Act Party co-founder Roger Douglas is sitting on the fence this election.
In an open letter to New Zealand voters, the former Labour finance minister and Act Party co-founder said he would be a swing voter in 2023.
Douglas was one of two founding members of the Act Party in 1993, alongside former National Party MP Derek Quigley, after being instrumental in Labour’s neoliberal reforms in the 1980s.
There is a reason it was called ‘Rogernomics’.
But Douglas has become increasingly disillusioned with the Act Party, which he says has strayed from its original principals and now “represents only the wealthy”.
A report by BusinessDesk quoted Douglas as saying the party had been captured by a “small libertarian element who did not want public super or public healthcare at all”.
One critical factor in his change of heart was the Act Party’s opposition to tax bracket indexation.
Interest.co.nz has previously reported that Act voters overwhelmingly support indexation, but the party leadership has rejected it.
The National Party has promised a one-off correction to the tax bracket, while the Green Party has promised a realignment of the brackets every three years — albeit with higher top rates.
Douglas said the Act Party was not satisfied with National and Labour tolerance of bracket creep that has "robbed lower income earners” and it wants to go even further.
“They want to keep bracket creep in place and then use the extra billion dollars-plus of taxes per year … to lower the highest income earners' in New Zealand personal income taxes,” he said.
“Really, this is not the Act party I formed in 1993,” he said.
Polls on track
The Act Party looks to be in line for its best election result ever, with recent polling showing more than 13% support from voters.
This could give the party 17 seats in Parliament and allow them to form a government with National with a one-seat majority.
This result would bring in 10 new MPs (two current members are resigning and Chris Ballie has been bumped to 17th on the list, down from 4th) and make it the third largest party.
Te Pati Maori is likely to win five or six seats, up from two, and the Green Party is on track for 13 seats. That result would mean three new seats and six fresh MPs, due to several resignations.
Labour is likely to lose a whopping 22 seats, after winning an outright majority last election, while National will pick up about ten seats.
Seymour sympathises
Act Party leader David Seymour said he had “enormous admiration” for Roger Douglas’ contribution to New Zealand but didn’t want to get into a public argument with him.
“I also feel honoured in a way because he has attacked the party leader of every single party he has been in since Norman Kirk in the early ‘70s,” he said.
Seymour said he’d read the open letter and thought Douglas had found Act to not be as radical as he might like them to be.
“In some ways I sympathise with him, I wish we were more radical as well some day.”
“Our tax policy is much less radical than the 23% flat tax [Douglas] proposed in 1988, that [he] fell out with Lange and lost his job over”.
There is some solace for Seymour in the letter, Douglas at least said that voting for Act was better than for the Labour or Green parties. But he would be considering voting National this year.
National party leader Christopher Luxon said he wanted as big a party vote as feasible and he’d accept all-comers.
“We’ll take Roger Douglas, and we’ll work hard to get as many New Zealanders as possible to party vote National,” he said.
Finance Minister Grant Robertson was just relieved the controversial political figure wasn’t supporting the Labour Party again.
“Crickey-dick. I guess the National Party might have to ask themselves some questions after that [endorsement]”.
62 Comments
Given the appalling choices this year, I wonder what the turnout will be? If it's 50% that won't be a surprise.
NB: Douglas at least appears to have had the courage of his convictions and *resigned according to them. None of the current crop appear to have such spine.
(* Douglas wrote to Lange to tell him that he intended to tell the Labour caucus he could no longer serve in a government led by him. Lange construed this letter as a resignation and replaced Douglas)
I’d like to think that when it comes down to it, the majority of those that actually pay taxes will shudder at the thought of the damage a labour, greens, tp Māori combo would inflict on the country (a fatal blow for my money), coupled with looking around at the state we are currently in after 6 years of ideological thinking, massive overspending and the complete overreach, mishandling and politicisation of the covid virus and constant PR spin to hide ineptitude…. should ensure a decent turnout!
The problem is that all the super wealthy people on or above the 30% tax rate who would benefit from act’s policies self identify as median / average income earners these days. The rich bugger 30% rate used to be for the really rich now every man and his dog seem to be on it.
Act will not get all its policies but the bigger it is relative to national the more it can influence national policies.
Douglas said the Act Party was not satisfied with National and Labour tolerance of bracket creep that has "robbed lower income earners” and it wants to go even further.
this is absolutely right. the tax bracket creep is hurting lower income earners particularly bad. Another hidden issues with how efficient government using tax dollars. One must ask, when tax income is on the rise constantly, why our public services like roads, waters, hospitals, schools are more and more in dilapidated states? Where did the tax dollar go?
Waters are council not government. Roads have been improved a lot over the last couple of decades, the potholes would be the stupidly large trucks now allowed. All the schools I see are in pristine condition. Not sure about hospitals, but it is a bottomless pit. NZ super costs more and more each year.
1/2 a billion dollars. Ironically, that's the same amount that Labour squandered on wasted covid19 RAT tests. Over here in Germany they left that to the private sector. Nobody cares about covid tests now of course, but a year ago you could have purchased them from any supermarket for about a euro. 1/2 a billion is a tiny fraction of what Labour managed to waste, but it's symbolic of a broader failure, and it's why people are rightly turning to ACT in my humble opinion.
Heard of Three Waters? That's Government not Council.
The basic standard of our roads are crap at best. Go to Europe on holiday and see an alternative for yourself. Many schools struggle to properly maintain their buildings. this is a regular news item. Our governments - all of them have largely neglected infrastructure in the last 40 or so years.
Schools struggle to maintain their buildings in some cases because they have to use MOE approved contractors. Was told a (smallish) school needed to take out a built in desk in the office. The parents weren't allowed to do it. $10k was the quote from the 'approved' contractor. Contractor didn't really want to do it as they had plenty of work on. Similar sized school needed to reroof 2 classrooms. MOE contractor quote that was accepted - $500k. Absolute rorts. There's no accountability now for anyone. BOT's should be able to choose their own contractors, or have the OPTION of MOE organising it for them.
With our growing, aging and increasingly unhealthy population, Healthcare has to run faster and faster just to stand still. Just continuing current levels of care will cost more and more.
There is an obvious solution you can catch up on in 'Logan's Run', although the age they chose seems a little low. Worth it to save us some tax dollars?
"increasingly unhealthy population" - when I first started work the two guys over 60 were human wrecks (admittedly high alcohol consumption) - now the average person in their middle seventies are fit and usually more active than twenty year olds were in London - [maybe NZ was diferent to the UK]. The unhealthy population in NZ are the young who are generally overweight and eating the wrong food.
Healthcare cost are increasing because there are more of us surviving cancer and heart attacks.
The unhealthy population in NZ are the young who are generally overweight and eating the wrong food.
I don’t think this is correct. It’s worth looking these things up rather than assuming.
Looking into it further it seems like 55-64 bracket is the most overweight based on the only data I could find that broke it down into age groups.
Basically, people seem to get fatter until you hit they hit their late 60’s then the fit probably tend to outlive everyone else or people end up eating less, and even then at no point are young people the most "unhealthy" demographic.
Tax dollars don't go anywhere they only allow the government to cancel its issued currency.
https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/can-taxes-and-bonds-finance-…
https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/Wray_Understanding_Modern.pdf
It's galling that the tax take has almost doubled since 2017 and yet everything seems to be in deplorable condition. Where did the money go? On free first year of tertiary study, interest free student loans, rubbish regional 'economic development' schemes. Anything else?
Have you ever wondered about the origins and background of the term "net tax payer" that's often thrown around? It seems like some people mention that "50% of New Zealanders aren't net taxpayers," but they tend to overlook that a significant portion of that 50% includes individuals on superannuation. This statistic can be misleading because it suggests that half of the workforce isn't contributing anything. However, we should consider that among those 50%, there are approximately 842,000 people aged over 65, who will ultimately receive the majority of these "transfers."
Moreover, a substantial portion of this group is comprised of those receiving benefits such as the Working for Families (WFF) program and accommodation supplements, which can be seen as more of a support for landlords than a direct handout to non-working individuals. Additionally, the Jobseeker allowance, which accounts for $3 billion of a $50 billion budget, might create the impression that there are many working-age people just idling away. Yet, if we examine the data, it may reveal a different perspective, suggesting that the number of individuals actually "doing nothing" is smaller than commonly portrayed.
If you're interested in delving further into the specifics of these transfers and which groups receive them, you can find all the relevant information in the following link. It's important to note that the data might be slightly outdated since it's from 2018. Nevertheless, considering that tax brackets haven't been adjusted for inflation in recent times, there's a possibility that we now have more net taxpayers than we had previously.
For more detailed insights, you can refer to this link: (https://taxworkinggroup.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-09/twg-bg-distributional-analysis.pdf).
I think the classic deviation of the ACT party is that extent that they have criticised the wide ranging higher density rules. I believe that is one of the most significant interventions to ensure an efficient housing market - and an efficient housing market will result in affordable housing.
But in fact David Seymour and Brooke Van Velden have been quick to walk away from a market approach and to opted to protect the leafy green suburbs because that is where their votes are.
There's nuance here. Libertarianism means respecting property rights. If I buy a sweet pad in Remmers for a bazillion dollars and someone stands up a shabby four level block of flats next to it, blocking out the sun and lining the street with cars, they're doing harm to my property.
Generally, I agree with intensification but it has to be done with respect for the occupying land owners.
They’re not doing harm to your property, you are just seeing it as an affront to your property value which your statement shows you hold most value in. Nobody wants a KO multi story building next to them but the need for shelter trumps the want to hold property values up.
Indeed. I'm unlikely to vote ACT anyway, but that's one policy that stops me from even taking them seriously. It makes it clear that by 'protecting property rights' they mean 'protecting property rights of the already-wealthy'. Spineless pandering to the Epsom voter.
It's amazing how many people miss the irony of these wide-ranging density rules, in that it takes a more libertarian political party like ACT to protect the neighbourhood from the Govts. breaking of the SOCIAL contract it had entered into with the neighbourhood property owners many years ago.
Free markets still have rules but for the Govt. to decree high density when the market it affects says otherwise, is the opposite of a free market.
ACTs position on housing is far closer to a free market than any of the other parties, yet still falls short in some areas.
Yep. The major parties proposed devaluation of private property under the blanket high density proposal should be challenged with massive class action compensation claims (along with the ideologically forced & secretive infilling of social housing tracts into private property suburbs which has the same negative effect on property values).
A proper free market would allow the owners in the neighbourhood to protect their association via covenants, which is what they had done informally before they handled that power to the council to manage on their behalf.
Only for the council then to renege on that social contract and apply different rules that benefited outsiders.
Like the covenants that prevented supermarkets from being built?
That ain't the free market at work. If you don't want something built on the property near you, buy the land yourself. Dictating what people can do with their own land that they purchased is the complete opposite of a free market.
In fact here is the definition of the free market:
A free market is one where voluntary exchange and the laws of supply and demand provide the sole basis for the economic system, without government intervention. A key feature of free markets is the absence of coerced (forced) transactions or conditions on transactions.
You have misunderstood the very definition you have quoted.
Under your free market principle 'people should not be dictated to as to what they can do with the land they purchased,' then your neighbour could do whatever he wanted, even if you and they had previously agreed on a set of neighbourly rules.
This may come as a complete surprise to you, but all markets worldwide work under Govt. rules, even free markets. The intervention it talks about is the post-changing of rules after the event. IE the reneging on contractual agreements.
If the owners as a group have originally agreed to live their lives under a set of rules and then handed the administration of those rules over to the council, then when councils allow new owners to do something differently than what the council was 'contracted' to do, then that is Govt. intervention.
Yeah, we have legislation and laws which are subject to change. The government has every right to change the rules and everyone knows this. The social contract is merely an ideological concept not something that supersedes democracy.
Letting people cripple the economy for their own benefit because of a set of neighbourly rules is pure madness and completely undermines the free market. Most often regulations are bought in to break up monopoly’s not reinforce them.
Standard oil existed under pre-existing regulations, those regulations were changed, telecom existed under pre-existing regulations, those regulations were changed, the operating environment changes all the time, and that is fine nobody can expect everything to stay the same forever and if they did they are wilfully naive. The governments main mandate is driven by what they are elected to do, not what people 100 years ago agreed over a handshake.
Consensual agreement between people is the very definition of democracy which is what a social contract is. And a handshake and a person's word is a binding contract (although sometimes hard to prove), except in real estate. These very concepts are what is written into law and are ideological concepts that cannot be ignored without undermining the written law itself.
And you are confusing business monopolies with residential land use policies, which are not an equivalent comparison.
And we don't have a free market and that is why the economy is already crippled.
And as far as Govt. having 'every right to the change the rules and everyone knows it,' that is just communist drivel and does not lead to free markets, hence we are presently caught in no man's land.
The present land use policy is poorly written, both for allowing building up and out.
So we shouldn't build any housing then as building housing may lower other people's property values? That's basically what you're saying as what would be ideal for current landholders is completely halting any new housing development so they can reap the rewards of owning a monopolized asset.
to decree high density when the market it affects says otherwise, is the opposite of a free market.
Imagine asking Countdown and Foodstuffs if they wanted another competitor. Their response would likely be a resounding "no."
A "social contract" isn't a binding legal argument, it's on the same level as an opinion. The government has a stronger mandate to provide new housing near where people's jobs are than it does to artificially maintain property values for existing homeowners at the expense of everyone else. The social contract would also be a stronger argument for building more housing rather than having thousands living out of their cars. And let's not ignore the fact that Greenfield developments are considerably costlier to construct and maintain than more intensified housing. This cost is externalized onto new homeowners and everyone else who ends up paying more in taxes to support such developments, not to mention the productivity hit due to increased traffic and commute times.
And unfortunately, the burden of increased housing costs has been shifted onto society as a whole, resulting in higher rents for individuals and businesses. Businesses are forced to pay more as living costs skyrocket, and minimum wage is pushed up as well just so people can put a roof over their heads. It has also tied up capital that could have been more productively utilized. Additionally, first-time home buyers (FHBs) have had to spend billions of dollars more due to the unprecedented rises in land values. The impact on society has been immense, contributing to rising crime rates and crumbling infrastructure, as more money is diverted to cover artificially inflated land costs that don't align with incomes or GDP.
If you don't want housing built near you feel free to buy the land that might get developed, but your proposal is literally dictating what people are allowed to do with property that they purchased, the opposite of a free market.
The sheer entitlement of you and kiwikidsnz is something to behold.
The exceptional irony here is that you're wanting to have a veto right over the property rights of others.
If you want nothing built on your neighbour's property then you're free to purchase your neighbour's property.
The rank hypocrisy of people who oppose densification is always on show for all to see when it comes time to sell. They will market the living daylights out of the possibilities under the district plan and take every dollar they can get from developers.
It's one of those classic moral problems. The beneficiaries of current policy are wealthy and loud and very obvious. Those who are harmed are some unknown selection of the rest of the population who would have ended up living in vibrant, dense suburbs near to the City Centre. They are largely quiet, knuckling down and living on the outskirts and suffering through long commutes. The rest of the country pays a price in terms of higher cost of living and taxation because we have to sprawl around these vocal communities holding valuable land.
It would take vision to overrule the desires of the vocal minority to benefit the vast majority of the country who will mostly not appreciate it. We now know that ACT and National don't have that vision.
Yes there is a moral problem, but not as you state.
In fact, the present set of rules allows many to receive a double positive, in that they can prevent/slow down change so they can live their lives as planned, but when they are ready to move on will take full advantage of any extra price they can get from change, and then to hell with the rest of their neighbours.
But this is only an issue because of our present rules which allow Govt. intervention and the breaking of the social contract they were originally given.
Yet in other jurisdictions, in way more free markets with the right Govt. rules which means less/no Govt post intervention, their neighbourhood rules and land use policies allow for stable amenity use over time, agreed owner/neighbourhood change by majority consent, and more affordable housing.
The problems you describe with high house prices are correct, but your logic as to why that has happened is incorrect and is one of the main reasons why we have unaffordable housing.
As someone who has been involved in developing housing in greenfields and inner-city developments, in jurisdictions where the housing is 3x median income and in NZ where it is 8x plus median income, I can categorically state that it is not more expensive to do greenfields than inner city if it is done under more true free market land use policies and all the housing both on the fringe and inner city is far cheaper if done this way.
Almost all political parties have poor policies, in spite of their good intent and talk about wanting affordable housing. This is why things have gotten worse not better over the last thirty years.
Your definition of entitlement seems to be in wanting to take something from someone else, but not then expecting someone else to be able to take that from you.
That's not how you get stable neighbourhoods, cities, or countries, and certainly not affordable stable housing.
You obviously don't understand what the social contract originally said. It had nothing to do with a veto right over your neighbours' property.
In fact, it was the opposite, in that it was a group of neighbours agreeing with each other that these were the rules they agreed to as neighbours, in essence, like attracting like.
And they agreed to then appoint professional managers (ie council) to administrate those rules on their behalf.
The breaking of the social contract is the council now overriding those sets of rules. If the rules are to be changed, it is the present owners that can decide as a group, not the council.
this is the guy that sold everything he could get his hands on and now says selling government services to private enterprise is bad.
New Zealand's privatisation programme is 12 years old. The Treasury's figures say 40 commercial assets have been sold since 1987, realising $19.1 billion.
The Labour Government concluded several trade sales in 1989 and 1990, including Postbank, Shipping Corporation, Air New Zealand, State Insurance Office and Tourist Hotel Corporation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/how-asset-sales-went-wrong/GZ6X4LS5…
if you add up the value of those assets now and the forgone profits it is not a surprise NZ is a poorer country and he needs to take a huge amount of the credit for that
The problem was that a number of these "assets" were not profit makers but loss leaders - so really actually liabilities
and the service was crap - I can remember queuing at Postbank for 45 minutes during a 1 hour lunch break to bank wages -while most of the tellers were on their lunch break - and not catching a ferry during the school holidays because they were on strike - or going down to the railway station to collect a delivery that had been broken and/or pilfered (oh the good old days)
Roger also did make a number of very necessary changes to stop the country going broke - scrapped SMP's for farmers by way of example
yes a lot needed reform and modernizing, i worked for one early in my like and some of them "yes minister" process was beyond belief BUT they threw out the good as well as the bad they would have been better to have partial sales and keeping a minority holding for the likes of telecom or BNZ , departments like MOW they should have kept the planning, design and engineers and they could have brought in private enterprise to help with the building , we now pay way to much for infrastructure and it is not built as well as it was " in the old days"
it is ironic that the government just gave glenbrook steel mill a huge hand out a company we used to own that makes a nice profit for bluescope every year
seems to me the whole bunch are spineless, and every party I look at I see policies I just cant vote for, mixed in with some policies that seem in the best interests of the majority of us...which ends up at a no-vote which is not so different to the apathy that plagues our under-engaged population...
I agree, no one with a glimmering of understanding of finance and economics in a sovereign currency issuing country would endorse the seriously deluded Roger Douglas.
He relies on projections 40 years out and then proposes compulsory saving for health, education and retirement with these all provided by the private sector. His calculations seem to be based on 10% nominal interest. As for a private health system look no further than the complete basket case of the USA.
His 22 page, poorly proof read rant fails to mention climate change, biodiversity crisis, planetary resource overshoot, pandemics, or any other other components of the existential polycrisis we are facing.
As I say above Roger Douglas is just a seriously deluded person.
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.