[off?] what is NZ like?

Timothy Bates (tbates@bunyip.bhs.mq.edu.au)
Thu, 09 Sep 1999 16:20:00 +1000

someone asked what is New Zealand like. Here are two recent political speeches from the ACT (association of citizens and tax payers): on of four substantial political parties in NZ. gives yo an idea from a fairly libertarian point of view just what the country is like now, and what it might become,
tim
(one of the 10% economic refugees referred to in the speech ;-))

  1. FREEDOM AND CHOICE - THE REAL ISSUES --- Richard Prebble
  2. Labour will give unions $150 million a year --- Richard Prebble

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:23:28 +1200
From: ACT New Zealand Parliamentary <act@parliament.govt.nz> Subject: FREEDOM AND CHOICE - THE REAL ISSUES --- Richard Prebble

FREEDOM AND CHOICE - THE REAL ISSUES

Thursday 9th Sep 1999
Richard Prebble
Speech -- Governance & Constitution

SPEECH TO CANTERBURY UNIVERSITY
12.00 noon Thursday 9th September 1999

HON. RICHARD PREBBLE, MP
LEADER OF ACT NEW ZEALAND

FREEDOM AND CHOICE - THE REAL ISSUES

Thank you for the invitation to speak at Canterbury University today. Your
letter of invitation states:

"Please feel free to speak on a topic of your choice, although students
are
most likely to be interested in tertiary education issues such as fees, loans
and allowances."

I think that sentiment expressed the real issue of this election. I will come
to tertiary education, fees, loans and allowances - let me deal with the
first statement: Feel free to speak on a topic of your choice - freedom and
choice.

The ACT Party's whole raison d'Ítre is freedom and choice. The ACT Party is
the only party in Parliament that believes that you should be free to choose.
Of course there are limits, but in essence the limitation is that with freedom
to choose comes responsibility for your actions.

ACT says adults must be held responsible for the foreseeable consequences of
their actions. If your actions cause harm and loss to your neighbours then you
should make good.

A society that is based on the belief in your right to choice must cherish free
speech, must uphold the sanctity of contract and the right to own property
and, provided you are liable for consequences, the right to do what you like
with your own property. If you can't, you don't own it, the state does.

Only ACT in Parliament believes that you should have the freedom to choose.

This election is a choice of the school teacher or the mother telling us what's
good for us, taking our choices for us. The school teacher Helen Clark versus
the mother Jenny Shipley.

Why any educated person, why any person who wants to be free to choose would
vote for either is a mystery. All the other parties are just imitations of Jim
Anderton's belief in the collective, that the state should and can take our
property and make choices for us.

Today in New Zealand the state takes 40% of all that we earn every year. We
keep just 60%. The state in income tax, GST, fuel taxes, duties and user
charges, takes just under 40%. That's more than the state took to fight World
War II. It's more than the state took in the sixties. Up until 1973 the
state, in New Zealand, never took more than one dollar in four, now it takes
more than one dollar in three.

To listen to the media you would have the impression that New Zealand is some
sort of wild west capitalist state - nothing could be further from the truth.

To confiscate by law more than over one dollar in three of everything produced,
requires police state powers. The IRD can enter your home without a search
warrant. The IRD can access and empty your bank accounts - and does -
without a warrant and no court can stop them.

By law you earn what the Inland Revenue Commissioner says you do. You can't
challenge that ruling until you have paid half of the tax that the Commissioner
says you owe. Under this Government the Commissioner told a small
Christchurch businessman that he owed a million dollars. No explanation.

"But I have never earned a million dollars, this is a ghastly mistake -
how
do you reach this view?"

"We are the IRD - we do not have to explain. Pay half a million and you
can
challenge."

"I don't have $500,000."

We are the IRD it's our job to be fair - we will bankrupt you!

The businessman, Dave Henderson, went to every MP in Christchurch - National,
Labour and the Alliance.

Not one would help.

Perhaps I should be more exact. Gerry Brownlee wrote a letter that was of no
help. The Labour MPs did nothing and Jim Anderton made it clear to Mr
Henderson that he thought that Mr Henderson was a tax avoider and he had a
moral duty to pay the IRD half a million, which left Mr Henderson completely
depressed.

Then ACT got elected.

It took Rodney Hide a year of Parliamentary Questions, official information
requests, bombarding the Ombudsman, the Commissioner and the Minister.

He eventually discovered that Dave Henderson did not owe a million dollars.

The IRD owed Dave Henderson $60,000.

The ACT Party has forced the first ever review of the IRD.

We have had an Inland Revenue Department for over 150 years and yet MPs have
never had a Parliamentary Inquiry into its activities. MPs have dozens of
inquiries into liquor and what New Zealanders do with their leisure but never
into a department responsible for collecting the money.

That committee has found there are many Dave Henderson. People who out of the
blue - or rather out of the IRD - got a demand for an impossible sum of
money. When they could not pay, their companies were seized, their assets were
confiscated and they were bankrupted. As bankrupts they became social
outcasts.

National. Labour and the Alliance not only did not lift a finger - they have
passed new police state powers for the Commissioner. If you make a mistake in
filling out your tax forms - the Commissioner levels penalty compound
interest. Interest a mafia loan shark would be embarrassed to charge.

I have had, in my constituency office, people with debts to the IRD of over
$100,000. The original debt - less than $20,000 - which the IRD said was
not taxable.

Four years later the IRD changed its mind, which by law it can do, even though
its advice was in writing, and then the IRD can say - now we want compound
interest.

There is no way that the state can take 40% of all we earn without these police
powers. You are not free to choose, if the state is going to take 40% of all
you earn.

Of course - in your case it won't - it will be over 50%. 40% of the adult
population gets more from the state than they ever pay in taxes. One in three
is on state assistance. Thousands more get more from programmes like family
support than they pay in taxes.

A third of the country - most of you in this room, for the rest of your life
- will pay over 50% of all you earn for all your life to pay for it. At
least 10% of you will refuse and become economic refugees.

Why should any person vote for either the school teacher or the mother to tell
us what to do? We all know that they waste much of the money they take from
us. Millions of dollars of our money is now being wasted on politically
correct Waitangi claims. New Zealand has become the only country in the world
to say that a race of people own the electromagnetic spectrum. As the
dissenting judge said - that's a claim to own sunlight.

Yes, the claimant said - sunlight has great spiritual significance to Maori.

Of course ordinary Maori don't see any benefit - we are just financing an
elite. Maoris are yet to see a snapper.

Now Transit is paying Maori to bless new roads. A constituent of mine in the
in the suburb of Kelburn had to get an expert to write a report that there were
no Maori spiritual values involved in his application for a new driveway. His
private property. No evidence that Maori had ever lived anywhere near it
ever.

No report, no driveway. He does not own his own home.

Only ACT opposes this nonsense. Only ACT says let's resolve all the real
grievances, then close down the Tribunal. All settlements must be fair, full
and final. Let's remove all racial discrimination from the statute book -
let's have one law for all.

Yesterday I spoke to some Wellington Polytechnic students - and some
politically correct student - who looked as if she is planning a career in
the Treaty industry - said what about new grievances?

If you don't know about it after 160 years - it's probably bogus.

Only ACT says that people do not have the right to retire at 18 on to social
welfare. ACT supports a social security safety net not a social welfare
hammock - social security has become a way of life. Adults do not have the
right to bludge off you.

Nor do criminals have the right to live off you. Burglary is a crime in New
Zealand that pays. Just 200 professional burglars, the police estimate, did
over 50,000 burglaries. They stole goods worth over a billion dollars. Very
few have even gone to jail and those who did rarely served more than a third of
the sentence.

ACT says - if you do the crime you should do the time.

There is a freedom issue in involved in opposing red tape and bureaucracy. Over 5200 new laws and regulations have been passed affecting business in the
1990's. Hong Kong has got just one thousand.

Why should a taxi driver pay $300 a year to renew his license?

We need these laws because no-one is responsible for their actions anymore.

We need OSH Act inspections because you can no longer sue people or businesses
who cause you harm.

Since no-one is at fault - even for criminal negligence - the accident rate
has rocketed.

Freedom and choice are at the heart of every political decision.

You must decide whether you support freedom or whether you support the
collective making your life decisions for you.

ACC is a good example.

ACT has advocated that employers should at least be able to choose who they
insure with. The state-owned ACC monopoly was wasteful and inefficient.

This year 95% of all employers chose a private insurer for ACC. In my
electorate ACC premiums have halved. Some companies have saved a million
dollars.

Labour has announced that the private ACC insurance will be re nationalised
without compensation. The insurance companies will lose $100 million.
Companies will have to pay at least $500 million more. Because Labour does not
believe that you have the right to choose.

Labour's industrial relations policy is also opposed to choice. Today you can
choose whether to join a union, or choose a bargaining agent or represent
yourself. Under Labour, by law only unions will be able to represent you in a
collective agreement. By law, you won't be able to receive the wages or
benefits without joining the union. Compulsory unionism by the back door.

The average trade union charges $500 a year in fees. You will find that you
have to pay it. ACT says it is wrong in a free society. I would remind you
that some 300,000 workers have left trade unions since they became voluntary.

Forcing 300,000 to re-join trade unions will give the unions an extra $150
million a year.

Labour's industrial policy has nothing to do with fairness, freedom or choice.
It's all about giving trade unions, who in turn finance the labour party,
another $150 million a year.

It's the equivalent, for a worker being forced to join a union, of a 1% tax
increase.

ACT does not support the tyranny of the majority. Others can't exercise your
choice for you. So we do not support compulsory unions - or compulsory student
associations. If just one person does not want to join your association - I
support their right.

ACT is the only party to make that stand.

I promised to cover today education, fees, loans and allowances. It's an issue
of freedom and choice.

ACT supports all tertiary institutions - whether state-owned or independent -
being treated the same. We see no reason why we should not have independent
universities as we now have private and very successful polytechs. ACT
believes students should pay full fees. There is no such thing as a free
education. It's just a question of how we pay. Some - such as pilots,
hairdressers and truck drivers - already pay full fees.

Of course, university fees are not based on the cost of tuition. Over 40%, and
in some cases 50%, of the cost is research. Research is a public good and
should be met by public taxes.

Which brings me to loans. ACT supports the student loan scheme - without it,
many students would not get access to tertiary education. ACT is opposed to
Labour's silly idea that student loans be interest free while you study.

About 50% of all students do not have any loan. If it was interest free every
student would borrow to the limit - if only to take to the ANZ to put into an
interest earning account. It's a silly idea. You really have a choice.

On the one hand, the Alliance says universities should be free - trouble is,
you can never leave because there won't be an economy.

On the other hand you have ACT, who says government and students have a moral
contract. You pay the costs of tertiary tuition and government ensures that
you have a job and a tax rate low enough so you can easily repay your
investment.

Labour and National are just pale imitations of the Alliance.

Now we have National Ministers wanting to direct you as to what you should
study. Maurice Williamson does not know you. He does not know what you want
to do with your life. He is talking tripe. If investment in science was the
guarantee of success then the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. Prosperity comes from hard work, thrift and enterprise.

Wealth is created by the private sector and never by government. Countries
built on freedom and choice are the countries that are wealthy and the only
ones worth living in. You can only have freedom if you choose it and accept
the responsibility that comes with it.

Hon Richard Prebble ph 04 4706637 or 025753128
http://www.act.org.nz/mps/prebble
Kathryn Asare ph 04 4706637 or 025570851 fax 04 4733532
kathryn.asare@parliament.govt.nz
All ACT statements, policies and information are on the website
http://www.act.org.nz
Subscribe to email speeches and statements at
http://www.act.org.nz/cgi-bin/act/subscribe

For more information visit ACT online at http://www.act.org.nz or contact the
ACT Parliamentary Office at act@parliament.govt.nz.


Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:47:22 +1200
From: ACT New Zealand Parliamentary <act@parliament.govt.nz> Subject: Labour will give unions $150 million a year --- Richard Prebble

Labour will give unions $150 million a year

Thursday 9th Sep 1999
Richard Prebble
Speech -- Economy

Extract from speech to Canterbury University 12.00 noon 9th September 1999

Labour will give unions $150 million a year

Freedom and choice are at the heart of every political decision. You must
decide whether you support freedom or whether you support the collective making
your life decisions for you.

Labour's industrial relations policy is opposed to choice.

Today you can choose whether to join a union, or choose a bargaining agent or
represent yourself. Under Labour, by law only unions will be able to represent
you in a collective agreement. By law, you won't be able to receive the wages
or benefits without joining the union. Compulsory unionism by the back door.

The average trade union charges $500 a year in fees. You will find that you
have to pay it. ACT says it is wrong in a free society. I would remind you
that some 300,000 workers have left trade unions since they became voluntary.

Forcing 300,000 to re-join trade unions will give the unions an extra $150
million a year.
Labour's industrial policy has nothing to do with fairness, freedom or choice.
It's all about giving trade unions, who in turn finance the Labour party,
another $150 million a year.

It's the equivalent, for a worker being forced to join a union, of a 1% tax
increase.

For more information visit ACT online at http://www.act.org.nz or contact the
ACT Parliamentary Office at act@parliament.govt.nz.


End of SPEECHES-L Digest - 3 Sep 1999 to 9 Sep 1999 (#1999-73)