and services. Two senior members of Little's team (Phil Goff and David Shearer) have already indicated they will cross the floor and vote with the National Government in favour of the deal.

Why would Little break the unity of his caucus to oppose something his party has always supported? The reason is not so much about cynical vote-buying as about Little doing his masters' bidding. Little's masters are, of course, the union leaders who ensured he became Labour Party leader. The unions oppose TPP because it threatens feather-bedded jobs in protected industries and have ordered him to oppose it. Never mind democratic process, the union bosses have said 'jump' and Little's response is 'how high?'

Everyone expects politicians to act in their own political interests and that of their supporters, but in both these cases the Labour Party is pursuing narrow, sectoral interests rather than the interests of the country (or Labour voters) as a whole. If this is an indication of how a Little-led Labour Government will act, then I hope we never see such a thing in reality.

Neither Government nor Opposition Will Solve NZ's Economic Problems

We have finally seen a response to New Zealand's economic problems in the National Government's Budget (problems that were clearly illustrated in the Budget document). But it is hardly a brave and decisive response, delivering only small changes to the state's subsidies for the KiwiSaver savings scheme, slightly less generous conditions on borrowing under the Student Loans scheme (but it is still interest free) and slight adjustments to the Working for Families welfare-for-all scheme that Prime Minister John Key called "Communism by stealth" when he was Leader of the Opposition. None of these things will go far in addressing the New Zealand Government's huge operating deficit. The Government claims it will go into surplus in 2014 but this is dependent on achieving 4% p.a. growth in GDP - an unlikely prospect if the country's recent economic performance is anything to go by.

And what of the Labour Party's policies? Since the Budget Phil Goff, Leader of the Opposition, has announced that Labour will:
1) Establish a Ministry of Children
2) Restore research and development tax credits that National abolished
3) Pay for the above by bringing agriculture into the comprehensive Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) two years earlier than planned.

Of these policies only the second is likely to have any beneficial economic effect. Establishing a Ministry of Children will be a cost with no benefits (not even to children's welfare, in my opinion) and extending the ETS earlier than planned will only increase the direct costs to the economy of this pernicious scheme, again with no benefits (given New Zealand produces just 0.2% of total global anthropogenic carbon emissions).

So neither party's policies are going to address New Zealand's slide into the sort of economic hardship of the type currently being suffered by the PIIGS countries (as discussed in this blog). This is because neither party contains any politicians with the intestinal fortitude to tackle the problem. Our politicians of all persuasions are pathetic, poll-driven, moral pygmies who would rather see our country become destitute than risk their popularity to implement the reforms that are necessary to generate economic growth.

I believe our politicians grossly underestimate New Zealanders' intelligence and integrity. I believe most New Zealanders understand our current economic plight, especially since the Christchurch earthquakes, and are willing to accept far greater austerity measures than this Government has introduced with its Budget. But it would take a leader with more courage than John Key or Phil Goff have ever shown to risk his or her political career to do what needs to be done.

It's the Politicians Who are Overpaid

Phil Goff (remember him - he's the leader of the NZ Labour Party) wants to restrict senior public servants' salaries to the same level as the Prime Minister. Why for pity's sake? What's so special about the PM's salary and why should he be the highest paid public servant?

Actually, I think it's the politicians who are overpaid. I like the old system that prevailed until Victorian times in England where MPs didn't get paid at all. This meant that only people of means would stand for Parliament - and that usually meant people who had been successful at some other vocation before entering politics. The problem with our current crop of politicians it that many of them, especially in the previous Labour-Greens Government, have never had to earn a living doing something productive in their whole lives. That means they have no idea how most people go about earning their living or how wealth is created. They think that money grows on trees and that they have a God-given right to spend it profligately on whatever they see fit.

Political involvement should be truly a public service and if it was I think we would have a much better experienced and qualified group of MPs in Parliament. Paying them zilch, or at least a very small stipend, would rid us of the politicians who are only there because it pays more than the dole.