Five Questions for Dr Don Brash..............................
Nobody today in so many different roles and for quite so long has stood at the centre of public life so enduringly as Don Brash. Economist, businessman, banker, politician, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank and leader of the National Party has defied typecasting. At one and the same time severe yet extravagant, austere yet colourful, scholarly yet populist, he has contrived always to reconfigure himself around the times. Now he has stridently intervened in institutionally-fuelled separatism. Shrouded in a protective veneer of high-minded fashionable purpose that makes ordinary people fearful to question it, Dr Brash vehemently, unequivocally declares the voguish syndrome as ultimately destined to tear the nation apart......
You are often considered to be at heart primarily concerned with matters economic and their corresponding data. Yet here you are now immersing yourself in what many might consider a socio-ethical issue?
Yes, most of my career has been about monetary policy, banking, and economic issues more generally. But my interest in economics has always been because of my interest in the well-being of society more generally. I have long felt, for example, that it will be difficult or impossible to maintain a broadly egalitarian society in New Zealand – the kind of society in which I was brought up – if average living standards fall too far below those in Australia because of the ease with which skilled New Zealanders can cross the Tasman for very much higher incomes in Sydney or Melbourne.
If we want the kind of healthcare which those in advanced developed countries take for granted, we have to have the living standards to support that healthcare. A few years ago, there was a big debate about whether Pharmac should subsidize the provision of Herceptin for the treatment of certain kinds of breast cancer, and it was noted that Australia did so. The fact of the matter was that at that time virtually all the countries which subsidized access to Herceptin had higher living standards than New Zealand did; those which did not provide a subsidy, had lower living standards – we were right on the cusp. For me, interest in economics has always been about the implications of economic policy for the well-being of society.
Hence, I was strongly opposed to inflation in part at least because of the totally capricious effects which inflation has on wealth distribution – those who save in fixed interest instruments being thoroughly gutted by inflation, while those who borrow heavily to invest in, say, property, make huge and totally untaxed gains with little or no effort. That has always seemed to me to be grossly unjust.
Will the Hobson’s Pledge Movement become a force in the pending general election?I certainly hope so. I find it very depressing that the National Party has moved such a long way from its roots in this policy area. In 2002, Bill English gave a lengthy and very thoughtful speech, demonstrating clearly that Maori chiefs had ceded sovereignty in signing the Treaty and arguing that the only way for a peaceful future for New Zealand was a “single standard of citizenship for all”.
In May 2003, he pledged that a future National Government would scrap separate Maori electorates, as the Royal Commission on the Electoral System had recommended in the late eighties if MMP were adopted. I made similar commitments when I was Leader of the National Party, as did John Key in the election campaign of 2008. And yet we’ve seen the National-led Government retreat a very long way from that position.
I applaud the fact that the current Government has accelerated the resolution of historical grievances, but utterly deplore the fact that too often resolution has involved not just financial redress but also “co-governance”.
We see the proposed amendment to the RMA requiring all local councils to invite their local tribes into so-called “iwi participation agreements”, involving co-governance on a grand scale. We saw the legislation establishing the Auckland super-city requiring an Independent Maori Statutory Board, with the Auckland Council giving members of that unelected Board voting rights on most Auckland Council committees.
We see the Government negotiating behind closed doors with the so-called Iwi Leaders Group to give tribes some form of special influence over the allocation of water, despite pretending to believe that “nobody owns water”. We see a proposal to make half the members of the Hauraki Gulf Forum tribal appointees.
The myth that the Treaty of Waitangi created some kind of “partnership” between Maori on the one hand (or more accurately, those who can claim at least one Maori ancestor, always now along with ancestors of other ethnicities) and the rest of us on the other is increasingly accepted as Holy Writ, subscribing to which is becoming essential for many positions in the public sector.
So I’m very much hoping that Hobson’s Pledge can help to substantially reverse this highly undemocratic drift after the next election.
You say that the National government is “pandering” to “separatist demands.” Which of these demands do you consider the most dangerous?
Where do I start? I’ve just listed some of the specific policies which are totally inconsistent with any reasonable definition of democracy. Most of those specific policies stem from the underlying myth that the Treaty established some kind of “partnership” between those with a Maori ancestor and those of us without, as I’ve just mentioned. But as David Lange said in the Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture in 2000, “the Court of Appeal once, absurdly, described [the Treaty] as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not. The Treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts.... To go further than that is to acknowledge the existence of undemocratic forms of rights, entitlements, or sovereignty.”
All the specific examples I gave in answer to the previous question stem from the underlying nonsense that there are two (and only two!) distinct groups of New Zealanders, those with preferential constitutional rights and those without them. This is leading New Zealand to disaster with a whole generation of part-Maori believing that they really do have superior constitutional rights to the rest of us.
To what degree would you ascribe this separatist development agitation as being primarily a project of the political class from whatever background?
Certainly, I think what you call the “political class” is the main driver of this separatist agitation, together with arguably most of the educational establishment, where adherence to so-called “Treaty principles” seems to be an absolute prerequisite for appointment to any teaching or leadership position.
The same is true in the public healthcare sector. But there is plenty of evidence that large numbers of the “general public” do not support the separatist agenda but are literally cowed into silence on the issue.
I regularly get people sidle up to me in the street and, after looking furtively up and down the street lest they are recognized by friends or acquaintances, tell me that they strongly agree with me. One university professor did this recently, but swore me not to mention his name or university department. And some of these people are Maori.
Of course, Hobson’s Pledge has two official spokespeople, one of whom is me and the other is Casey Costello, a woman of Ngapuhi and Anglo-Irish ancestry. But two of our very strongest supporters (though not members of our council) are Maori – one a prominent member of the Ngapuhi tribe and the other Ngati Porou.
The latter was a member of our council when we first established Hobson’s Pledge but, because he is closely associated with a political party, withdrew lest his membership of Hobson’s Pledge raise a question about whether we are a front for the political party he is closely associated with.
He resents the separatist agenda because he believes strongly that it is patronizing, implying that Maori aren’t quite good enough to make it successfully without these constitutional preferences.
Bearing in mind your underpinning career in banking, economics and looking now at the broader picture: where is the country now in your view in terms of nuts and bolts things such as balance of payments and foreign debt?
Compared with some other countries, we are in a good spot, with the economy growing, unemployment fairly low and government debt modest relative to GDP. Our banking sector is in reasonable shape. Even the extent of the country’s (public and private sector) total net external indebtedness is somewhat better than it was a decade ago, though still high by developed country standards.
But there are significant problems just below the surface of that apparently rosy picture. Yes, the economy is growing, but that is largely because the number of people in the workforce is growing strongly because of a high level of net immigration: productivity, and thus per capita income, is growing very slowly indeed, and the Government’s initial objective of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025 is not only not going to be achieved, the gap hasn’t reduced materially over the last eight years.
The ratio of government debt to GDP is modest by the standards of many other developed countries, but the Key Government did absolutely nothing to prepare the population for the need to adjust, for example, the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation if government debt is not to explode, relative to GDP, over the next few decades. (Mr English, to his credit, has refused to renew Mr Key’s pledge on this issue.)
And while the country’s net external indebtedness, relative to GDP, has improved somewhat in recent years, that external indebtedness remains at a high level, the consequence of New Zealand’s running a current account balance of payments deficit every year since 1974. Much of that deficit has been funded by banks borrowing on the international markets to fund the explosion of private sector housing debt, the result in turn of another serious policy failing, the failure to deal with the enormous increase in the price of housing (or more accurately, of residential land).
| From the This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | Friday 3 March 2017 |
AutoInformed.com on Chinese Steel DumpingThe Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) announced at its National Conference that it will take legal action against Chinese steel dumping. Newly elected national secretary Daniel Walton said that the union would lodge a complaint with the government’s Anti-Dumping Commission. The resolution calls on the Commission to impose a significant tariff on Chinese steel. “Dumping is cheating,” it says.
The Commission has the power to impose tariffs to address dumping. However, in 2004, Australia became one of only two major developed economies to grant market economy status to China (after New Zealand), severely hampering its policy options for addressing Chinese steel dumping.
“Chinese dumping has put our manufacturing sector on the brink of collapse,” he said. “There can be no place for trade cheats.”
Walton explained that vast sums of money are being spent by the Australian government on infrastructure projects that use no Australian steel. At the same time, more than 8,000 workers at the Arrium steel plant in South Australia face an uncertain future as it went into administration (bankruptcy) last year.
The AWU is holding its National Conference on the Gold Coast in Queensland this week. Following a panel discussion on Chinese dumping, where experts debated the effects of dumping on the domestic market and strategies to fight it, delegates passed an anti-dumping resolution, accusing China of flooding the international market with 100 million tons of steel sold at prices below the cost of production.
The steel industry is in crisis across the world, of course, and IndustriALL affiliates are taking action to defend the industry and the jobs it provides. In November last year, thousands of steel workers marched through Brussels to demand action on dumping.
An action plan was adopted at IndustriALL’s base metals conference in Duisburg, Germany, committing affiliates to coordinate initiatives to oppose market economy status for China, on the grounds of unfair trade practices. In 2004, Australia became one of only two major developed economies to grant market economy status to China (after New Zealand), severely hampering its policy options for addressing Chinese dumping.
IndustriALL will participate in the next OECD Steel Committee on 23-24 March and together with affiliates, as well as in the G20 forum on steel overcapacity, for measures to be taken against dumping.
IndustriALL assistant general secretary Jenny Holdcroft, who was at the AWU National Conference, said:
“This is neither free nor fair trade when a country subsidizes its own industries at the expense of workers, their jobs, families and communities, in other countries. The AWU has taken an important step by demanding that its own government stands up to dumping. We will support them, and coordinate with our affiliates in the steel industry across the world to develop a united trade union response.”
| An AWU release | March 02, 2017 ||
High-tech company Rapid Advanced Manufacturing (RAM3D) in New Zealand has opened a new facility in Tauranga’s Tauriko Business Park, with the aim of making metal additive manufacturing more accessible to the Australian and New Zealand markets. RAM has been collaborating with global engineering technologies company Renishaw and, as a result, is using several AM250 metal additive manufacturing systems in its Tauranga facility.
RAM3D was spun out of the research organisation Titanium Industry Development Association (now TiDA) and it has the biggest Australasian centre for 3D metal printing. RAM3D’s new facility allows companies from a range of sectors, including aerospace, defence, consumer and industrial, to explore the benefits of metal additive manufacturing.
RAM3D works with its clients to improve the design of production parts and prototypes. It also uses additive manufacturing to make these parts in a more efficient and cost-effective manner. RAM3D is collaborating with companies as far away as Singapore and the products manufactured at the Tauranga centre are used around the world.
The diversity of the parts RAM3D manufactures ranges from titanium knives used by the Team Emirates America's Cup crew to customised handlebar extensions for the New Zealand Olympics cycling team, as well as titanium lugs for high-end Australian custom bike maker Bastion Cycles.
“The additive manufacturing market is on the rise in New Zealand and Australia,” explained Warwick Downing, Managing Director of Rapid Advanced Manufacturing. “This growth is fuelled by realism, not hype; the enquiries we are getting show a clear understanding of the potential of design for additive manufacturing. This is an encouraging trend. We believe this trend is being driven by industry collaborations that facilitate a better understanding of the technology, such as the one between RAM3D and Renishaw.
“The key to the successful and sustainable implementation of additive manufacturing into the production process is to have a good understanding of the technology and work in partnership with suppliers and clients.”
“RAM3D strongly believes that additive manufacturing is a competitive production technology with an unprecedented potential for industry,” continued Mike Brown, Managing Director of Renishaw Oceania. “The company’s unique combination of skills, facilities and experience make it an industry leader in this part of the world. It is a privilege for Renishaw to collaborate with such a key player in the market to grow the region’s adoption of additive manufacturing.”
RAM3D is planning to continue its growth and accommodate for 20 metal additive manufacturing systems by the end of 2020. The company is keen to work with a wider range of clients from different industries who want to explore the benefits and potential of metal additive manufacturing.
| A RAM release | March 02, 2017 ||
Development of national regulations for the storage of end-of-life tyres, and the finding of alternative end uses, cannot come soon enough, says Waikato Regional Council.
The need for these initiatives is being highlighted by a large site near Otorohanga now not able to take any more used tyres, said investigation and incident response manager Patrick Lynch.
“Council monitoring of a large storage site near Otorohanga has recently determined that no more tyres can be placed there until the site can properly manage their environmental risks. The operator there has received a formal notice to that effect.”
Due to a lack of uses for large volumes of old tyres this facility has been put in a position of stockpiling, resulting in hundreds of thousands of tyres now being on the site, Mr Lynch said.
“Anyone wanting to store tyres in bulk needs to manage the risk they can pose to the environment generally and to manage the risk and consequence of fire.”
In recognition of the environmental risk that large tyre piles pose, the Ministry for the Environment has announced that they will be putting in place a national environmental standard later this year to manage the storage and stockpiling of end-of-life tyres. All tyre storage facilities will need to be compliant with this standard.
“We know that central Government is also working hard to develop solutions for how to cope with the four million end-of-life tyres that New Zealand produces annually. In the meantime, it is the responsibility of anyone holding large amounts of old tyres to ensure they are managed safely and disposed of through appropriate collection facilities or landfills,” said Mr Lynch.
“We also urge consumers to check with their tyre retailer as to where their used tyres are going. When the consumer is purchasing a new tyre for their car they are generally paying a levy to ensure that it is properly disposed of when it reaches the end of its life. By all means the consumer should feel free to ask the retailer where used tyres are going. ”
Meanwhile, the Waikato Mayoral Forum is supporting the efforts of the regional council and others to find solutions for dealing with end-of-life tyres at a national level.
Mr Lynch briefed the forum – which includes mayors and the regional council chair – at a meeting in Hamilton this week. It subsequently passed a motion of support for a New Zealand-wide approach.
“This is an important issue and it’s great to see the collaborative efforts going into addressing it,” said forum chairman Alan Livingston.
| A Waikatoe Regional Council release | February 23, 2017 ||