At last, a real plan to regain New Zealand's economic standing in the developed world. According to Radio New Zealand,The ACT Party says slashing the number of MPs and offloading state businesses, would lift economic growth and leave the average New Zealander $500 per week better off.
They're part of 20 pledges that party leader Rodney Hide is promising to carry out, if ACT holds the balance of power after the 2008 general election.
Mr Hide is also committed to flattening tax rates, cutting state spending and remodelling climate change policies.
Mr Hide says the plans would help lift New Zealand from being poorer than the lowest ranked states in Australia and the United States; Tasmania and Mississippi.
He says the proposals would boost annual growth, by 5%.
The 20-point plan is here
10 comments:
I do hope that after the election ACT is in a position to make this happen.
As per the current polls indicate, the party is unlikely to get over the 5% threshold, so winning Epsom and getting as many party votes as possible should be the main objective.
How can Act hold the balance of power without being heavily diluted if Labour doesn't want them and National doesn't want Douglas's policies in Cabinet?
Now now Dave. National have a lot of things before only to change their minds when they get in Government. Lets wait and see.
What is your opinion on these 20 pledges Dave?
Are you kidding me dave???? Labour would go with them in 5 seconds if it meant the difference betweeen being in power or not.
Hmmm there are some good policies here, but too much waffle and Rodney wants carbon tax? Come on you can do better than this, and have done so in the past, and what about the DPB?
I'm disappointed, I seriously hoped this would be better.
Scott, This is the economic plan. It is undisputed that NZ must lift its economic growth. Neither National nor Labour can claim to be able to achieve this or even be aiming to, despite it being crucial to NZ's future.
DPB? I'm not giving up. But at the moment it would appear ACT is going to fight this election on the economy and I support that.
Come on Lindsay, advocating carbon tax is good for the economy? What does free up more land for housing mean? Why can't Rodney name a single example of a core activity of local government or a government department that should be closed?
It sounds good, but the lack of specifics worries me. Again more wishy washy tax policy "lower and flatter" is that the two tier policy of last time? flat tax? or is it just dumping the 39% while having a tax free threshold?
You will be thrashed by critics for saying cut state spending without naming a single department you'd close down.
Scott, Do you not think that as a candidate I will be expecting more 'specifics'? I have to promote the policies. There's still probably 5 months to go and each point will be fleshed out progressively. We both know that the vast majority of voters are not particularly engaged until quite close to the election.
ACT policy has always been to close the Ministry of Women's Affairs and I would push for closure of the Offices of the Families and Children's Commissioners. Previous policy has been for local govt to shed commercial activities.
I might not agree with a carbon tax but I haven't heard the rationale yet. What the document says is low carbon tax is better for economic growth than an ETS. Thanks to Labour we have a Kyoto obligation. ACT will not be in a position to renege but it could be in a position to plump for the better way to meet it.
Look. What I do know is Rodney Hide is the only libertarian in parliament. Personally I am prepared to trust his judgement. It's that or leave it to the socialists. No option.
I have quibbles, but full marks for having the guts to put policy out there. Rodney's speech reads very well and contains much good sense and straight talking - top marks for that too. ACT is the only party offering policies which do not pander to popular delusions.
However, the speech implies that ACT's coalition bottom line will be Sir Roger as finance minister. I would have preferred that ACT demand a 5% overall cut in the governments spending in the first budget and no subsequent increase for the life of the government. Demanding the Sir Roger be given the purse strings is surely a strategic error: This strategy will be met with a Labour case that a vote for National is a vote for Sir Roger. ACT's policies will become irrelevant in that debate. National may even be forced to promise that they won't engage with ACT - then a vote for ACT may seem pointless.
Dave Christian
Post a Comment