The ACT Party says business initiative is a positive thing for the economy as a whole.
But it says the Labour Party regards business as a danger that needs to be brought under control.
"Business has had such a rough ride both in the rhetoric and in the regulations of the Government," says ACT's leader David Seymour.
"It is time to start celebrating business as a force for good."
Seymour argues a creative and productive private economy could produce the wealth needed for challenges like climate adaptation and an ageing population.
Governments would never have the ability to achieve the same thing.
"Many of our MPs are business people or from business families, and they know governments can do only so much," Seymour says.
Seymour was speaking at the launch of its election policy on productivity and the economy.
"(Currently), cabinet papers require Ministers to ask whether policies will have Treaty, gender, climate or other implications," ACT's policy document says.
"ACT will ask how policies impact productivity and economic growth.
“An explicit objective of economic growth will focus the minds of the public service, allow Ministers to shoot down anti-growth policies, and ensure voters can hold the Government accountable for its performance."
Seymour says decades of poor productivity indices gave New Zealanders high prices and low wages even before the latest spurt of inflation, which made things worse. And they prevented the accumulation of enough money to deal with the serious problems of the future.
And he says Labour policies are aggravating the problem.
"Labour has a suspicion of business that comes through in their rhetoric and their regulatory policy.
"If you look at this grocery commissioner for example, we are not going to get cheaper groceries, what we are going to get are more compliance costs.
"And every $100,000 of extra compliance costs will not be paid by the Government, it is going to be paid by the customers trying to get their milk and bread."
To fix this, Seymour calls for a boost to productivity right now.
"If we don't start thinking about it now, we will look back In 20 years and look at what we could afford in terms of health care and medication and adaptation to climate change back in the golden age of 2023 and find we have slipped further behind.
“Poor productivity growth should be a crisis for New Zealand, but successive governments of both stripes barely talk about it, let alone do anything about it."
Too hard for foreign direct investment
ACT is also calling for easier foreign direct investment rules.
"Right now we are one of the hardest places in the world to send money to as a business - our Overseas Investment Office sees to it that it is difficult to invest here."
And there needs to be more skills and a higher rating for initiative.
"You need innovation.....you need a culture of creativity and success, we don't have that right now, particularly for the last six years.
"The Government has done one market study and one regulatory review after another, and the underlying tone of this message is that somewhere, somehow, someone is up to no good, and if only there was another rule, a review, a market study, another regulation, they could be forced to do well.
"In fact business is a force for the good, it is a voluntary cooperation among people who come together, investors with their savings, entrepreneurs with their ideas, workers with their time and talents, and customers with their needs, to achieve something they could not do alone," Seymour says.
Hipkins says Labour not anti-business
However, the Labour leader Chris Hipkins is emphatically denying that his party is anti-business.
Speaking to reporters in Wainuiomata, he listed several things his government has done to help business.
They include the wage subsidy during Covid, tax credits for research and development, and the boost to the apprenticeship scheme.
"There's no doubt that the current economic climate is a challenging one for New Zealand businesses," Hipkins says.
"It has been like this for the last three years. We have done a lot to support our Kiwi businesses through an unprecedented time."
Also mentioned by Hipkins are the easing of immigration rules and the expansion of Free Trade Agreements to cover almost three-quarters of New Zealand exports.
The Council of Trade Unions is also questioning the ACT position, especially regarding the focus on economic growth.
NZ the best place in the world to do business
Its economist Craig Renney says this growth is not the only thing that matters. It is true that it can pay for services like health and education, but what matters is the wellbeing that it delivers, not economic growth on its own.
"I am not here because of a GDP number," he says.
Renney also queries Seymour's assertion that New Zealand had become anti-business under Labour.
"I would refute Seymour's point that New Zealand does not make it easy for businesses," he says.
"According to the World Bank, New Zealand is the best place in the world to do business. It is always either us or Singapore.
"You can establish a business on line in New Zealand in 15 minutes....we don't have some of the protections for workers that exist in other parts of the world, so I would refute David's point. Establishing a business in New Zealand is relatively straight forward," says Renney.
Meanwhile, ACT has listed several concrete ideas to put its goals into practice. One would require putting productivity at the heart of every decision the Government makes.
It is also pledging to reduce taxes so resources are directed towards private individuals, not the Government. The party says New Zealand is highly taxed relative to other Asia Pacific countries.
RMA changes proposed
ACT would also ease the rules for building new houses. It says the Resource Management Act was an expensive obstacle to development and the current Government reforms have made it worse. Instead, there would be a presumption in favour of development, a limitation on the number of people who could object to projects, and compensation for people directly affected by a project.
In addition, overseas investment would be easier, labour laws would be amended and fuel taxes would be replaced by road pricing mechanisms including toll roads. GST on new residential projects would be shared with local councils.
All regulations would be scrutinised to make sure they work properly and there would be measures directed at farmers including repealing the ban on genetic engineering, along with the Zero Carbon Act, He Waka Eke Noa and the Significant Natural Areas Act.
There would also be conversion of existing State Owned Enterprises into the same Mixed Ownership Model - 51% state owned - as works with three big electricity companies. The money gained would pay down debt and the state budget would fall by around $9 billion a year.
The party would set an explicit target for New Zealand to be in the 10 fastest-growing economies in the OECD, and aimed to do this with higher productivity.
"Yes, Kiwis work hard. We have some of the longest hours and labour participation rates in the developed world. Productivity is about working smarter to produce more wealth for the hours of work and dollars of investment that go in. Unfortunately, New Zealand productivity has declined for 50 years.
"Productivity is not everything, but it’s nearly everything," ACT says.
"New Zealand’s productivity has been on a long slide, and yet successive Labour and National governments have not even paid lip service to it. In order to have the things people in first world countries expect, government’s attitude to productivity will need to change."
It says the problem will get worse in future, with more expensive pharmaceuticals, high costs of caring for an ageing population and the difficulty of attracting skilled people in a global “war for talent”, among other problems.
ACT says higher productivity can help solve these problems, yet it has been mentioned on only rare occasions by the current government.
52 Comments
Stop attaching the opposition and come up with some positive policies
Seems to me Act are just smoking there tyres and going no where.
I have asked many act supporter to explain what they are about but nobody can.
I am thinking about voting for them but can't find a reason to yet.
You only prove yourself when given the driving seat.
I know one thing, they are the one and only party willing to unwind the racial profiling, policy and regulation that has exploded under Labours rule. This, in my view is the most serious area to start as in order to work as a nation, we need to ‘feel’ we are equally treated and have same rights.
Note, Winnie says he’ll do the same, but the man is proven he’ll say anything to get power - this voter does not trust him.
Well B&W, we certainly all know what Labour are: https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/alex-holland-labour-s-failures
Problem is when OI was a free-for-all the big FI came in from the purchasing of large blocks of land, particularly high country stations if I recall correctly. Zero employment opportunities created.
Someone needs to ask Dave to provide one overseas manufacturer of goods (water bottlers don't count :-)) that set up shop in NZ when OI rules were more relaxed.
I'm genuinely curious. I recall while I was in government, Motorola came over with a government delegation wanting to set up manufacturing here - they wanted spectrum as an incentive (not only for their product end-use, but I got the impression the spectrum for R&D purposes was even more important). But the neoliberal Nats in government just shut the door on them. As I was to attend the meeting as RS Manager - I had clear marching orders - all spectrum was off the table.
An important PS. What the government of the day wanted from them was to interest them in expressing an interest to purchase a spectrum property right for the bands they wanted. A silly idea given all our emergency services used those bands under administrative licensing (i.e., Crown ownership) along with other business, such as transport operators. So, if in private ownership - what do you think the license prices might have jumped to? As government owner we charged cost-recovery.
This is what ACT will get you - more and more opportunities to sell off publicly owned assets - with NO (and I mean NO) new employment initiatives.
Such a flawed ideology.
Māori who were allocated 3G spectrum property rights at a discounted cost at least set up a new business - now 2degrees. .
David Seymour and the ACT party display no understanding of how the governments finances operate. Government debt is just a measure of our monetary base of NZ Dollar currency which is on issue but happens to be held as treasury bonds and which the private sector retains as its savings. Reducing this leaves us with less savings and access to money which is not tied to bank debt.
Reducing taxation and government spending doesn't leave us with more money in our pockets as the money that we pay our taxes with came from the governments spending in the first place.
ACT is clearly the least-worst option worth considering this October and most points made here sound sensible.
However, two ACT stances that worry me are 1) scrapping the likes of Callaghan Innovation and R&D incentives and 2) deregulating migration.
There is no evidence to suggest that providing free reign to market forces leads to the most efficient capital and labour allocation. Even IMF has been distancing itself lately from its age-old "free capital flows" endorsement and advocating "some" government controls.
Seymour loves to bring up Singapore in his discussions a lot but doesn't seem to understand that central planning is a distinct feature of its economic policy, as is an effective carrot & stick approach to business policy.
Couldn't agree more regarding your concerns - but I thought the other day he wanted to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific (I think borrowed from JK).
Given you get what makes the economy go round - I'm really curious - what policies is that would see you voting for them?
.
I think ACT's energy policy is more practical and roughly aligned with National's. Their healthcare policy for easier pathways for medical professionals from comparable jurisdictions and increased primary health funding is also interesting. More localism with policies such as GST-sharing on homebuilding and reforming Buildings Act are winners in my mind.
More radical policy ideas from Seymour (such as Callaghan and R&D incentives) are unlikely to see the light of day because their majority coalition partner wouldn't let them do something drastic. That won't be a hill that Seymour would like to die on and will likely use his bargaining power instead on cuts to bureaucracy and wasteful projects that National will benefit from too (more money to play with).
I have some shares in an NZ company (Veriphi) that is just about to make its first revenues after years of work making a device to confirm what drug and concentration is being administered - an innovative approach to reducing prescription errors in hospitals. I doubt they would have got to here without the likes of Callaghan grants. They are vital to these small companies who actually want to solve problems and sell products to the world.
It's what worries me most about them as well. I got my foot in the door through a Callaghan internship I imagine it would be significantly harder without that support.
Ridiculous how they bend over backwards to support property speculation but come up empty when it comes to supporting actual productive buisnesses.
He also doesn't mention about Singapore that away from the glitzy end of town,there are tower blocks filled with Indian & Bangladeshi immigrant labour used for construction etc.
Not to mention the fact that they have road access to Malaysia,so thousands of folk are used as cheap labour,with many crossing the border to work,but live on the other side as they can't afford to live there.When I was up there,there was engineer working where I was,up @ 04:00hrs to beat the traffic at the border,nap under his desk until 07:00,then leave work at 18:00 to make the trip back home to Malaysia.
As I said yesterday, they look at productivity through their ideologically tinted glasses, which filter out most of the things that actually create long term productivity and leave many things that will actually destroy it (unfettered migration, reduction in R&D and University support, reduction in grants and free reign for "overseas investment"). The blah blah'ing about "NZ full of red tape" is absolute bull dust, we are consistently one of the easiest places in the world to do business.
I would love to know how NZ would have any form of economy without private business. Private businesses exporting products for money is all that drives our economy.
That said - it is the 'type' of business that is at issue. Real estate businesses, property developers, and related businesses do not add value to our economy unless that are building houses to meet the population growth - where the new people are driving (or supporting the driving of) exports.
For export companies to thrive in NZ they need to offer a unique or better quality/priced/innovative product than can be sourced overseas. To do that they need motivated and skilled workers at an affordable price and tax rules that encourage them to stay based here and be able to prosper. That requires government to set the rules to enable that.
All else that we do should be to support those businesses and their workers.
Socialism is well and good. but unfortunately outside NZ it is a capitalist world. so need private businesses to keep exporting stuff to those capitalist countries so we get investment from them too.
Kate I am not sure that rail is a good example of anything
it was a dog 50 years ago when it needed protection to lose lots of money and operate a poor service with lost deliveries, broken products and lousy ferry service.
It hasnt changed all that much and which has little to do with private enterprise but more the model they are working to as well as the (in)competence of the participants
Businesses fail for all sorts of reasons Kate. Generally because no one wants to use their service or product. Same in the case of NZ rail. So Labour, because they are idiots, spent a billion or so buying a business that needed subsidising by the taxpayer. Genius. The free market worked perfectly, and weeded out a pile of steaming excrement.
Very impressed that interest.co.nz has shown itself to be open to just a little bit of political and intellectual diversity by posting about ACT recently, instead of just rolling out yet another article about TOP for the millionth time.
Gareth, it’s a shame this is the last of ‘em. Not sure why when they are our third largest political party with economics at the core of most of their policies.
You think they have given ACT as much coverage as TOP, for example? Scroll through a year’s worth of articles and you’ll find it’s about 10:1.
My initial comment may come off as a bit harsh. I don’t think the site is terribly biased, but political leanings are apparent. TOP is by far the favourite despite it being a very obscure/fringe party, coverage of National generally has a negative tone, neutral on Labour. Neutral/slightly positive for the Greens.
I seriously doubt it's 10:1, that seems like an exaggeration. I think I have seen far more ACT articles than TOP ones over the last year or so.
I'm sure there is some bias but what's great about this site is that it brings together a mix of people with diverse viewpoints, and it offers a range of articles. It doesn't feel like as much of a bubble as some other news sites tend to be.
Sorry but you are seriously misinformed. The ratio will be worse than 1:10 over the last decade. You do realise that Geoff as leader of TOP was a site contributor and wrote many articles for interest.co.nz? Not even an attempt to hide the bias.
https://www.interest.co.nz/users/geoff-simmons
Is there anything stopping an ACT candidate from writing articles? A lot of those from Geoff Simmons seems to be in his capacity as an economist rather than a representative of TOP. I'm sure if David Seymour wanted to, Interest.co.nz would be thrilled to have some articles written by him posted here.
I can't make any firm statements as to how many posts about which parties are on this site but looking at the last couple of months the ratio isn't anything close to 1:10 and seems like a massive exaggeration. I would say the clear plurality of political posts would be about the two major parties rather than any others.
I agree with Seymour's assertion that New Zealand that the lack of productivity growth is holding New Zealand back. As a Continuous Improvement professional I can say from my own experience that New Zealand, and that means both bosses, owners, employees, are generally not interested in improving their productivity performance. (A few exemptions of that rule exist!!) His prescribed medicine however will not have any effect.
What needs to change are the following:
1. Remove the "she will be allright" and "Number 8 wire' mentalility from the New Zealand society. Within the New Zealand business there is no real drive to improve permanently the processes and productivity.
2. Stop the inefficient mis-allocation of money into the internal real estate market. The 10 fastest growers within the OECD have small real estate markets compered to their GDP. (And most of them, especially the European Countries have wealth or capital gain taxes in place!)
3. We need to improve the education part of our society first. Which is, I admit, already part of the Nats and Act policies.
4. When we are challenged with capacity constraints, like after the pandemic, think of employing technology first before opening the floodgates of immigration with cheap labour. (There is a ton of evidence that the total economic pie grows faster when technology is employed in stead of cheap labour!)
5. We need to think where do we want to grow the economy. Believing that selling more milk powder into maturing markets is a dead end street with no exit. Develop other (export) products within our current resources and therefore relocate more money to business concepts R&D. (A good example of what we can achieve is Red Stags CLT factory modified to make wooden structural elements for multi story buildings. And Marty Verry did this all without any government support. Check out their website!!)
I don't agree with all of Act's policies, but then again, it's pretty much impossible to agree with all policies from any party. Overall, I think Act have the most progressive policies, and that they are the best party to lead NZ out of its very difficult current situation.
So in a nutshell;
Sell off 49% of all state owned enterprises (How's your power bill going?)
Remove all workers pay protections (lower wages = more productivity??)
Import workers to'fill the gaps' (and maintain downward pressure on wages)
Allow overseas money to buy all our businesses & property (sweet deal when your dollar is worth nothing)
Allow you to build what & where you want,objectors to be stymied (unless you are in that blue/yellow 'Special Economic Zone' otherwise known as the leafy green eastern suburbs of AKL)
At least we know Mr Seymour has years of real world experience to know what he is doing (sarc);
A graduate of the University of Auckland, Seymour worked in public policy in Canada,[1] before returning to New Zealand and contesting for election to Parliament. He entered the House of Representatives in 2014 as ACT's sole MP, after which he was elected as party leader, replacing Jamie Whyte. He was re-elected in 2017. He led ACT to its best-ever result in the 2020 election, winning ten seats.
Seymour has embraced libertarian social policies since becoming party leader, such as supporting the legalisation of euthanasia, and introduced a bill on this issue. Seymour has appeared extensively on television (including a dance contest, Dancing With the Stars) during his leadership.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.