Dumb And Dirty Growth

1Dumb & Dirty Growth

2Income, wealth, economics life is about more than these, more than just about money. Wellbeing, whether of the individual, the community or the nation incorporates many things, some of which are threatened if we blindly pursue opulence. The challenge for policymakers is to provide a climate in which wellbeing, in all its various forms, can be maximized.

Many things contribute to our wellbeing. Money does of course, as it allows us to purchase goods and services that make our lives easier or more comfortable. Yet some of the best things in life are free. But boy, do we notice it when theyre gone. There is no point in pursuing economic growth if it destroys the most enjoyable parts of our existence in the process. That would be growth at too high a cost dumb and dirty growth. The Chinese are discovering this now as they battle air pollution that in some cities makes a chain smokers vapour trail look fit to inhale.

Economists and scientists are starting to recognise and value all the things we get for free. Some of things like great scenery - create tangible benefits such as tourism. Others, like the value of swimming, or mahinga kai (food gathering) or our 100% Pure New Zealand brand, are much harder to value. These are those special privileges we do notice once theyre gone. Saving endangered species even though their existence might not matter one jot to my personal environment, may just be something I value immensely for its intrinsic value. As these things become rarer, we risk denying future generations their heritage. Protecting that heritage for future generations is known to Maori as kaitiaki guardianship.

Image source: news.asiantown.net

Introduction

3The challenge we face is how to encourage society to protect and nurture these aspects of well-being that do not have a simple market price. A starting point is to acknowledge that not every dollar in income we generate is actually worth the same to us as a society. For example, in GDP accounting a dollar earned through increasing farming counts the same as a dollar earned say educating a child or caring for a de-pendent. But the dollar from farming may well add to water pollution yet we dont include this damage in our GDP calculation, in fact if we spend money to clean up pollution that adds to GDP as well two dol-lars for the price of one! Yeah right.

The Christchurch earthquake rendered incalculable harm to peoples lives, yet rebuilding the city is all good GDP while its destruction wasnt. Nuts again.

By all means we should pursue economic growth, chasing opulence. But we have to recognise the costs of that growth. Not all growth is the same, some adds a lot more to the quality of our lives even though in accounting terms every extra dollar of national income is the same. Increasingly, thinking that dumb and dirty growth is no different to clean and clever growth, is a delusion that is wreaking havoc with our well-being. New Zealand has a real opportunity if we get this right. As the rest of the world destroys their environment, and pursues maximum income irrespective of the costs of that greater purchasing power, we could become increasingly attractive as a destination for tourism, for others to migrate to, and for us to protect from damage.

The Government wants to reform the Resource Management Act (RMA) because they feel it is an unnec-essary brake on economic growth. We all oppose pointless bureaucracy, so speeding up the processes are both welcome and necessary. However, the need to set environmental limit bottom lines remains crucial to limiting the harm from dumb and dirty growth. This aspect of the RMA must not be compro-mised in the name of economic efficiency. Sadly, it is totally under threat by the governments pro-posed reforms, as the Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out.

Image source: news.asiantown.net

4Dumb and dirty growth increases our GDP but makes us all poorer. That is why it is important for businesses to face the full cost of the environmental and/or social damage they wreak. Anything else is false economics and the economy as a whole which values your and my wellbeing goes backwards. Example: What makes us wealthier dairy or wetland?

As we destroy more and more ecosystems the remaining ones become more important, and their value increases. For example, New Zealand has drained more than 90% of its wetlands, making them one of our rarest and most valuable ecosystems. While a farmer might increase their profit by draining a wetland and converting it to dairy, we would all be worse off as a result.

What is Dumb & Dirty Growth?

5Economic growth doesnt have to stop, but we have to get smarter with how we do it, how we use technologies and how we evaluate which sort of growth we are happy with and which were not. The only way to ensure this is to make sure we price all the benefits and costs into our investment decisions. Developers should not, for example, be able to pass on the costs of their activity to others. They should incur those costs themselves.

Example: Sustainable Farming

We have long been proud of our competitive advantage from using our pastoral system to produce high quality food, sustainably. For instance, we are already ahead of the pack in terms of emissions per kg of food, because our cows go out and get their own grass (rather than tractors bringing the food to the sheds theyre housed in).

But our farming system has downsides too. One is the impact on water quality from having more cows peeing in the paddocks. The nitrogen is too concentrated for the soil to take up, it ends up in groundwa-ter and, eventually, rivers and lakes.

The policy response has been to put in place some bottom lines for water quality. While there are some questions over what the limits should be, in principle having a limit is a good step. There has been some concern that the new water quality limits would restrict our ability to keep increasing agricultural produc-tion and ultimately impinge on our ability to grow.

But this not only fails to recognize that the economic growth is coming at an awful cost, increasingly unacceptable to more and more citizens; but it also denies the opportunity that such a problem presents. That opportunity is to lead the world on water quality and sustainable farming just as we do in other ways. No one else in the world has cracked this problem in Europe farmers are told how to farm in order to limit their environmental damage. This prevents them from finding innovative ways to reduce their impact. We are looking at the biggest opportunity for the New Zealand agricultural business to innovate its way to further affluence since the removal of on-farm subsidies in the 1980s drove productiv-ity to new heights. Already, putting hard limits on water degradation is leading to new techniques, exper-tise and technology, which we will be able to sell to the world as well as use to make our own farming industry more resilient.

Can We Have Clean & Clever Growth?

6Our farmers, small businesses and Crown Research Institutes hold a lot of great innovations that can lift profit and improve the environment at the same time. No doubt more will no doubt be created in coming years. How can we ensure our own farmers are taking up the innovations, and that we leverage them overseas?

Now lets look at examples of how we are choosing dumb and dirty growth over clean and clever growth. Well also rate the three main parties on their policies giving them a score out of 3.

Craige using an electromagnetic sensor to survey his farms soil - a service he now offers to other farms.

Example: Precision Agriculture

Craige and Roz Mackenzie run an intensive arable operation in Canterbury. They are obsessive about using all their resources efficiently (apparently their Scottish heritage is to blame) which is good for the environment and the bottom line. They use leading edge technology and precision agriculture to maximise sustainable production. Where it doesnt exist, they have made it themselves. Electromagnetic soil mapping gave them a clear picture of how their soils respond to watering and they also have real time moisture sensors in the soil. Using smart irrigation they can water only the bits that need it, cutting water use by 32%. They figured a similar idea could be applied to fertiliser, so they invented a machine that can detect cow urine patches and avoids putting more fertiliser in that spot. This all saves money, and is good for the environment. It is an innovation that could also potentially earn them a lot of money even though that wasnt why they did it. This focus on resource efficiency doesnt mean they cut production - in 2010 Roz and Craige narrowly missed an attempt to win a place in the Guinness Book of Records by producing the world record for the heaviest wheat crop per hectare.

7How we Measure Progress

Dumb & Dirty Growth Clean & Clever Growth

At the moment our aim is to maximise gross domestic product per capita. This tallies up all transactions (when money changes hands) in the economy.

This is a statistical hangover from WWII and has little resemblance to our wellbeing. For example, the economic activity created by the Christchurch rebuild shows up as a huge positive in our GDP statis-tics. But no one is really better off for the earthquake.

Governments all around the world stick with GDP because it is measurable and links well to tax revenue.

We need to find new ways to measure progress, ones that focus on well-being. We need to know whether people are getting healthier & happier. Or are they just getting richer at the expense of the environment and society generally?

Policymakers acknowledge this, but are doing bugger-all about it. They are paying lip service to the reality that well-being includes far more than dollar incomes. This is not going to bring an end to that dirty and dumb production that causes more harm than good despite the cash income generated. What is required at least is to ensure all business activity faces the full cost of the damage it causes to the environment.

But much more is required if were to maximize well-being rather than simply income; one example stronger public social services to make up for the harm done to family life from two income families being forced to neglect children. The list is long but the policy responses need to be coherent and coordinated so private benefits do not accrue at the expense of public costs.

Political Parties Rating: National has promised better monitoring of environmental impacts, but only the Greens have promised any action on actively measuring our progress (they have suggested the Genuine Progress Index).

0 0 1

8Dumb & Dirty Growth Clean & Clever Growth

Economic development is at the heart of growth in prosperity. But only dumb and dirty growth lets that come at a cost to wellbeing overall. For example, we allow industries to expand despite having a negative impact on the environment. One example of this is in the fresh water policy section below.

The Government wants to weaken environmen-tal protections under the RMA in the name of opening land for housing. Do we want Auckland to expand over the Bombay hills - the best agricultural land in the country?

The RMA exists to protect the environment in the face of the natural tendency of the market to destroy it for the sake of economic gain. By changing the RMA to balance the environment and economy, as the Government proposes, this would tilt the playing field towards further development at the expense of the environment.

We could encourage productive investment and more efficient use of land by taxing housing in the same way we treat other assets.

The RMA needs to be stronger and more flexible. The ideal resource management regime would do what the RMA says it does maintain or improve the environment. This wouldnt stop development, just ensure that any impact on the environment gets offset (for example the developer causing the damage would invest to improve the environment in other ways).

We cant continue to degrade our environment indefinitely eventually we will hit the limits of what ecosystems can bear. Why not stop the degradation now while we still have an environment that is the envy of the world? Ultimately it is in our own interest our environment is why many talented people choose to come here, either as tourists or to live.

Economic Development

Political Parties Rating: Every party seems to have their pet sectors to support, with no apparent rationale behind it. National will reform the RMA to balance the environment and economy, and invest in regional roads (discussed below). Labours regional policy is little more than a slush fund, and their housing policy is an excuse to play Bob the Builder. Labour also wants to reform monetary policy to bring down the dollar while all parties want to invest in R&D these are solutions we wouldnt need if we got rid of the tax and banking distortions around housing. Overall however, the deciding factor here is Nationals proposed dilution of sections 6 & 7 of the RMA neither Labour nor the Greens are contemplating that dark hole.

0 1 1

9Political Parties Rating: While we have serious questions on the quality of the growth being pursued, we acknowledge National are the most committed to growth overall as indicated by their reluctance to impose additional costs on business, their pursuit of international free trade deals and commitment to a simple, low-rate income tax system. The other parties are too quick to offer solutions to the quality of growth and the issues of social and economic justice, through merely raising the tax burden on those creating wealth. That is not the smart way to address these issues at all at the heart of the win-win should lie increased efficiency in applying the tax revenues already collected, ensuring regulations that restrict environmental damage enhance rather than reduce business competition, ensuring tax loopholes are shut, and ensuring public services reach those who struggle to participate in our society.


We still need income growth in order to have progress and cope with a rising population. Growth is often strongly linked to other progress indicators like health and education.

Another way of looking at this is that we have to have successful businesses that earn our income before we can worry about sharing it fairly.

We need to lift our productivity this means working smarter, not harder. New Zealanders work hard, for comparatively little reward.

In order to achieve this, we need to lift our investment in skills, innovation and capital (machines) that can help us achieve more in the workplace. This is a continual challenge and government policies must facilitate but certainly shouldnt have to fund these investments.

Business Growth

2 1 0.5

10


We have many different players using the ocean commercial fishers, aquaculture, recreational fishers, miners, oil drillers, energy generation, shipping

In some areas, different users are coming into conflict.

Usually, the environment is what really loses out. Less than 1% of our EEZ is protected in marine reserves.

Oil exploration is non-notified activity this means there is no public participa-tion in the decision around exploration. This is one of the riskiest parts of the drilling process. By the time oil is found, any consent would not realistically be rejected.

As discussed in Hook Line & Blinkers, we need to manage our oceans in the same way we manage our land.

Marine zoning and tradable rights would provide business certainty alongside environmental protection.

Marine reserves setting aside some areas of the EEZ and with different levels of protection would be part of this.

Extracting fossil fuels are fine as long as they are used to help our transition to renewable energy. We need an in-dependent review of deep-sea oil exploration safety and royalties to ensure there is truly a net benefit to New Zealand.

Commercial fishers need to minimise their impact on non-target species, and recreational fishing needs to be brought inside the Quota Management System.

Oceans Policy

Political Parties Rating: National is promising a long-overdue review of marine reserves legislation, but they are short on detail. Labour are pledging to ensure 30% of our oceans are under some form of protection (hopefully their 30% doesnt include the already-Benthic Protected Areas as that would make theirs a far less significant proposal). The Greens are similarly comprehensive on the protection front, but their staunchness on some aspects of environmental protection goes too far in restricting the economy. No party is talking about zoning and tradable rights.

1 1 1

11


Income tax doesnt work some of New Zealands wealth-iest people dont pay the top rate of income tax and many of them are not our top taxpayers.

We have a $7 billion loophole in our tax system, largely thanks to the way we treat housing and land. We dont tax the benefits people receive from their assets (e.g. houses provide shelter, farmland provides capital gain because of its tax shelter).

The more complicated we make our tax system, the more ways there are for people with means to find their way around paying tax.

A good tax system should be simple and fair and should interfere in peoples lives as little as possible. That means a broad base and low rates.

Even if income tax was a flat rate our tax system would still be progressive if we taxed all assets the same way we tax bank deposits. Extending our tax base to incor-porate a comprehensive capital tax would ensure all effective income from capital is taxed as well as enabling a flat rate of income tax.

Tax

Political Parties Rating: National have promised vague tax cuts that are barely worth discussing. Labour and the Greens are trying to tax capital, but they are doing it in a complex and virtually impotent way a capital gains tax with exemptions for family homes. Labour and the Greens get a point for trying to address the tax loophole around capital, but lose them for exempting housing, for narrowly focusing on capital gains only, and for pledging to increase the top rate of income tax a move that would further increase the complexity of the tax system. They may as well do the same as National nothing.

0 0 0

12

Political Parties Rating: National are not acting on climate change. Labour has promised to restore the Emissions Trading Scheme, while the Greens are opting for a simpler carbon tax (which they will use to give everyone a tax cut a step towards our unconditional basic income see below). Given the international uncertainty in carbon trading, the Greens option is probably the better bet, although they are including methane from dairy farming, which the science doesnt support. Both Labour and the Greens are promising an independent climate change authority and carbon budgets.


New Zealand has promised to reduce our emissions by 5% by 2020 (compared with 1990), but instead we are on track for a 25% rise. We have no plan or policy to achieve this goal.

The Emissions Trad-ing Scheme has been eroded by policy tinkering (such as the Governments 2 for 1 offer for redeeming emission units) and trading in low quality international units.

Despite international negotiations stalling, climate change is not going away. It is only a matter of time until disasters mount and the international community acts.

While we shouldnt strangle our economy, we need to put incentives in place so that we make the right long term investments now. That way we will still be competitive when the world acts on limiting emissions.

We need to put a real price on carbon to provide long-term certainty for investors. We should exclude methane given the uncertainties over its impact relative to carbon dioxide, and while the agriculture industry works out how to mitigate it.

As part of the Big Ask, Generation Zero challenged the government to create:

A Climate Change Act An Independent Climate Change Authority Carbon Budgets to ensure we are on track for our goals

Climate Change

0 2 2.5

13

Political Parties Rating: National will increase paid parental leave to 18 weeks, Labour to 26 weeks. Labour and the Greens are also promising additional payments to some parents, but this is all targeted. These policies all just add to an already complicated mess.

Image source: Sage K. on Flickr


Our welfare system tries to target according to need. This creates selection bias, reduces choices, stigmatises recipients, embeds poverty traps and necessitates bureaucracy.

We could have an unconditional basic income. Everyone would get it, regardless of what they did. This ensures people are free to pursue a fulfilling life whatever that entailed: parenting, retraining, starting a business or unpaid work. Beneficiaries would not be penalised for moving into paid work. We are a rich nation, we can afford it.

Welfare

0 0 0

14


The Government has recently put in place some bottom lines below which the quality of our fresh water cannot fall. We reviewed this policy with a panel of scientists and found that while their policy is a step forward, it doesnt go far enough to protect our waterways.

Firstly their aspiration is too low. Waterways will only be safe for wad-ing in so whatever you do dont fall over!

Also we cannot be certain that the measures put in place will prevent ecological collapse in a waterway because the policy limits individu-al factors, but not their combined effects.

We also cannot be certain that the quality of our local river or lake will be maintained and improved from now on.

There is no reason not to have the aspiration of swimmable riv-ers and lakes it is simply a question of how long it takes us to get there. If communities really want to degrade their local waterway to the extent of the statutory bottom lines, they should have the option to do so, but that should be the exception rather than the default position.

All waterways should be maintained or improved from here. This can be measured and monitored using the Macroinverte-brate Community Index (MCI) which is the best measure of the life in a river (and so its ecological health).

This doesnt have to come at the expense of our dairy industry. Conversions can continue, if consequent water quality degradation is reduced or at least offset by making improvements elsewhere.

We should have tradable water use rights so that water is used in the most efficient way possible. This could also be used to resolve outstanding Maori Treaty rights over water. Holders of rights would pay a resource rental, which could be used to improve our rivers.

As mentioned above, New Zealand has a massive opportunity to sell clean, green healthy food to the world, as well as exporting our know-how.

Fresh Water

Reference: My River (2014)

Political Parties Rating: Nationals policy is a step forward, but doesnt go far enough. Labour and the Greens both have goals of swimmability, and will place a charge on irrigation to pay for the clean up. The Greens will also require riparian planting, establish a protected rivers network, and have also ruled out building new dams on wild rivers. Ruling out dams seems odd since that in some circumstances water storage schemes can improve water quality. No parties are talking about the need to maintain or improve waterways, or creating tradable rights.

1 2 2

15

Political Parties Rating: All parties want to invest more in primary care - Labour on pregnant mothers, over 65s and those with chronic disease, National on under 13 year olds, and the Greens up to 18 years. The Greens edge this one out with their promise to put nurses in low decile schools to pick up any kids slipping through the net. Nationals record on improving efficiency is best (under Labour health has been a money bonfire), but they tend to reinvest that money saved in more operations, not the stuff that matters. None of the parties are talking about the tough stuff such as cutting back on treatments with a low health benefit.

Selmaemiliano, Flickr


Our precious health dollar is not spent on where it is most effective in terms of helping us live longer, happier, healthier lives.

Instead the squeaky wheel gets the health dollar we operate on whoever yells loudest and writes letters to the Minister. That usually ends up being the educated, wealthy people, not the people that really need treatment.

We need to spend our precious public health dollar wisely - where it gets the best health return. Pharmac does this for drug spending why not use a similar approach across the health sector?

That would mean more is spent on prevention and primary care which has four times the benefit of hospital treatment.

Currently enormous resource is spent on things that have little health return like hospital treatment for people in their last year of life, and keeping clunky regional hospitals afloat. We can save mon-ey by having fewer, larger hospitals, and spend that money in the regional communities.

Health

1 1 1.5

16

Political Parties Rating: National are promising more of the same, while Labour and the Greens are both pushing for greater renewable energy investment. However, Labour and the Greens have got distracted with their plan to reduce electricity bills (at least in the short term), rather than focus on the real issues. The Greens Green Investment Bank adds little that the private sector couldnt do, and the Solar Schools policy is just a gimmick. We have already covered the most effective policy in this area putting a price on carbon.


The Government has encouraged fossil fuels: Funding for NZ Petroleum & Minerals (which aims to maximise the gains to NZ from the sector) is up 200% since 2009. Special treatment to the industry in order to woo investors, including $850k for a conference & the Rugby world cup soiree. According to WWF, the tax sub sidies for oil exploration amount to around $40m pa, and New Zealands royalty rates are low compared to the developed world. Developing a Petroleum Action Plan.

Meanwhile renewable energy has been shelved:

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise work on clean technology dropped. NZ has no plan to achieve our goal of 90% renewable energy. In 2013 New Zealand dropped out of top 40 countries for renewable energy investment after seven years with a lack of formal incentives and an energy surplus. We were replaced by Kenya. The Government prevented Meridian from marketing itself as 100% renewable energy a popular choice for consumers and businesses overseas.

There has been no success from mining and oil exploration thus far what could we have achieved by putting 6 years of effort into clean & clever growth? Why dont we offer the same assistance to renewable energy as we do to fossil fuels?

New Zealand is a world leader in renew-able energy generation why not make the most of it? We have opportunities in selling our expertise to the world for example in thermal generation and managing a renewable grid.

New Zealands electricity could easily be 100% renewable which would be a selling point for the exporting business-es based here. We are a perfect testing ground for electric vehicles. We just need a plan.

A price on carbon would boost our forestry industry, and encourage greater innovation such as the investment in wood pellet furnaces that was made by Fonterra.

Energy

0 0 0

17

Rhode Street School, Hamilton

Political Parties Rating: Few parties have made clear commitments around the issues that matter. The Greens are promising school lunches in low decile schools an untested and expensive policy which is a massive logistical ask of schools. On the positive side the Greens want to reintroduce nutrition standards for food sold in schools a policy which Labour seems to have backed away from.


We are eating ourselves to death. Two thirds of Kiwis are obese or overweight. One in four people is at risk of developing diabetes. This threatens to overwhelm our health system at the same time that baby boomers will be retiring and asking for hip and knee operations.

Over half of Kiwis are confused on how to eat well, so they cant make an informed choice.

Those that do choose to eat junk food face no penalty they can eat what they like, the taxpayer will pick up their health bills.

People need to be informed of this issue so that they can truly make an informed choice. We need to educate people, ban junk food adverts to kids, and ensure that labels and advertising are not mislead-ing people to think energy-intensive, nutrient-lite fake processed food is healthy. Compulsory front of pack nutrition labeling (and education about what it means) is essential.

However, when people choose to eat junk, the only thing that will change their choices is changing the price that they pay. Like smoking this would help reduce the problem and also ensure people contribute to the future health costs that they are creating.

Food

0 0 0

18

Political Parties Rating: It is not clear that any party has a grasp of the opportunities presented here.


We need to live up to our 100% Pure brand, otherwise people will continue to see through it and it becomes a source of ridicule.

The Government has overlooked a slew of opportunities to progress clean, clever growth:

The work of Pure Advantage. The Governments own Green Growth Advisory Group. PWC reported that the Clean Economy (low carbon and environmental goods and services) could add $12 27 billion to NZs economy by 2025. The opportunity for NZ to be the Southern Hemisphere HQ of Bransons B Team.

Our 100% Pure brand has a value. It attracts tourists, talented people and adds a premium to our exports. This value is likely to grow in the future as other countries despoil their environment.

This is not arguing for Think Big style subsidies (any more than the oil and gas industry gets subsidies now). All we need is a plan so that we are prepared for opportunities as they arise, and ensure that increasingly the way we earn our income is environmentally sustainable, and unambig-uously raises national well-being, not simply income.

Leadership

0 0 0

19

Tuis in Khandallah image credit: Tony Stoddard

Political Parties Rating: National have acted with the Battle for our Birds, and while Labour and the Greens are promoting increased spending on eradicating or controlling predators, there is no funding attached. No party has signed up to the vision of Predator Free New Zealand, nor do they mention cat management.


New Zealands native flora and fauna has been hit hard by the arrival of humans, development and the predators they brought with them. For example over a third of New Zealands native bird species are extinct, and another third are endangered. We need to protect and restore what we have left, providing safe havens for our native wildlife to flourish.

New Zealand leads the world in predator eradication, however greater investment is needed to prevent losing more species. Concerns over the use of poison are preventing dealing with the threat posed by predators. Also the main predators in urban areas domestic cats are free to wander and kill at will.

A predator free New Zealand would bring many benefits:

Attract tourists and talented people to live in New Zealand Protect our 100% Pure brand A premium for our exports Expertise & health benefits from eliminating predators The intrinsic value of saving our native species

To achieve this, we need to stay at the forefront of predator eradication. We also need to manage cats like we already manage dogs.

Conservation

1 1 1

20

Political Parties Rating: National have promised more of the same the Roads of National Significance, plus $212m more for regional roads and $100m for cycling. The Greens have promised to invest in public transport. Labour have promised a more rational approach to transport spending, and then leap to what they think that means without clear evidence. While investing in public transport is likely to be more effective for cities than building more roads, we would like to see evidence rather than politics driving our infrastructure spending. That spans the issues of where to invest, how much, and on what transport types.

Image source: Phillip Capper, Flickr


The Government has been investing in Roads of National Significance on the basis of dubious cost benefit arithmetic.

We need to depoliticise funding across roads and public transport. Government should make public the cost benefit ratios of all transport options so that the public is fully informed about what alternatives are being overlooked in order to invest in the Roads of National Significance. Transport spending also needs linking up to an economic development strategy.

We also need to ensure a long-term price of carbon is built in to all calculations, to make sure our decisions are future-proofed.

Transport

0 0 0

21

Image source: Phillip Capper, Flickr Treaty of Waitangi, Wikipedia


Political democracy in New Zealand is under siege. The culprit is successive governments predilection for power sharing with Maori as a way to address issues that concern Maori, beyond those of natural resources and cultural treasures, which are covered by Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.

By granting political power to a group in this way, the political rights of all New Zealanders are being compromised, in contradiction not only of the natural justice of democracy but also of Clause 3 of the Treaty and Clause 46 of the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People. The trend will deepen racial division in New Zealand.

We need to more aggressively use existing legisla-tion to address all 3 components of rangatiratanga - self-determination, political power, ethnic bias in disadvantage:

There are ways to increase freedoms for groups without compromising rights of others; Political power for a group is a constitutional issue that is most appropriately addressed in a trans parent public process, such as citizen assembly; The Human Rights Act 1993, and the Bill of Rights 1990 should have enough grunt in them to ad dress the ethnic bias in disadvantage.

Constitutional

Reference: Are we there yet? (2015, forthcoming)

0 0 0

22

Growing the economy doesnt have to be dumb and dirty - coming at the expense of our environment and society. If we are clean and clever, we can innovate and grow in different ways.

We can have it all.

Documents

Dumb And Dirty Growth