Maxim Institute's regular e-newsletter, Real Issues, highlights the issues behind the headlines and keeps you up-to-date with important developments in policy and culture in New Zealand and around the world.
"Some may belittle politics but we know it is where people stand tall. And although I know it has its many harsh contentions, it is still the arena which sets the heart beating fast. It may sometimes be a place of low skullduggery but it is more often a place for more noble causes. I wish everyone, friend or foe, well and that is that, the end."
Tony Blair speaking during his last Question Time as British Prime Minister
A registered charitable trust, funded by donations, Maxim Institute values your interest and support.
New Zealand is a richly textured country. It has a great and colourful history and a thriving culture. Its people have inherited a vast and dynamic landscape. They know how to live and play well. Yet, New Zealand faces serious challenges. How we respond today shapes the future our children inherit tomorrow.
Maxim Institute is an independent research and public policy think tank. We are committed to the people, land, history and culture of New Zealand. Our mission is to foster ideas and leadership that enable freedom, justice and compassion to flourish in New Zealand. We are not affiliated with any lobby group, religious organisation or political party and are also independently funded. We have received donations from over 1,700 individuals and trusts since our inception.
As tax cuts come into effect this week, a new website has been launched urging New Zealanders to direct money, which they will no longer pay in taxes, towards charitable causes.
NZ Votes Political Debates are now well underway, providing a great opportunity for people to hear from the parties' candidates themselves.
Retiring Speaker Margaret Wilson calls Question Time "political performance"—but shouldn't it be more than this?
Using your extra dollars
This week, the first in a series of tax cuts comes into effect, with individuals finding a little more in their bank account and a little less in the tax column of their pay slip. Meanwhile philanthropy in New Zealand is weak. Charitable giving in the year 2005/2006 was approximately 0.81 percent of our GDP, relatively low compared with the US where approximately 2.2 percent of GDP was given to charity. As the government begins to relieve a little of the financial pressures on its citizens, the question of how we contribute to community needs and the roles of tax and of philanthropy in our nation become crucial.
Behind tax is the rationale that there are some needs that are best provided by the government—we therefore pay tax so that the government can perform its role in these areas well. However, paying tax does not excuse us from taking care of those around us—the needs of the community are far greater than those that can be met by government. All around New Zealand charitable organisations, from small grassroots networks to larger more comprehensive services, provide for people both here and overseas.
By donating money to charities, people are choosing to contribute to vital services and institutions. It is a way of building stronger communities and assisting those who are struggling in some countries even to survive. The Social Justice Commission of the Anglican Church is encouraging people to use some or all of the extra money they will have in hand due to tax cuts, to contribute to a charitable cause—to something in the community that they consider worthwhile, through the campaign "Give it up." With the government inevitably rolling back some of its spending, citizens are being provided with an opportunity to take responsibility for the shape of the nation and communities overseas.
Too often, tax is the glue that binds us to one another, rather than commitment and shared responsibility. Tax cuts may relieve some of the pressure on our personal budgets, but they also provide an opening for a more engaged and responsible citizenry, actively contributing to the needs they see in their neighbourhoods and cities.
Owning our democracy
As people and politicians get into the swing of Election '08, Maxim Institute's NZ Votes Political Debate Series has kicked off, with its first debate in Pukekohe. Events will follow in Whangarei, Rotorua, South Auckland, Helensville, Queenstown, Dunedin, Christchurch, Upper Hutt, Nelson, Hamilton, Central Auckland, Wellington and Tauranga; where candidates from across the political spectrum will pitch their policies and vision to us voters, facing questions on what matters to you, and to our country.
Even in a digital age, forums and debates like these have a vital and often overlooked function. In a democracy, our representatives should be accountable, not only to the press, or their party, but to the voter. To stand before a cross-section of the New Zealand electorate and argue for your policy may not be a comfortable experience for politicians and candidates, but it is what democracy is all about—crime and the environment, taxes and education, why nurses are overworked and whether we should legalise cannabis—the burning issues and the small, the popular and the harsh-but-true, the politicking and the posturing—live debates have it all. They inject crucial energy, life and a dose of reality into the campaign.
The policies of government affect the lives of real people, and it is imperative that we feel a sense of connection to our political process, that we are able to trust the transparency and accountability of our system. It is also crucial, of course, that electors are able to make informed choices. As at every election with the future of our country at stake, it is important for us to own our democracy, and to remember that we do.
Questioning Question Time
Retiring Speaker Margaret Wilson's recent valedictory speech may give us a crucial insight into why politicians find it so difficult to answer a straight question. In reference to Question Time, she said: "As I have said on many occasions question time is not truth seeking—that is done through written questions and the official information requests. Question Time is about political performance. It is a testing of political positions and the ability of individuals to stand up to the test."
Question Time does appear exactly like that—Opposition members ask questions of the government, such as: "In the light of the Minister's comment that New Zealanders who go to Australia are functionally innumerate and we are better off without them, does he believe we are better off without the 13 nurses, 10 teachers, 31 managers, 15 builders, and five electricians, as well as the other 600 people who are leaving each week?" And the government, whoever it is, dodges them, by saying something like: "Certainly, one would like to keep those people. There are 48 people I would certainly substitute for any of those, any day of any week." While some Ministers do attempt genuine answers to questions and some Opposition MPs do ask meaningful questions, others are forced into it by artful supplementaries. Many simply treat Question Time as a sort of gladiatorial contest, in which it is a point of honour not to give too much away.
Margaret Wilson is right that answering questions on the hop, even ones provided in advance, measures "the ability of individuals to stand up to the test" and the consistency of their "political positions"—these are important attributes. However, it is alarming to hear the Speaker of the House relegate "truth seeking" to the less prominent asking of written questions—as if obfuscation and artful dodging should be expected whenever politicians put down the pen and open their mouths. The point of Question Time is to hold the government (of whatever stripe) to account, on behalf of the people of this country. MPs from the parties not in government have the right and the duty to ask questions, to get at the truth, to force the executive to face and answer difficult questions. At the same time, Ministers have a duty to know what is going on in their portfolio, to be briefed on what people are doing, to be aware of the issues. It is these things which Question Time attempts to allow and enable. We should raise our expectations to ensure the supremacy of truth in our Parliament, and accept the necessity of sometimes digging for it.
Regulations Review Committee criticises use of regulations
The Regulations Review Committee has just made several recommendations to Parliament which question the way the Government added regulations to the Overseas Investment Act 2005. Prompted by the impending sale of a 40 percent stake in Auckland International Airport to the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board in March, the list of criteria that Ministers should consider when an application for foreign investment could involve ownership of sensitive land was extended. In particular, the regulations defined "strategically important infrastructure" as a subset of sensitive land. The changes prompted a complaint which the Committee investigated.
The Committee concluded that the regulations that were introduced may have changed the Act significantly. It therefore recommends that the regulations are reviewed by the Government to ascertain whether they need to be put through the parliamentary process as an amendment to the legislation.
Public submissions sought on taxation
The Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill is currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Public written submissions are being sought on the Bill. This Bill is a broad piece of legislation. If passed it would make changes across different areas of taxation—affecting the life insurance industry and carbon emission units. It also includes provisions for a voluntary scheme of charitable payroll giving. This scheme would simplify charitable giving, allowing employees to transfer money directly from their pay packet to the charity of their choice, thereby gaining immediate tax rebates and ensuring regular giving.
The Finance and Expenditure Committee are receiving public submissions until Monday 6 October.
