The Greens-time to question what they stand for!

As Adam wrote in another post Sunday ,on the Greens, he was thinking then about the mis-perceptions concerning the Greens which many seem to have. Indeed he commented on this fact in the post concerned.

So why is he writing another post on the Greens so soon. Well when he saw the TV News last night he heard the familiar comment between newsreader and reporter on where is National’s policy.

So many times we hear TV, Radio and Newspapers demand National comes clean with it’s views and policy. Well why should they? We are some months still away from the election. If National releases all policy now it will enable Labour to either spike the policy or take other action.

Indeed we do not hear the media demanding what Labour’s vision is for the future. After 9 years surely we are entitled to know what, if any, vision Labour has for New Zealand.

In fact we do not hear many in the media, if any making similar demands of the other parties.

However, in the context of this post Labour and the others are peripheral.

Nowhere does Adam see any of the MSM conducting a detailed and searching analysis of what the Greens are all about.

Given that the Greens have been in the Parliament now for several terms and have some influence on government policy and may have more; it is time that they were put under the spotlight.

Yes, Red Russel was on Agenda recently, but it was like watching a cross examination by a wet bus ticket.

Adam then remembered an article which he read in the print edition of one of the papers and then found on Stuff this NZPA item about Red Russel’s speech to the faithful at the Greens conference.

The Green Party wants a resource levy on commercial water use with the levy used to reduce rates and income taxes.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman outlined the levy during his speech to the Green Party conference in Auckland.

He said the right price signals needed to be put in place so the economy became more efficient at using finite resources.

The levy was the first part of the Greens’ approach to “ecological tax shifting.” Its full tax shifting policy would be released closer to the election.

So the Greens want to place another impost on business to reduce presumably domestic rates and personal taxes.

• What modelling and costing have they done to determine the impact of such an impost?
• Have they assessed the long term impact on employment, job creation, investment, trade etc?
• Is water in NZ truly a finite resource? Adam agrees that in some places around the world that it is? But in NZ?

Red Russel says this is the first part of the Greens’ approach to ecological tax shifting.

• What does he mean by this?
• What does he mean by its full tax shifting policy?
• How will this policy impact the economy?
• What will it do for growth?

Red Russel than made a number of statements over growth in water use. He said:-

“As a general rule there is no price paid to use this globally valuable natural resource.”

Dr Norman said the Greens were not proposing to privatise water or introduce tradeable water rights.

It was not proposing to charge for drinking water for humans or for stock.

“But if you use a public resource to make a profit then the public should be paid rental for that use.”

Now Adam finds elements of this statement confusing.

In Auckland for example water is metered and charged for. Adam has no problem with that. He thinks there are issues with infrastructure, but he has no objection in principle to such charges. Further there is an element of rates which covers water issues. So he finds Red Russel’s comment there confusing, as in effect in many if not all parts of the country one is effectively charged for drinking water. Indeed, such charges encourage efficient use of the domestic water supply.

In principle Adam has no issue with a water levy, provided that the impact is fully understood by the community and the community understands the consequences of such a levy.

Adam has concerns as to the extent NZ is converting to dairy farming and thinks that such use does place potentially excessive demands upon water supply and quality of water, especially but not limited to the South Island, so considers some such measure may be appropriate – particularly if it aids the shift to a service based economy, but not if it is brought in without a full understanding of impacts and the costs of change.

• Further, Adam suspects that some of the power companies may be big water users, so is Red Russel proposing to levy them and cause power costs to rise?
• What would be the impact on industry?

Adam, in common with others on the right, does not automatically assume that all Green policies and approaches are bad, but he thinks the approaches and policies should be subject to searching review. The Greens and the left, despite what they arrogantly assume, do not have a monopoly on environmental concerns – the more so as mitigating many such concerns has a strong economic rationale anyway.

If policies such as these result in the overall burden of tax being reduced, rather than simply adding to the existing burden, and such new approaches did not discourage investment or growth then it might well be that people might find some of these worth thinking about.

Those policies and approaches would need to be economically sound, not ideologically driven.

The problem is that he suspects that what may appear rational on the outside will not appear quite the same when considered in the light of the total Green agenda, particularly their social justice agenda and their anti-business and anti free trade focus. Especially when the full extent of the impact of these policies is known.

Adam would like to know what business, services and industry the Greens would see replacing those which would be displaced through their measures.

• What industries and services will be impacted and how through their tax shifting approach?
• What new industries will be started and where will the investment capital come from?

What is the Green vision for NZ and especially the economy which after all pays for everything?

He suspects that their ‘vision’ is one based on a import substitution economy with all sorts of import controls etc, etc. Precisely the sort of economy which will restrict choice, growth and development. Further the sort of economy investors shy away from, so look forward to disinvestment by existing foreign investors, exchange controls, rising interest rates and a falling dollar. In addition our exports would decline because of Green trade views, our FTA benefits would not eventuate and we would probably run foul of the WTO. All that for starters.

Bear in mind Red Russel has been described as coming from the social justice wing of the party not the environmental wing. He is of a similar ilk to Kedgley and some of the others.

The point is we need to more critically examine just what policies the Greens are proposing and what their impact might be in various areas:-

• tax
• social welfare
• trade – Adam is concerned that the Greens attitude to free trade may well materially imperil the entire economy
• tourism
• transport

these are just a few key examples.

We need to be able to assess what the Greens impact could be on this country, before the election on the basis of a clear understanding of their policies and the implications.

At this time the media is providing us with little assistance.

It is time for there to be much more focus on what the NZ Greens really wish to impose on this country.

We need to dispel the warm fuzzy, tree hugger image and reveal these people for what they really are .