We’re just a couple of days away from Bill English’s fourth budget. Year after year they’ve set low expectations, and failed to meet them. It looks like this budget is going to be more of the same, with John Key already trying to move the goal-posts.
This morning David Parker gave a speech where he clearly set out how a Labour government would be different.
- We will create jobs by supporting our exporters to expand and earn more.
- We will help Kiwis to get the education and skills they need to seize the job opportunities of a 21st century economy.
- We will grow incomes by investing in science and innovation to create more high-wage businesses.
- We will make it easier for Kiwis to save for their first home and to build a retirement nest egg.
David’s speech points out that we need to significantly change how the New Zealand economy works in order to grow jobs and higher wages. It’s filled with detail (and even graphs!) – I highly recommend you take a read.
We’ve also put together this video to take a look at how National haven’t simply failed to deliver, they’ve also failed to meet their own low standards. I hope you enjoy it. Please share it around.
David, the four talking points sound fine, but every party could claim those ideals (and probably have). And of course every party not in Government can claim they would manage the economy much better. That’s impossible to dispute – or prove.
I’m not so interested in what Labour say they would have done but can’t because they aren’t in government.
I’m not so interested in what Labour say they might do if they get into Government in 2014, because I know the world will have changed substantially by then.
I’m not interested at all in a negative gloat video, I wouldn’t enjoy that at all.
I’d like to know what Labour is doing right now, in this term, to contribute to a better parliament, a better economy and a better country.
@Pete George.
The job of an opposition party is -precisely- to hold the government of the day to account on its record. If it wishes to be elected subsequently, it must prevent an alternative future vision. I’d strongly recommend following the link to David Parker’s speech which is both thoughtful and compelling in my view.
Ultimately, if your starting point is that you are not interested in those things an opposition party can do, you probably will continue to be disinterested in engaging with change, fresh ideas and alternatives, and remain more focused on cosying up to those defending the status quo.
David, would really like to hear from you about how you would address point 3. A tax credit can’t help companies that dont have the spare cash to access RS&T services. Those that can afford (like Fonterra) just pay for what they need irregardless of the cost. I’m sure companies like Blis and Botryzen dont have wads of cash sitting around to push forward their product pipelines, etc. What other ideas do you have?
Where is Spud?
Hi David
The four points above sound wonderful. Who could disagree with anyone? Take anyone of these David and suggest ways to implement it. Give examples please. With only aspirations you are peddling platitudes.
Why does he cite unsuccessful companies with penny dreadful shares? Is he trying to ruin us all?
Why does he use GDP instead of GNP or better still GNP per capita? Has he no interest in the welfare of individual New Zealanders?
@ Jack Ryan, there’s plenty of international evidence that countries with favourable R&D policies have more R&D. Labour took far more progressive policies on this to the last election than National.
@ Russell Belding, I suggest you read the linked speech from David Parker and if you want further info from there start with his other previous speeches – eg the one he mentions on monetary policy.
This is a fine aspirational speech but the devil is always in the details. Let me make some suggestions in this respect:
1.In terms of helping first home buyers paradoxically the capital gains tax as I presently understand it will make this harder. The reason is that rental properties will increase in price because the lure of a capital gain will be diminished. So, with higher rents, it will be harder for first home buyers to save the required deposit.
Yet those who have a family home will not be subject to capital gain whether this is a $2,000,000 home or a $200,000 home. This is not fair to either those who do not have a home or can only afford a modest home.
It would be fairer to levy the capital gains tax on all property or to exempt only, say, the first $300,000 from the capital gains tax.
2.For forty years we suffered from a policy of import substitution – now we are in danger of suffering from the almost universal madness of “export led growth”. There is a balance to be struck and I think it should be guided by attempting to increase our self reliance. Government procurement is one of the most important tools available in this respect.
Our tradition is for a cargo cult mentality in Government procurement – thinking that “overseas experts” and overseas suppliers are necessarily better than local organisations and people.
Without the local problems to solve and without the possibility of a local “shop window” of success new businesses are stupid to try to start up here. If required I can expand on this with many examples of Government procurement being set up to ensure that no Kiwi company need apply.
3.Apart from R&D incentives the Aussies have for years given a tax incentive for businesses to train their current employees. There are always advertisements for skilled people but without incentives to train existing staff the consequence of upskilling staff is that it is uneconomic since once the cost of training has been paid by the business the likelihood of the staff being “poached” is increased. I would be happy to expand on this problem and the solutions.
4.The biggest detail to be addressed in the aspirational vision is what industries will we have. We need some foci for students, training establishments and business people.
In any area that Government chooses it can divert its procurement to assist and may need to do little else.
We could choose the health industry because there is a world wide problem and therefore a market. India, South Korea and others are well established in “Health Tourism”. The difficulties and objections will be similar to those when attracting overseas students was contemplated. They are solvable. We should be the “Switzerland of the Pacific”.
We could choose to be leaders in fish farming and aquaculture. We do a little now.
We could choose to provide wooden homes to the world. Some of our aid money could possibly be employed to have housing available for disaster areas.
We could choose to be a world centre of excellence in training and education. We do some of this but our focus is largely still on our NZ qualifications. There are many internationally recognized qualifications where students need coaching and tutoring – online or in the flesh.
5.Perhaps most important of all from the social cohesion veiwpoint is to address the stupidities of our tax and benefit systems. The last round of enquiries into these issues were explicitly required, as usual, to look at each in isolation when they are actually inextricably intertwined. The suggestions from Gareth Morgan and Susan Guthrie in “The Big Kahuna” are a good starting point – although I would go about the tax part rather differently.
*********
I would be happy to elaborate on any of these ideas.
perce@harpham.co.nz
Ahh I see I got the Davids mixed up, seems to happen a bit. I was hoping for a real answer as well for a change.
Yes there are other countries with favourable R&R policieis that have more R&D. No argument there. However having progressive policies doesnt they are good policies.