Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its arguments for such a bold reform. As part of a new series providing scrutiny of the fast-track legislation (#FastTrackWatch), this first column rounds up the commentary and arguments in favour of what the Government is proposing.

Chris Bishop puts the case for getting things done

The architect of the overturn of RMA is Infrastructure and Housing Minister Chris Bishop. He has developed the new regime, with the central purpose of enabling the country to “get things done” – i.e. for development to occur. This goal comes in the context of widespread awareness and consensus that things have been moving too slowly in New Zealand, and major and important infrastructure and housing have been held back by structural and governmental regulation.

Much of this relates to the Resource Management Act 1991, which most politicians want replaced. Bishop’s answer is to essentially deregulate the sector and turbo-charge the ability of developers to get their projects off the ground. And in finding a way to do this, he’s picked up what the last Labour Government had already done with their own Covid-era fast-track processes and expanded that into a more permanent and extensive escalated process.

The new processes mean that three cabinet ministers (those responsible for transport, regional development, and infrastructure) can select a select number of development proposals to essentially get exemptions from normal resource consenting processes. An expert panel is also involved in advising the ministers and suggesting conditions to be placed on developers, but the three ministers have the ultimate say.

Bishop explained all of this in his column in the Herald yesterday, in which he paints a dark picture of the status quo, which justifies a new approach: “It’s too hard to get things done in New Zealand. Too hard to build new renewable energy, too hard to build roads and public transport, too hard to build houses and too hard to develop the sort of sensible economic development projects that provide jobs and growth” – see: Fast Track Approvals Bill – New Zealand has become an obstruction economy (paywalled)

To illustrate how the status quo needs radical change, Bishop is good at using anecdotes about the frustrations of a dysfunctional and bureaupathetic consents system: “I recently met a housing developer who had finally received consent after a three-year process only to have an official turn up on the very day earthworks were to begin and demand a Wildlife Act permit. That process took more than a year to complete. Such ineptitude would be funny if kids weren’t living in cars and a generation were not locked out of home ownership.”

Bishop has cleverly turned the tables on critics who has sought to tar the fast-track process as being about helping construction and mining companies to get their way. Instead, he sells his solution as being about improving housing availability, making roads safer, and decarbonising the economy to fight climate change.

He also puts forward a very clear explanation of how the new fast-track process will work as a streamlined “one-stop-shop” process for developers: “it doesn’t just deal with resource consents, it also deals with all the other things often needed for development, like conservation permits, heritage and so on. It makes sense to do all of that at the same time, rather than strung out over many years and with multiple different government agencies.”

Shane Jones’ populist approach

New Zealand First’s Shane Jones is the second biggest voice selling the fast-track proposal to the public. And although Bishop is the main architect of it, it’s been said that Jones, as Resources Minister, is the schemes’ “godfather”. Crucially, he was responsible for getting the scheme included in the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First.

Jones’ sales pitch for the fast-track is less subtle than that of Bishop, and more populist, saying it’s about driving a metaphorical bulldozer through all the red- and green-tape to get things done for “the people”, especially in the neglected regions. He promises more jobs and economic growth as a result. It’s all very much in line with his “Make New Zealand Great Again” mode in which leaders need to break rules to get things done.

Jones takes delight in promising more consents for the extractive sector, including mining on conservation land, and appeals to New Zealanders, who he says are sick of environmental protections slowing down progress too much. In debating the new legislation in Parliament, Jones explained the new approach: “Gone are the days of the multicoloured skink, the kiwi, many other species that have been weaponised to deny regional New Zealand communities their right to a livelihood, their entitlement to live peacefully with their environment but derive an income to meet the costs of raising families in regional New Zealand.”

More famously, Jones has also referred to allowing land that is currently protected against mining to protect the Archey’s frog: “In those areas called the Department of Conservation estate, where it’s stewardship land, stewardship land is not DOC land, and if there is a mineral, if there is a mining opportunity and it’s impeded by a blind frog, goodbye, Freddy.”

Mike Hosking: The Most important thing the Govt is doing

The one person outside of government and industry circles who is almost a lone voice in championing the fast-track regime is Newstalk broadcaster Mike Hosking. He put forward his best defence of it this week, saying the proposal “might well be the most important thing this Government does” given that New Zealand’s has an infrastructure crisis and needs to get on with building and fixing things, which is what this bill is about – see: This Government was elected on change — embrace it

Hosking reminds us that the current Resource Management Act isn’t working, and so it’s important that we innovate to try new ways of getting on with creating economic growth and rebuilding the country. It’s a message that will resonate with a public that is impatient for change and transformation, especially given that this is a widespread feeling that “the country is broken” or in decline.

Hosking’s other key argument is to attack those that are questioning the fast-track proposal – he describes them as “incessant moaners” and “handwringers” who are holding back progress. Here’s his key point: “Submissions on the legislation closed last week and you can imagine who turned up. It’s the same people who believe not doing things is the preferred option. The same people who have held this country to ransom over their individual myopic view of what’s important to save, or treasure, or talk more about.”

The New Zealand Initiative: In favour of centralising power in Wellington

The pro-business lobby group and think tank the New Zealand Initiative has come out firmly in favour of the Fast Track Approvals Bill, saying that it’s “a necessary step to streamline decision-making for projects with significant economic benefits, and it should proceed.”

This group is normally an advocate for “localism”, devolution, and against the ethos of “Wellington knows best” – which means they might have been expected to rail against this concentration of power in the Beehive. But in this case, they support the Government taking back control so that they can push through development without cause for local participation and impediments in the decisions.

The Initiative’s main spokesperson on the issue, Nick Clark, has written a column for the Herald this month about how the bill might not be perfect, but it should be supported because it “represents an improvement on the status quo” – see: Fast-tracking for infrastructure fix is needed now (paywalled)

In talking about the concerning imperfections in the fast-tracking proposal, such as the increased likelihood of corruption, the Initiative concludes that these aren’t important enough to prevent the Bill from being implemented in its current form, especially given the urgency of New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit.

The Initiative therefore takes a highly pragmatic argument in favour of fast-tracking, pointing to, like Bishop, the many economic problems facing the country, which now means that a centralisation of powers is desirable in order to push through developments, even if they are opposed by locals.

Infrastructure Commission

Some fast-track supporters have used material produced by the Government’s Infrastructure Commission to show the need for the new reforms. Although the Commission doesn’t appear to have taken a stance on this major infrastructure issue, it has published a report on the problems with the existing resource management rules.

The report was prepared for the Commission by the Sapere consultancy company, and it shows that the current consenting process costs the economy about $1.3 billion per year. It also pointed out that over the last five years, the average time taken to get consent has doubled.

The Commission is also under pressure to come up with ways to speed up developments. A poll last year showed that 61 per cent of New Zealanders believe that not enough is being done to meet the country’s infrastructure needs. Priorities, according to survey respondents, were flood defences and new housing supply. For more on this, see Andrea Vance’s recent column, Why Nimbyism is the biggest risk to the Government’s fast-track regime (paywalled)

Business interests welcome fast-tracking

“Manna from heaven” is how the fast-track bill is being described by the chief executive of the mining lobby group Straterra, Josie Vidal. She says that “the country is in trouble. We need to get on and do some things”, and suggests that politicians have become too ponderous in their decision-making – see Brent Edwards’ NBR article, Opponents and supporters of fast-track bill want changes (paywalled)

As to the criticisms of the bill, Vidal writes this off: “There is a lot of fearmongering from environmental groups.”

Similarly, Newsroom’s editor Tim Murphy has said: “This Govt is certainly making some people happy. The mining, marine aquaculture, roading, energy and land developer industries must be wondering whether they’ve died and gone to heaven with the new fast-tracking law.”

Certainly, businesses and other lobby groups have reacted very positively to the fast-track bill. Press statements have been put out in its support by Infrastructure New Zealand, Transporting New Zealand, Energy Resources Aotearoa, and Civil Contractors NZ.

Some iwi are also supportive of the fast-track, as many have economic interests in aquaculture and energy industry. For example, Ngāi Tahu has been reported as hoping to use the new fast-track to finally get the greenlight for its previously-blocked proposal for a massive salmon farm off Stewart Island.

The public’s appeal for “getting things done”

The fast-track regime is likely to be very popular with the public. There’s a widespread frustration with how little government gets achieved, and how society is held back by regulations. This is especially the case in terms of building and resource management consents.

….This column continues. To access this, please follow this link to the  Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz) and subscribe: Upgrade to paid.

Political Roundup: Our politicians are competent firefighters, but terrible builders

The Labour Government has once again proven itself to be very competent in a crisis. Cyclone Gabrielle has allowed Prime Minister Chris Hipkins to demonstrate his impressive disaster management communication.

Labour is very good with the political firefighting required to deal with such disasters – as they have shown in the past with their response to the Christchurch mosque attack, the Whakaari White Island eruption, and the initial stages of Covid.

And, in fact, the last National Government wasn’t too bad at crisis management either. John Key and Bill English received plaudits for the way they dealt with the global financial crisis, the Pike River disaster, and the Canterbury earthquakes.

And yet, both Labour and National have proven to be atrocious at longer-term planning and investment in the things that really matter. The big problems of society never get the attention they deserve and, slowly but surely, those problems mount up, unaddressed, and actually start producing more and more crises – such as the disasters of the last month – which politicians are then forced to react to.

The Polycrisis exposed

We now have a “polycrisis” of problems blighting New Zealand, which our politicians seem unwilling or unable to properly address. The term “polycrisis” is being used around the world to denote simultaneous challenges that are often linked and reinforcing: climate change, infrastructure deficits, inflation, economic inequality, Covid, and war.

The Herald’s Thomas Coughlan highlighted last week that polycrisis had been the word most used at the recent Davos meeting of world elites, but he suggested “permacrisis” – the Collins dictionary “word of the year” – was more apt, which he defined as “the sense of living through an unfolding sequence of crises.”

New Zealand’s political polycrisis has been made worse by the weather events of the last weeks. The Spinoff’s Duncan Greive explains this, saying: “Because Auckland’s floods and Cyclone Gabrielle did not land on a country which was running smoothly. They dropped into one which was suffering through that debilitating modern phenomenon known as the polycrisis: interlinked crises covering inflation, housing, infrastructure, health and more, all operating against and influenced by the climate crisis.”

Labour and National’s infrastructure deficit

At the centre of New Zealand’s polycrisis is an infrastructure deficit in which roads, communications systems, stormwater infrastructure, electricity transmission, hospitals, schools, and so forth, haven’t been adequately funded and built for the requirements of the 21st century.

On top of the infrastructure deficit are other crises created by a lack of attention given to inequality, climate change, and housing. These are massive issues that the current Labour Government continues to pay lip service to but, in nearly six years in power, has done little about. Similarly, previous governments have allowed these crises to worsen.

The problem for the Government and the Opposition is that all of these huge but long-term problems are being starkly exposed –  especially by last week’s Cyclone Gabrielle. The risk for the politicians is that the polycrisis and infrastructure deficit will be blamed on them. These things threaten to upend current politics, producing something of a reckoning for our short-term focused political class.

Criticism of politicians is noticeably increasing. Across the political spectrum over the last two weeks there have been some thoughtful critiques made of the failures of successive governments. Newstalk’s Heather du Plessis-Allan has typified this in pointing the finger at Labour and National for constantly avoiding fixing our problems properly.

For instance, Du Plessis-Allan said last week Labour and National are too inclined to “do things on the cheap” with infrastructure, but this cutting of corners just produces more problems for our roading networks, electricity transmission, and so forth. She points out that even before the weather disasters of this month, the infrastructure deficit had reached $210 billion, which means politicians now have some hard questions to face.

Duncan Grieve of the Spinoff has also made a severe critique of the way that the current Minister of Finance Grant Robertson – along with his predecessors – have deliberately ignored investing in critical infrastructure merely so they can parade their low debt figures, and relatively low taxes, to business audiences and the like.

Grieve says it’s “embarrassing” that Robertson and other finance ministers are so proud of the fact that they have underfunded infrastructure in order to be able to boast of their financial nous. And he laments that whenever anyone advocates much higher infrastructure spending they are denounced by Labour or National as being “Muldoonist”.

And yet much of our infrastructure is stuck back in the 1960s, well before Rob Muldoon’s time. As Josie Pagani wrote this week, “This web of pipes and cables is much the same as it was 50 years ago. Like the old ships we send across the Cook Strait, still breaking down like it’s 1968. As I write this, the traffic into Wellington is at a standstill. Trains aren’t running. It’s only raining. We’re not just falling behind in infrastructure. We are falling behind in the politics of sorting it out.”

So much of the tragedy that has been inflicted on the North Island in the cyclone and flooding is a result of political decisions – or failure to make decisions. For example, Herald political editor Claire Trevett gave one good example last week: “The cyclone is already highlighting issues that should have been dealt with by the government – and by governments before it: Tairawhiti residents have been calling for something to be done about slash from forestry for years now. Yet nothing has been done. Lo, the slash came down again and farms were hammered again.”

An Opportunity to focus on the polycrisis rather than political gain

Pressure now needs to be applied to New Zealand’s political class to break out of the infrastructure deficit in which low debt and low taxation rank as the most important metrics in evaluating their worth as political leaders.

There has been some progress in this regard. In the last week or so, politicians have suddenly woken up to the need to invest in the bigger problems.

For instance, Christopher Luxon said last week: “we need to invest now very strongly in climate adaptation and infrastructure… we can’t go rebuilding roads that keep getting wiped out and then get wiped out at the next event.” Similarly, Grant Robertson has spoken of the need to invest in infrastructure. But without any pressure applied on such politicians, these words are unlikely to go far beyond lip service.

Part of this means dealing with climate change – both in terms of mitigation and adaptation, with the latter being where the new infrastructure debate is heading. There are now many billion-dollar questions about how we plan and shape the physical environment to adjust to the reality of the changing climate.

Building houses will continue to be a major focus – or at least it should be. The current government, in particular, came to power on a campaign about the housing crisis but has turned out to be particularly bad at building houses. Despite the PR hype about a small amount of construction, it is negligible against the size of the housing crisis. Kiwibuild continues to be a farce, and state housing is tiny, contributing to the levels of homelessness and accommodation need.

The problem is we have plenty of brilliant disaster management politicians, but seemingly no politicians who are good at forward-thinking and with the courage to do the right thing. Do-nothing conservatism won’t cut it anymore after recent weather disasters have exposed the extent of the crisis. And the politicians can’t say that the media or public aren’t on board for grappling with the big issues. We have seen in recent weeks just how much appetite there now is for a focus on fixing things.

The Herald recently published an editorial about the cyclone recovery titled “Sticking plasters aren’t enough for these wounds” in which the newspaper explained that “the country faces problems that are decades in the making” but that there is an appetite to grapple with the costs involved, which might be huge. The editorial said, “Some solutions could be more expensive in the short-term but are better for the long term than constantly going through temporary fixes.”

Unfortunately, much of the political debate about the cyclone recovery is still more about how the current crisis might help or disadvantage the electoral position of particular parties and politicians. The expectation is that politicians will once again revert to type, making their calculations about what rebuild policies will help them win or lose the election. Or indeed about what hi-viz jacket and TV coverage will help in the next opinion poll.

That’s to be expected. And in a “bread and butter election” there will naturally be a need for politicians to give the public some immediate succour from their various cost of living crises. But there’s also a need to finally “think big”, even at the risk of being labelled a “Muldoonist”.

Other items of interest and importance today

CLIMATE CHANGE, CYCLONE GABRIELLE AND FLOODING RECOVERY, INFRASTRUCTURE
Matthew Hooton (Herald): It’s too late to avoid climate change – now we have to adapt (paywalled)
Toby Morris (The Spinoff): The Side Eye: A climate change reality check
Mark Blackham (Herald): Why Cyclone Gabrielle warnings went unheeded (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Cyclone Gabrielle has fundamentally changed the political debate: Building state capacity – who to tax & how
Gordon Campbell: The mauling of Maureen Pugh, Looting myths and
Banking on the cyclone
Brent Edwards (NBR): The Reserve Bank, the cyclone, taxes, climate change
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): The case for an NZ Reconstruction Authority
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Cyclone tax: Adrian Orr says there would be precedents for ‘levy’
Russell Palmer (Newsroom): Willis says tax cuts won’t require borrowing – but cyclone will
Eric Crampton: Paying for cyclones
Newshub: Cyclone Gabrielle: Windfall profit tax to support cleanup would make New Zealand ‘Sicilian mafioso country’ – David Seymour
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Will disasters like Cyclone Gabrielle widen the city-rural divide?
Ben Moore (BusinessDesk): Cyclone Gabrielle and the failure in communication(s) (paywalled)
RNZ: Health Minister details services for cut-off East Coast
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Please don’t profiteer: Rising prices worry builders in cyclone aftermath
Amelia Wade (Newhub): Cyclone Gabrielle: Chris Hipkins climbs down from criticised crime claims as roadworker says politicians are ‘covering backside’
Rachel Maher (Herald): Cyclone Gabrielle: Road workers who had guns pulled on them in Hawke’s Bay, dispute Prime Minister’s ‘third-hand’ information claim
1News: ‘Disinformation’ spreading about cyclone crime – Gisborne police
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Victim of attempted break-in at cyclone-damaged Puketapu house pleads for more back-up
Alex Lo and Faith Chan (The Conversation): NZ cities urgently need to become ‘spongier’ – but system change will be expensive
Newshub: Government announces new recovery visa for overseas workers to support Cyclone Gabrielle rebuild
RNZ: New visa set up to bring in specialised workers for post-cyclone rebuild
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Cyclone recovery visa – is six months enough? (paywalled)
Gisborne Herald: Cyclone Gabrielle: Dispute over Genesis Energy’s role in Wairoa flooding
Waatea News: Hipkins says treaty approach needed for recovery effort
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): Rockit Apple boss says growers need wage subsidy

FORESTRY SLASH
Herald Editorial: Beehive took far too long to tackle East Coast forestry waste trauma (paywalled)
Andrea Fox (Herald): Forestry waste: Slashed – Government announces inquiry, how East Coast lost its social licence (paywalled)
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Government orders inquiry into forestry slash after Cyclone Gabrielle
Hawke’s Bay Today: Chris Hipkins takes on forestry, before bad weather shuts down his Hawke’s Bay visit
RNZ: Inquiry into forestry slash announced
Kiwiblog: Policy on Forestry Slash

BACKLASH AGAINST MAUREEN PUGH’S CLIMATE CHANGE COMMENTS
Peter Dunne: Freedom of expression means hearing views that are outside the mainstream
Eric Crampton: Entrance tests for MPs?
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Maureen Pugh was ill-informed, but she’s allowed her opinion
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Labour minister Michael Wood regrets referring to Simon Bridges’ comments about Maureen Pugh being ‘useless’

PARLIAMENT
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Parliament debates Three Waters entrenchment: National’s Chris Bishop – ‘You’re making my head hurt’ (paywalled)
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Why National won’t panic as it did in 2020
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Luxon’s puzzling brain fade
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Tony Sutorius on politicians, documentary and ‘telling the truth about being dishonest’
Stewart Sowman-Lund (Spinoff): Jami-Lee Ross, ‘Tex’, and the $30,000 Advance NZ donation
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Efeso Collins seeks Greens’ nomination, says Labour takes south Auckland ‘for granted’
Newshub: David Seymour calls Chlöe Swarbrick ‘by far the most sensible Green MP’
Audrey Young (Herald): Parliament’s debating chamber – updated seating plan (paywalled)

MONETARY POLICY, COST OF LIVING
Riley Kennedy (BusinessDesk): Reserve Bank’s Orr: Cutting OCR in light of cyclone ‘makes no sense’ (paywalled)
Michael Reddell: A couple of MPS thoughts
Arena Wililiams and Stuart Smith (Stuff): New Zealand’s prices have continued to surge at a painfully fast pace

HOUSING
David Hargreaves (Interest): RBNZ: Homeowners could be spending 22% of disposable income on mortgage interest by year-end
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Interest expected to eat up 22pc of mortgage holders’ disposable incomes (paywalled)
Greg Ninness (Interest): Big regional differences in median rent movements last year
Miriam Bell (Stuff): House price slide expected to continue into next year, survey shows
RNZ: Mortgage interest rates may be slowing but still high – CoreLogic
Tina Law (Press): Christchurch’s answer to Government’s housing density mandate makes almost half the city exempt
Erin Gourley (Stuff): How a suburban train line became the focal point for Wellington’s housing debate

AUCKLAND
Erin Johnson (Stuff): Auckland Council opposes Three Waters bills
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland Council weeks away from estimating cost of storm and Cyclone Gabrielle
Sam Brooks (Spinoff): Is $41 million in savings worth the decimation of Auckland’s community and culture?
Erin Johnson (Stuff): Plan for bike paths through central Auckland suburbs shelved
Andrew Bevin (Newsroom): Ports of Auckland fighting to secure its future
RNZ: Auckland Airport delivers first underlying profit in two-and-a-half years

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Susan Botting (Local Democracy Reporting): Kaipara councillor vows to continue fight against mayor’s ban on karakia
Stephen Ward (Waikato Times): City growth strategy gets go ahead despite flood-related concerns
Janine Rankin (Manawatū Standard): Palmerston North proposed rates rise could be close to double figures
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Hutt City residents in line for 9.9% rate rise
Grant Miller (ODT): Dunedin City Council goes for 6.5% rates rise
ODT: Plans for ORC’s central city HQ finalised
Hamish McNeilly (Stuff): New plans for Otago Regional Council’s HQ revealed

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
RNZ: Government announces further Russia sanctions on anniversary of invasion
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Supporting Ukraine against Vladimir Putin is about defending a world where might is not right
Josie Pagani (Stuff): ‘Whataboutery’ is cynicism. Support for Ukraine must continue
Robert Patman (Newsroom): Is New Zealand doing enough for Ukraine?
Bruce Munro (ODT): Global Insight: Will Hipkins take tougher line on Ukraine?
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Ukraine – A Year of War: How New Zealand responded – and what could be next for our support
Thomas Manch (Stuff): PM says NZ will never ‘turn our back’ on Ukraine, a year after invasion
Gill Bonnett (RNZ): Russia-Ukraine war: Ukrainians in New Zealand seek certainty on visa extension
Anna Whyte (Stuff): New Zealand to make climate change pledge as Pacific leaders meet amid regional tension
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Carmel Sepuloni meets Fijian PM ahead of ‘important’ Pacific gathering

TRANSPORT
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Government spends $62 million on promotional, education campaigns to ‘support Road to Zero’
Jaime Lyth (Herald): Could Northland’s terrible roads be helped by rail? (paywalled)
Tom Taylor (RNZ): Auckland light rail ‘absolutely’ going ahead – Transport Minister
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Labour’s light rail at the end of the tunnel
Zane Small (Newshub): Auckland light rail survives policy purge, but completed plans still two years away
1News: National’s Simeon Brown takes aim at Auckland ‘light fail’ project
Conor Knell (Dominion Post): Bus fares rise by 6% across Wellington from April
Federico Magrin (Stuff): Aviation bill fails to protect passengers’ rights when ‘shirked’ around by airlines
Maia Hart (Local Democracy Reporting): Picton overflows as ferry passengers wait for a sailing spot
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Greater Christchurch mass rapid transit corridors identified (paywalled)

HEALTH
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): The damning OIA that pits Pharmac against the Government
Rachel Smalley (NBR): OIA release timing reveals Pharmac’s broken culture (paywalled)
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): All I ask is for Pharmac to apologise for it’s mistakes
Krystal Gibbens (RNZ): Long Covid patients plead for better job, health protections
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Pregnant Maori and Pacific women getting poor vaccine info, research shows
Hannah Martin (Stuff): Measles: Health body texting, emailing young people who may be undervaccinated
Hannah Martin (Stuff): Covid-19: Pfizer bivalent booster to be available for over 30s ahead of winter
RNZ: New bivalent Covid-19 vaccine booster to be available to over-30s

BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): By the numbers: Who is eating all of our food if we make enough to feed 40 million people?
RNZ: Air NZ boss Greg Foran says cheaper airfares at least a year away, despite profit
Dan Brunskill (BusinessDesk): Air NZ could have made ‘even more profit’ – Foran (paywalled)
Anan Zaki (RNZ): How Air New Zealand went from crash landing to stratospheric
RNZ: Air NZ reports $213m profit as passenger demand rebounds
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Kiwibank CEO says record first-half profit won’t be repeated in second-half of bank’s financial year as MP raises idea of bank levy
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Kiwibank interim profit surges 53% to record high
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): Kiwibank lifted 1H profit 53% as lending surged (paywalled)
Dita De Boni (NBR): Don’t be caught chillaxing when new Holidays Act comes to pass (paywalled)
Kate Hawkesby (Newstalk ZB): If a four day week increases productivity and employee happiness, surely it’s a win-win

MEDIA
Chris Keall (Herald): TVNZ profit slumps by two-thirds, CEO looks beyond abandoned merger
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): TVNZ interim profit drops by a third with ‘economic headwinds ahead’
Daniel Dunkley (BusinessDesk): TVNZ-RNZ merger plan ‘not a wasted exercise’ – Power (paywalled)
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): R16 or AO? MP’s question about Naked Attraction raises a point on media regulation

OTHER
RNZ: Law change to fix 501 deportees’ parole error passes under urgency
RNZ: Majority of Whakatōhea iwi agree to push on with Treaty settlement
Julia de Bres (Stuff): Semantic bleaching and the hijacking of ‘woke’
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): ‘Be fair’: Government urged to revisit Te Matatini funding
Spinoff: Yes, Harry Styles will have to do the Census
Bob Jones: A political agenda for New Zealand

The Opportunities Party (TOP) is putting other political parties to shame with its bold and innovative policies. Yesterday TOP announced their latest tax, housing, and income policies, and they were the sort of bold and transformative innovations that supporters of parties like Labour and the Greens have been desperately wanting to see from their own parties.

TOP’s new leader, Raf Manji, held a press conference in Wellington to announce radical policies that the party will take to next year’s election in a third bid to make it into Parliament. He also announced another possible route into Parliament, with his intention to stand in the Christchurch seat of Ilam, where he came second in 2017.

Land and income tax policies

The game changer policy that could reset debates on capital gains tax and income tax is the proposal to levy an annual tax of 0.75 per cent of the value of residential land properties. The party pitches this as a superior alternative to a capital gains tax, and says it would raise $6.75b-$7.5b annually.

The tax would be fairly straightforward, and difficult to avoid. For example, a residential property with a land value of $1m would pay an annual levy of $7,500. There would be only limited exemptions – for rural, conservation and Māori land, and people over 65 years could defer their payments. The tax wouldn’t apply to the buildings on the land.

TOP says that the current “Brightline tax” on property would be axed. In addition, property owners would once again be able to deduct interest costs from their tax bills for rentals and new house builds.

TOP would also make a huge change to income tax by creating a $15,000 tax-free threshold, which means all income up to that point would be untaxed. According to Treasury research, this would cost about $5.2b. Hence TOP is selling this as a “Tax switch” – shifting the burden of taxation from income, and especially the poor, to those who own properties. Overall, TOP says the policies would be “fiscally neutral”.

The current income tax thresholds would also be adjusted. And Labour’s 39 per cent tax for top incomes would be maintained.

The overall philosophy of these tax changes, according to Manji is to “rebalance the economy” and correct unhealthy trends, particularly in terms of the housing market and inequality.

Income support policies

Poverty campaigners will be enthusiastic about TOP’s policy of extending the current “In Work tax credit” of Working for Families to those on benefits – costing about $900m. This will have a big impact on inequality, and is a policy that Labour has studiously avoided in recent years.

Perhaps more controversially, TOP is advocating for a one-off cancellation of all beneficiary debts with the Ministry of Social Development – amounting to about $2b.

In terms of inequality, Manji says: “People are caught in a vortex of unaffordable living and are unable to progress with this huge burden of debt around their necks. Meanwhile, the Government has overseen a huge upwards transfer of wealth due to their Covid-19 policies.”

Housing policies

Much of TOP’s focus is on the housing crisis – with the land tax being their prime weapon against imbalances in the market. They have also proposed spending much more on social housing for the poor, identifying that thousands of additional houses need to be built on top of what the Labour Government has planned.

To do this they are advocating a $3bn package of spending for community housing associations, to build 6-10,000 new homes. By bypassing the Government’s Kāinga Ora state housing agency, this might appeal to some on the political right that want to see more social housing but less government bureaucracy.

They also propose that all GST collected by central government from the building of new houses should be reallocated to local authorities to help pay for and incentivise the building of necessary infrastructure.

TOP’s route to power: Ilam

TOP’s policies appeal to the Zeitgeist – the need to shake up the status quo in politics, especially the lack of effective policies to deal with the big problems of housing and inequality.

And at the moment there seems to be large segment of the population who voted for Labour or the Greens in 2020 and have become disillusioned with the current government, but not convinced that a National-Act administration would be any better. There are also former voters from New Zealand First looking for an anti-Establishment option.

And so far, the current policies are getting some interesting endorsements from individuals across the political spectrum – for example, leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury and rightwing blogger David Farrar have both expressed support for the announcements. In terms of the latter, Farrar says such a tax switch – from taxing incomes to land property instead – will make the tax system more efficient and fair: “TOP’s policy will see people rewarded more for working more, and discourage people from land banking. I support it.”

Maybe we are therefore seeing the start of a minor party rising to fulfill the need that the old parties aren’t delivering. And by positioning itself as a pivot party, TOP could hold the balance of power in 2023 and decide the next government. However, it’s worth pointing out that breaking into Parliament is astonishingly difficult, and TOP is a good example of how hard it is for new political parties.

The party was established in 2016 by wealthy economist Gareth Morgan, and despite his millions of dollars of funding the party only received 2.4 per cent of the party vote at that election. In 2020, under new management, and leader Geoff Simmons, the party managed 1.5 per cent.

The party is currently fluctuating between about 1 per cent and 3 per cent in the polls. To hit the 5 per cent MMP threshold they need to win about 140,000 votes. Getting to that has so far proved impossible for all new political parties under MMP unless they already have MPs and have split from an established party.

Manji has announced that TOP might be able to avoid the dreaded need to get to 5 per cent by winning Ilam, where he once got 23 per cent of the vote as an Independent, coming second to National. He has a strong name recognition and support base in the area, having been a Christchurch City councillor for six years.

If Manji was able to look competitive in the Ilam race, more voters might consider giving their party vote to TOP, with the idea that this vote would be less likely to be wasted. This motivation can give minor parties a real boost.

TOP’s basic electoral problems still exist

The biggest problem for TOP – one that has existed right from its origins – is a lack of clarity about why the party exists and who it exists for. It has never been able to convincingly pitch to voters a simple narrative of what it stands for or is trying to fix. Too often its ideological and voter base has been contradictory and self-defeating. This is often the plight of centre parties – they might have lots of good policies and ideas and quality candidates, but without any organic and genuine political identity and reason to exist they fail to take off.

For example, Manji’s decision to stand in the Ilam electorate is smart – he already has a strong track record there, Gerry Brownlee is not going to contest the seat, and the Labour Party incumbent, Sarah Pallett, is unlikely to hold the seat with the tide going out on the Government’s support.

But this is a true-blue seat of middle class home owners. Will they really be receptive to Manji’s new flagship policy of taxing their properties? Surely, it’s going to be extremely unpopular with many of the voters that ticked the Manji box in 2017 when he was an independent.

Will Fendalton voters really be attracted by policies to give a tax cut that disproportionately benefits those at the bottom? Will they agree with wiping the debts of beneficiaries?

So, TOP continues to be a party of middle class policy wonks with policies that perhaps should be highly attractive to those on the left of politics or the working class or dispossessed. But the party is unlikely to appeal to those on the political right or left, nor to constituencies of the rich or poor.

The party can push the idea that it is a “blue-green” party. But it’s not clear what that means anymore. Manji himself says he voted Green at the last election, and at times has been very supportive of John Key. So perhaps he does personify that ideological mashup very well.

But as the party’s fourth leader he is going to have to do much better than the first three leaders to get across that the party stands for more than just “evidence-based policy”. It needs a much stronger identity than just having bold policies.

However, bold policies are a good start. We desperately need policy innovators and disrupters in New Zealand politics. If nothing else they will hopefully give other parties a jolt, perhaps reigniting debates about progressive tax policies and ways to fix the housing crisis. As TOP correctly said yesterday, the “Status quo must go”.

Further reading on TOP’s policy launch

Thomas Coughlan (Herald): TOP eyes Parliament with $6.35 billion tax cut, property tax
Luke Malpass (Stuff): The Opportunities Party releases $6.5b tax cut plan to get back on political map
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Boom – TOP release incredible policy
No Right Turn: Shifting the window
David Farrar: A good tax policy from TOP

Other items of interest and importance today

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Labour is harnessing the wrong kind of anger if it wants to win
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): While we worry about the world around us, politicians trot out the same old rhetoric
Ian Taylor (Herald): Sorry Willie Jackson, we’re not ‘useless Māori’ because we don’t speak te reo
Willie Jackson (Herald): I would never judge anyone who did not speak te reo (paywalled)
RNZ: Jacinda Ardern models at World of Wearable Arts award show
Stuff: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern makes surprise appearance at World of WearableArt
Herald: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern makes surprising appearance as model at World of WearableArt (paywalled)
Mike Houlahan (ODT): Labour likely to make women a key issue
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Government yet to decide what to do with axed Auckland cycle bridge funds one year on (paywalled)
Nevil Gibson (NBR): Memo to government: Get your ducks in a row
Claire Trevett (Herald): A skeleton in Chris Penk’s closet, another Speaker’s junket and where is Christopher Luxon? (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): 1 Year until 2023 NZ election – MMP spectrum splintering
Steve Braunias (Herald): The secret diary of Costco (paywalled)
Victor Billot (Newsroom): An Ode for Nanaia Mahuta
Phil Smith (RNZ): Testing Times: Parliament’s new speakers get a hazing

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THREE WATERS, AND ELECTIONS
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): ‘I’m at the stage where I don’t know if I’ll even vote this year’
Cherie Sivignon and Skara Bohny (Stuff): Civics education floated to combat voter disengagement, distrust
Alison Mau (Stuff): From big policy to potholes; no matter the race, the abuse continues
Samantha Motion (Herald): It’s time to address the orange envelope in the room (paywalled)
Waatea News: Rangatahi are saying voting should be online
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Local councils criticised as pale, male and stale at hui
Erin Gourley (Stuff): Difficult to separate the capital’s three mayoral frontrunners
Erin Gourley (Stuff): Candidate meetings take a ‘sinister turn’ with anti-Three Waters hecklers
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Middle-aged white men over-represented in election candidates
Blair Jackson (Stuff): Voting pack delays risk undermining voting process, mayoral candidate says
Brian Easton (Pundit): Three Waters: Yet again a centralist solution is being Imposed upon local communities
Thomas Cranmer: Three Waters and the Water Services Entities

AUCKLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland mayoralty: Brown’s off-camera jibe deemed ‘undignified’ by rival
Molly Swift (Newshub): Local elections: Auckland mayoral candidates Efeso Collins and Wayne Brown show different leadership styles in head-to-head
Cherie Howie (Herald): Auckland mayoral race: Candidate Wayne Brown attacks NZ Herald journalist Simon Wilson
Newshub: Auckland Mayoral candidate Wayne Brown caught on camera saying he wants to glue pictures of journalist on urinals so people can ‘pee on him’
Steve Braunias (Herald): Auckland mayoralty: Steve Braunias’ Lincoln Rd poll puts Wayne Brown ahead (paywalled)

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Chris Trotter (Interest): Second time around
Janine Starks (Stuff): Is the Government income insurance scheme a good idea?
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Labour, National cross swords over tax, social insurance
Phil Pennington (RNZ): OIA shows Amazon and Prime Minister were in direct talks
Steven Joyce (Herald): Grand gestures fall flat as reality bites (paywalled)
Michelle Duff (Stuff): The pēpī penalty: How women take a $116m hit every year from lack of access to childcare
Liam Dann (Herald): Brace yourself for an action-packed inflation reveal this month (paywalled)
Rayssa Almeida (RNZ): Making the four-day week work: ‘You’ve got to move to the future’
Grant Bradley (Herald): What’s behind Kiwi billionaire Richard Chandler’s big new move (paywalled)
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): NZ voters more likely than financial markets to protest govt tax and spend plans (paywalled)

HOUSING
Kelly Makiha (Stuff): High-needs homeless moved from controversial Fenton St hotel in Rotorua
Liz Gordon (Insight Aotearoa): High density housing for the poor – a mistake we may bitterly regret
Geraden Cann (Stuff): 10% of ghost home owners intentionally keeping them empty
Herald Editorial: Housing intensification will throw shade on new councils (paywalled)
Herald: Housing market slump has cost homeowners in Auckland more than $140,000
Max Rashbrooke (Guardian): Hope and heartbreak for New Zealanders dreaming of a communal life

MEDIA
Janet Wilson (Stuff): Willie Jackson needs to explain why this merger is a good idea
Richard Harman: Broadcasting merger at risk of future Government direction (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: Extraordinary claim of mistrust from Broadcasting Minister (paywalled)
Colin Peacock (RNZ): More rancour on the road to a new public media entity
Stuff: Kiwis’ ‘earnest’ pandemic approach was alienating: Andrea Vance

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT
Moana Ellis (Local Democracy Reporting): ‘Stealing’ – Iwi leader slams plan to bottle and sell bore water
Eric Crampton (Stuff): What is going on with our climate regulators?
Adrian Macey and Dave Frame (BusinessDesk): Better ways to do climate policy (paywalled)

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Pacific leaders sign US declaration, New Zealand supports US recognition of Cook Islands and Niue
1News: NZ could be ‘overpowered’ by US-Pacific partnership – expert
Michael Neilson (Herald): United States unveils historic Pacific strategy to counter China ‘pressure and coercion’ and climate change

JUSTICE
Mike White (Stuff): Law Commission will examine ‘jailhouse snitches’
Hayden Donnell (RNZ): Hard stats and new voices enter the ‘youth crime spike’ coverage
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Privacy Commissioner requests police clarity over use of surveillance cameras
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Privacy Commissioner to monitor police over deleting unlawful photos

Radio New Zealand (Checkpoint) ran stories last week about New Zealanders aged over 65 stranded in Australia who are at risk of having their pensions (‘New Zealand Superannuation’)stopped, and then having to repay the funds they received while in Australia.

There is a simple solution to the problem – to just keep paying stranded pensioners their pensions, and to withdraw any threats to require repayment when they eventually return to Aotearoa. The problem is compounded by the rigidity – and general unavailability – of Carmel Sepuloni, the Minister of Social Development who oversees the ‘benefit system’. While it is true that she appears to be perhaps the least competent of government ministers (few say it, but many think it), it also is apparent that she and certain other ministers – most notably Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi and Senior Citizens Minister Ayesha Verrall – are being closely micromanaged by their seniors. On Friday’s (17 Sep) Covid19 press conference, I waited for Minister of Finance – one of the senior ministerial minders of Sepuloni, Verrall, and Faafoi – to put the matter straight, and assure stranded pensioners that common sense would prevail. But he said nothing.

The key RNZ stories are these:

• 15 Sep: Pensioners stuck in Australia ask for ‘Jacinda’s kindness’
• 16 Sep: Assoc Health Minister on Covid-19 cases, pensioners in AUS (interview with Ayesha Verrall)
• 16 Sep: ‘Devastated’ woman who could not return from Australia faces pension cut

Before discussing the general issue, and how the government can easily stop this issue – and others – from festering, I should note the phenomenon of the Radio New Zealand trolls. Some RNZ programmes invite – or attract – more listener feedback than others. Checkpoint is one of the more prominent programmes in this regard. Some of the feedback, which is mentioned throughout the programme along with a brief slot just before the 6pm news, can only be called ‘trolling’; this term derives from the social media practice of posting or sending cruel messages. The RNZ trolls tends to argue along the lines of: ‘you knew the rules, you took the risk’, with maybe the addition of ‘I could have gone to Australia when you did, but chose to stay on my [trolling] couch instead’. Like younger social media trolls, these mainly older trolls are conspicuously unsympathetic to others (in a sadly self-centred way), they lack any real sense of empathy for the myriad sets of circumstances that other people face, and tend to take pleasure from the misfortune of others. Sadly, again, I believe that the present government sees such trolls as an important part of its voter base; the optics of this government – as shown through the media appearances of ministers such as Sepuloni, Faafoi, and Verrall – are that the government itself lacks sympathy and empathy.

(A big lacuna in economic theory is in its inability to address the reality that some people’s utility – pleasure – arises specifically from the disutility – pain – caused to others. Not only do we seen this generally in the phenomena of trolling and most pornography, we also see it in the way that too many people see ‘houses’ as financial levers that make themselves richer while necessarily making others poorer. Land hoarders should also be understood as trolls.)

The Rules in this Case

The specific New Zealand Superannuation problem arises in part because most superannuitants see their payments, broadly, as a ‘return on investment’, whereas the government sees New Zealand Superannuation as a social welfare benefit. Both perceptions are somewhat muddled.

Senior citizens only ‘worked for their pension’ in a collective sense; thus New Zealand Superannuation can be seen as a reward for forms of contribution other than through businesses and through paid employment. One important contribution is that of ‘failure’, in the important sense that the success of some – in businesses or otherwise – can only have meaning when contextualised against the non-success of others. A gold medallist at the Olympic Games can only succeed, as a gold medallist, because of the participation of the other competitors who ‘failed’ to win. Thus, New Zealand Superannuation works as a reward ‘without judgement’ of what a person’s contribution may or may not have been.

The government sees New Zealand Superannuation as a cash benefit that – as they also see other benefits – must be wrapped around with a set of rules. Generally, governments would like to see even more (or tighter) rules attached to New Zealand Superannuation, but are afraid to act in a way that ensures the optics of New Zealand Superannuation will make it look even more like a welfare benefit and even less like a return on investment. (This is why it is the ‘oldies’ are the group most impassioned to keep New Zealand Superannuation as it is, even though most proposed tightenings of the rules would only adversely affect ‘youngies’. The ‘oldies’ are a substantial block of voters, who, for the most part, cling tightly to the view that superannuation is quite distinctly different from other benefits.)

There are a number of completely unnecessary rules around New Zealand Superannuation that relate to overseas travel. These rules make sense from a government perspective – because governments like beneficiaries to be fettered by rules (in part because they believe that many of their electors are beneficiary-unsympathetic trolls), and because governments see superannuation as a benefit. But they make no sense from a ‘return on investment’ viewpoint.

Further, receipt of the universal pension (ie New Zealand Superannuation) enables seniors to continue with – even to extend – their contributions to New Zealand. Many do this by staying in paid work or self-employment or continuing to run businesses; they understand that they will not be penalised by having their pensions withdrawn or abated. Other seniors contribute through invaluable contributions to the voluntary sector. Many make their ongoing contributions as grandparents, which in many cases is a surrogate parent role. Further, with the globalised world that we became accustomed to in the 1990s and the 2000s (and to a lesser extent in the post-GFC 2010s), grandparents may be required just about anywhere in the world; it’s pretty much a matter of chance whether a given senior person residing ‘permanently’ in Hamilton has grandchildren in Invercargill, Rockhampton, or Saskatoon.

So, the rule that constrains pensioners from international travel is a rule that need not be there. Such a rule serves no useful purpose.

Nevertheless, given that the rule is there, what should the New Zealand government do for people caught out by the rule? The obvious answer is to suspend the rule for people caught out by pandemic restrictions, health emergencies, flight cancellations etc. There would be much political kudos arising from such application of common sense, and almost no political downside; the issue would simply drop-off the news cycle.

But no, the government knows better. Instead, they have promised to arrange a relief flight from Sydney; and they offer stranded pensioners the chance of a place in the MIQ (Managed Isolation and Quarantine) lottery. Not only is all this very uncertain and unnecessarily stressful – indeed it may not be easy to arrange interstate travel from, say, Launceston, and pre-flight covid testing requirements are not always easy to fulfil – it misses the point that the best solution for stranded grandparents may not be to bring them home at all. If they are helping their grandchildren and adult children in places like Oamaru or Bateman’s Bay or Niagara Falls, it may be better that they are supported to stay there and continue making those contributions. And if such seniors do a few scenic trips in Australia or elsewhere, it should neither be the concern of the government nor the trolls. After all, many New Zealanders made many sacrifices in their lives so that they could retire and then go on a ‘trip of a lifetime’. Many of our ‘baby boomers’ have now had that prospect snatched away from them. Yes, they may be able to do scenic trips within New Zealand in 2022; but it’s not for the government or the trolls to control where superannuitants go to on their retirement travels. It makes no sense to say they can stay in Caroline Bay, but not the Sunshine Coast.

Was the present hiatus foreseeable?

The present rule has an out-clause. Superannuation payments may be continued if affected persons apply on the grounds that their new situation was ‘unforeseeable’ (refer to the Ayesha Verrall interview above). Now the trolls and the government say that, despite opening up green flights across the Tasman Sea with the express purpose of facilitating tourism (the main discussion point then was the economic need to host Australian tourists here), it was fully foreseeable that trans-Tasman tourists might be stranded on the wrong side of the ditch for many months or even for years.

I would argue that this was not foreseeable, given both the promotion of ‘the bubble’ and the seeming resolution of the covid crisis. There had been no ‘Level 4 lockdowns’ since April 2020. My view that the present strandings were indeed unforeseeable is confirmed by Prime Minister Ardern’s repeated claims that “Delta changed everything”, and that the much stricter level of restrictions from August 2021 was only deemed necessary as a result of a ‘Delta strike’ that she herself (and her officials) had not foreseen. (Indeed I myself am booked to visit my daughter and grandchildren in Australia this December; in early June I could not have foreseen the present crisis on both sides of the Tasman Sea to the extent of choosing not to arrange this trip. I now know my chance of being able to travel is close to nil, and I know that – even if my flights are not cancelled – I could not contemplate going in December.)

The fact that Jacinda Ardern makes such stock of her government’s inability to foresee ‘Delta’ surely means that other less-briefed people could also not be expected to foresee the predicament now faced by stranded superannuitants. The government’s inability to foresee the present situation would surely constitute legal grounds for such stranded people to claim the continuance of their pensions on the basis that – within the present rules –the circumstances they now face were ‘unforeseeable’.

————-

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Dynamic living processes get into feedback loops. The most common is a negative feedback loop, whereby processes self-regulate; when something happens then something else happens, in response, to offset the initial event. If it gets cold, we put on another layer of clothing. If a consumer good becomes scarce, its price will go up, and we buy less of it. As ‘loops’, these are incremental ‘trial and error’ processes. We may still need to adjust our clothing further. And the price of something falls in stages, following a consumer feedback response as noted.

Sometimes however we get into destabilising ‘positive feedback loops’; these may involve ‘arms races’, ‘races to the bottom’, or ‘tipping points’. We understand that economic ‘negative externalities’ generate adverse environmental consequences which may in turn lead to unsustainable economic behaviours arising from desperation; anthropomorphic climate change may be reaching an irreversible tipping point.

The Great Depression was ‘great’ because policy responses – for a number of years – became a part of the problem rather than part of the solution; most particularly, retrenchment of government spending and financial supports. Eventually new insights brought about new responses, and the global Depression stabilised to some extent. While negative (stabilising) feedback eventually prevailed, that was not soon enough to prevent World War Two (WW2); and indeed WW2 may itself be classed as feedback.

Covid19 Immunity Feedbacks

We know that evolution involves ‘arms races’ between species and their predators. While the main relation between species and their resident microbes is one of equilibrium – negative feedback – novel microbes can become dangerous micropredators. Indeed viruses, as we mostly understand them, are viral micropredators. Coronaviruses are micropredators (aka ‘pathogens’). People (as a host species) may be infected by coronaviruses new to humans, and then find ways to fight them off. The viruses – which, by their nature, can evolve rapidly – fight back, and people in turn fight back (for example with vaccines). We know that these particular arms races generally do not go on forever, because we coexist with a number of community coronaviruses for which we have an ‘endemic’ equilibrium relationship; viruses which were new, once.

For people – and other species subject to viral predation – there are three endgames. First is a return to normality achieved through a long-term elimination of the virus. (We can say that the 2003 coronavirus SARS-COV1 has been eliminated, though not eradicated. If it returns, it will be, in effect, a new virus; that’s because it was eliminated quickly; and because it has been eliminated for a long time, at least by the standards that apply to coronaviruses.) Second, and most extreme, is the elimination of a host species; the virus may itself avoid co-elimination by switching to one or more other host species.

Third is the development of an equilibrium between host and virus; the virus ceases to be novel, and the host species gains ‘herd immunity’ to that virus. There is a problem though, for host species, because immunity tends to wane; for different types of pathogen the rate of deimmunisation varies. Coronaviruses, as a class, would appear to be one microbe type for which deimmunisation is relatively rapid. (For a number of microbes associated with severe disease immunity is not only acquired, it may also be inherited. The means through which inherited immunity takes place is little known, but almost certainly through non-predatory microbes within the microbiome. The most important historical example is the very uneven ‘Columbian exchange’ through which Native Americans suffered a mass die-off from diseases from which Europeans, Asians and Africans had attained inherited immunity.)

Biohistory can be understood as an arms race that takes the form of a sequence of individual ‘games’ (where our struggle with Covid19 is such a game). For species such as humans to survive (or at least to survive in sophisticated urban civilisations), this is an arms race into perpetuity. As new micropredators evolve, humans need to acquire – in historical time – more immunity to more pathogen species. By and large, humanity has done this in the past without massive public health interventions; although there is a long and honourable history of intervention to diseases, with the development of vaccinations – starting with cowpox to beat smallpox – playing a particularly important role. (The word ‘vaccine’ derives from a Latin word ‘vacca’ for ‘cow’; vache in French.)

So that’s the background. Vaccines as a public health response may lead to elimination or to equilibrium. Some vaccines require boosters – reimmunisations to maintain an uneasy equilibrium – the most familiar of these being the relatively recent influenza vaccine, for which vulnerable people need annual revaccinations.

The question posed here, however, is whether – and under what circumstances – public health policy responses may lead to adverse positive feedback, such as a ‘race to the bottom’. (We have noted that vaccines contribute to the antiviral arms race, which, while a necessary and beneficial form of positive feedback in large domesticated populations, requires micropredators to themselves become fitter in an evolutionary sense. We may also note that our use of antibiotics has been central to an antibacterial arms race; a race that may be reaching its tipping point.)

The race that I am particularly concerned about is that between immunisation and deimmunisation. Immunisation takes place both naturally – the traditional way – and artificially (through vaccinations). The availability of vaccination technology does not mean that natural immunisation becomes unimportant. (It would appear that high levels of immunity to Covid19 at present in the European Union is due to a mix of both natural and artificial immunisation.)

To assess the likely outcome of this race, in relation to the present pandemic, we need much better knowledge of both natural immunisation (including co-immunisation) and deimmunisation. While these processes may be unaddressed (as ‘unknown unknowns’) by public health policymakers, the mere fact that I (and others before me) are raising these issues graduates them to ‘known unknowns’. Any question that is posed, but unanswered, is a known unknown. (Further, ‘knowns’ are provisional truths – undisproven; that’s the inherent nature of scientific knowledge.)

The potential for adverse positive feedback loops arising from Public Health Policy measures.

Public health measures, introduced in 2020 on an unprecedented global scale, unleashed many known and unknown unknowns. These measures included ‘stay-at-home’ lockdowns, widespread temporary business closures, and a decimation of international travel.

The unknowns which I am concerned about here relate to deimmunisation with respect to Covid19 in particular, and towards respiratory viruses in general. (In an earlier article, the dangers of Delta versus the dangers of reduced community immunity, I developed the concept of CRVI – community respiratory viral immunity – as a general measure of communities’ immunity towards respiratory viruses. The concept is one of ‘co-immunity’, whereby immunity to one virus may confer some immunity to others. Cities like London and New York, to survive and prosper, require the highest levels of CRVI. In the biohistory arms race, CRVI must keep increasing if civilisations are to survive.)

We can consider the issue by thinking about ‘rings’ of immunity. The inner ring represents immunity to a specific pathogen, in our case SARS-COV2 including its evolved variants such as ‘Gamma’, which devastated South America, and ‘Delta’, which is devastating Tahiti among other places. Immunity at this ‘inner ring’ level is boosted by infection and/or vaccination. The former (infection) is more costly to affected individuals than the latter (vaccination) because it is much more likely to lead to serious illness or death. The extent of immunity arising from either process – infection or vaccination – is known to depend on the attributes of immunised individuals (especially age and comorbidity). The key unknown is the extent that immunity to SARS-COV2 diminishes through time.

The next ring of immunity relates to the class of viruses known as ‘coronaviruses’. The question here – the known unknown – is the extent to which a general level of exposure to endemic coronaviruses (ie viruses other than SARS-COV2) may confer a degree of immunity to any coronavirus. And the corollary of that question is the extent that reduced exposure to endemic coronaviruses leads to reduced immunity to the Covid19 virus SARS-COV2. The implications of this question are profound: exposure to other circulating coronaviruses could confer a small or medium-size degree of protection against Covid19. And a loss of such exposure could reduce immunity towards both Covid19 and these other ‘common cold’ coronaviruses; that is, those coronaviruses which we have hitherto taken for granted could become more dangerous. On the bright side, vaccination against Covid19 may well provide a degree of protection against coronaviruses other than SARS-COV2.

Thinking about public health policy in this regard, we need to divide our lived time in a pandemic into emergency periods (when a novel virus is in active circulation), and into non-emergency periods (when the virus of concern is temporarily ‘eliminated’, or when all eligible people have had the opportunity to be vaccinated). In the emergency periods, policies need to break the chains of infection; eg through lockdowns, distancing, and protective clothing including facemasks. In the non-emergency periods, the policy emphasis needs to be on restoring any immunity that has been lost during the emergency phases; ie people would need to be encouraged to behave in diametrically opposite ways, compared to during the emergencies.

The third ring of immunity relates to other classes of infectious respiratory viruses; for example, influenzas and rhinoviruses. The same question arises here. Could there be a degree of cross-immunity between one class of respiratory virus and another? We do not know; it’s another known unknown. And if there is such co-immunity, then, once again, emergency measures (other than vaccination) would be contributing to loss of immunity to the coronavirus of concern, and also to the whole class of coronaviruses. So, ideally, emergency measures should be confined to emergency periods, such as the present Auckland emergency.

The fourth ring of immunity relates to all other immunity-suppression factors caused by public health restrictions. These are known to include socio-economic factors such as inequality, food insecurity and malnutrition. They also include mental illnesses, most likely including stress and ephemeral conditions such as teenage ennui. Indeed, loss of personal autonomy resulting from extended and extensive policy restrictions – and subsequent cultural changes in the direction of infantilisation and agoraphobia – almost certainly facilitates mental health decline.

Can the overuse – especially the extended overuse – of public health policy restrictions induce losses of immunity that outstrip the emergency benefits of these restrictions? If so, a pandemic becomes worse, not better, than it otherwise would be; worse in both severity and duration. If so, we get into a negative feedback loop of the ‘race to the bottom’ variety; a loop that could accelerate if a civilisation ‘tipping point’ is reached.

Covid19 Economy Feedbacks

We know that inappropriate economic policymaking can create negative feedback loops of the ‘race to the bottom’ type. Indeed, an understanding of competitive processes – through what economists call ‘game theory’ – means that some of these races to the bottom are well understood. I have already cited the example of the Great Depression.

My question here addresses the dichotomy of ‘the virus versus the economy’. In New Zealand, the explicit policy position is that the best economic response is the most extensive public health response. The contrast is what has been called the ‘light’ Swedish approach, which is in effect that the maintenance of a strong economy is also the best public health response. Sweden’s Anders Tegnell has repeatedly called the Covid19 pandemic a “marathon, not a sprint”.

A third possibility is that neither strategy is correct at their extremes, but that there is an optimal middle ground, in which a strong restrictive public health response should prevail under acute emergency conditions, and that an overtly unrestrictive policy should prevail when a society is not in an acute emergency state. This is indeed the policy approach already suggested, above. (The issue of what constitutes economic success cannot be addressed here; I may note however that the prevailing – and I believe incorrect – financial definition of economic success is essentially the same in the echelons of power in both Wellington and Stockholm.)

The issue is critical in Australia in 2021; it is becoming widely accepted in Australia that an emergency, by definition, cannot be not a semi-permanent state of affairs. To build (and to restore) sufficient immunity to a pathogen, or class of pathogens, a society cannot always be in an emergency state.

Economic decline – however defined, though ‘impoverishment’ comes close to a good definition – can be an important cause of reduced levels of immunity to diseases. Economic failure may contribute significantly to a loss of ‘host fitness’ towards micropredators. If a sub-optimal public health policy contributes to economic decline – that could be an unnuanced pandemic response that is either too weak (Sweden) or too strong (New Zealand?) – and impoverishment contributes to population deimmunisation, then a somewhat nasty race to the bottom can take place. Not a race between host and virus. The viruses and other pathogens win when this race starts. It’s a race between people and people; between untrusting policymakers and an untrusting precariat.

A healthy economy can facilitate public health. It works both ways.

Finally

Public health measures, introduced in 2020 on an unprecedented global scale, unleashed many unknown unknowns. Such policy measures, necessarily, have unintended consequences. One such consequence may be a form of acculturation that may be described as a form of agoraphobia.

If, on balance, extended public health policy measures (and subsequent acculturated voluntary measures) aggravate rather than ameliorate a pandemic, an unfortunate positive feedback loop can arise, with potentially dire consequences. It is not acceptable for policy-makers to be wilfully blind to these possibilities. The big unknown is the rate of – and process of – immunisation loss. We know next-to-nothing about co-immunity. And we actually know far less than we should about the importance of, the history of – and possible reactivation of – our familiar ‘common cold’ viruses; other branches of public health research, most likely, have been more career enhancing.

In New Zealand, while we necessarily lose natural immunity to coronaviruses during the emergency ‘elimination phases’ of our fight against ‘the virus’, we can build some general community immunity from non-emergency exposure to other viruses; some partial immunity that can support vaccination-induced immunity. (Some other countries, which have conspicuously failed in their emergency responses, have actually enhanced their immunity levels, through a mix of natural and artificial immunisation.)

Positive feedback can lead to very negative outcomes. We need to be alert to these possibilities. New Zealand authorities should ensure that they do not overcook public health policies through ‘an abundance of caution’, and do not acculturate the New Zealand population into a fortress mindset. New Zealand is currently besieged by Covid19. Extended sieges do not end well.

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Can we postpone this year’s election? Quite frankly, the political parties don’t seem ready for it, and aren’t about to offer voters the necessary policy choices for the unprecedented times we’re in. We’ve ended up with a campaign focused on scandal, personality and leadership, with a policy void that’s worse than usual.

Most of the parties are failing to release much in the way of new policy. The justification for this is that the Coronavirus crisis and the associated volatility means policymaking is too difficult or unnecessary. And yet it’s this very crisis that makes fresh policies and a contest of ideas more vital than ever.

Nonetheless, this week Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern warned Labour doesn’t have much in the way of new policy to announce, saying “I would flag to voters not to expect to see the large scale manifestos that are a significant departure from what we are doing” – see Jason Walls’ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern warns voters not to expect big Labour Party policies this election. According to this article, in comparison to 2017 when Labour campaigned on introducing KiwiBuild, extending paid parental leave, and fees-free tertiary education, Ardern “suggested that new policy ideas on this type of scale were off the table for Labour this election.”

Finance Minister Grant Robertson has justified Labour’s lack of a plan, saying “this is not a time to be making grand promises when there is so much uncertainty in the world” – see: Robertson: Now is not the time to be making grand promises on policy.

It’s hard to see when would be a better time than right now to hear about how parties are going to deal with the new economic reality and rebuilding both economy and society. Back in April I wrote in the Guardian that this would be a big policy-based election campaign with big bold policies being put forward – see: Move over culture wars, New Zealand’s post-virus election will be about economics.

I wrote then, that “Politicians will need to provide voters with a compelling vision, backed by detailed policies, for rebuilding the country. Recreating the old order won’t be good enough.” How wrong – or blinded by wishful thinking – I was.

Reaction to Labour’s policy-free approach to the election is swiftly building. Newsroom editor Bernard Hickey has published a searing criticism of Ardern for taking what he sees as a conservative strategy to the election when transformation is required – see: A second term PM for crises and the status quo.

Hickey reports the PM’s post-Cabinet press conference confirmation of Labour’s conservative approach: “She confirmed Labour had no plans for major new spending or tax or welfare reform in the last full post-Cabinet news conference of her first term. Instead, voters should look at the Government’s current achievements, its plans for Covid-19 recovery and Budget 2020’s debt track as an indicator of ‘steady-as-she-goes’. There is no more. That is it. After months of wondering if she was about to flex her new and larger political muscles to pull a big policy rabbit out of the hat, she tapped the hat, turned it upside down, asked us to peer inside at the emptiness, and put it back down on the table: a popular magician without a trick who doesn’t harm rabbits.”

Hickey explains the electoral pragmatism behind the conservative strategy: “In political circles, it is known as the ‘low target’ strategy: offer little obvious change from the status quo to give your opponent few clear pain points to target you on the grounds you want to ‘hurt’ one part of the electorate or another. It is essentially a conservative strategy, often employed by conservative parties in government. This week Jacinda Ardern revealed herself as a small ‘c’ conservative, focused on maintaining the current shape and (historically and comparatively small) size of government, but with a friendlier face.”

Labour’s approach is, of course, being celebrated by some. Conservative political commentator Liam Hehir writes today that his side can essentially claim Ardern as one of their own, and he celebrates Ardern’s lack of interest in advocating a transformative agenda – see: Jacinda Ardern, conservative.

According to Hehir, Ardern’s lack of focus on policy and her status quo orientated politics of kindness are actually a good thing, and it’s why conservatives like himself are comfortable with this Government, especially since they want to retain so many of the settings of the last National government.

On the left, some are less impressed about the lack of differentiation or advocacy for reform. The normally pro-Government blogsite, The Standard, has published a critique of the failure of the various parties to rise to the occasion, asking: “Why have we fallen into the most boring and predictable election we’ve had since Bolger’s second term? Neither National nor Labour have put out fresh policy in months. New roads don’t count as fresh anything. Nor do medium-scale regional projects” – see: Falling into a coma.

The post says that the public deserve more than vacuous slogans like “Let’s keep moving” and what they represent, arguing “there is zero sense of urgency from either side of the political spectrum”. But it doesn’t have to be like this: “In most previous governments, there would have been a huge national call to arms, with summits and unified departmental purposes, and seriously bold policy initiatives, and at the end of which everyone know that there was a plan, they were part of a team working on that plan, and they could get up the morning and know how they were assisting that team with their effort. There’s no plan at all, other than: print money and stay disinfected.”

Labour’s policy-free approach was also discussed yesterday in a Stuff newspaper editorial, which highlighted a letter to the editor that said: “Ahead of a general election, voters need to see policy, and they need a clear plan. Otherwise, how are we to make a sound choice?” – see: No big policy announcements – arrogance or devotion to duty?

The editorial agreed that Labour’s policy-light approach could be seen as arrogant or presumptuous, as it looks like the popular party is attempting to get re-elected without the scrutiny of a contest of ideas taking place. But it also endorses Ardern’s argument “that her party’s priority is the Covid-19 recovery, and that trumps significant new policy”. The newspaper says it’s fair enough for Labour to focus on “bedding in the successes” and preventing Covid outbreaks. What’s more, “Managing the pandemic response means regular policy announcements anyway, just not according to an election campaign schedule.”

The editorial draws a parallel with Joe Biden’s current campaign for the US presidency, which is also “without major splashes on the policy front”. This is a point made by Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan: “Joe Biden seems to poll better when he’s invisible. The idea of him is better than the reality of him. The less he’s in the media, the better he does. It’s looking like Labour might try to pull the same thing here. They’re running an invisible campaign: hardly any policy, hardly any typical campaign media stuff, almost trying to pretend the campaign isn’t happening” – see: Labour’s hiding away this election.

Du Plessis-Allan criticises Labour for not telling us how they will deal with the crisis: “If you’re hoping to get an idea of how they’re going to get us out of this economic hole before you vote, judging by that comment, you’re going to be disappointed. Furthermore, the PM’s not participating in the regular media interviews you’d expect during a campaign.” She argues Labour’s policy-free approach is masked by the party’s emphasis on the health crisis.

So, is the Government milking Covid instead of devising and selling new policy? That’s the argument of fellow broadcaster Kate Hawkesby, who says politicians are cynically foregoing policy messaging and going down the easier and more productive route of ramping up a focus on the virus and Labour’s success in dealing with it: “Labour has seen what Covid has done for them, and they’re running with it. Forget policy, forget issues, forget future plans, as long as they can keep reminding us to wash our hands, it keeps us in a state of fear” – see: Labour is milking Covid for all it’s worth.

Similarly, Barry Soper says this election campaign is reminiscent of Labour’s policy-free re-election campaign of 1987: “In the run-up to that campaign the country was also in a state of shock, it had been dragged out of the Muldoon economic ice box with the promise from Roger Douglas of short-term pain for long-term gain” – see: Don’t expect large-scale policies from Labour this campaign. He points out that, back then, the party rode a wave of popularity and won by a landslide, but were severely punished at the following election.

However, it’s not just a problem with Labour. Richard Harman of the Politik website has detailed National’s policy drought, saying “political professionals are surprised that the party is only starting to develop its policy seven weeks out from the election. The party does have a new policy website which has 14 infrastructure policies (all transport projects) three long-standing education policies and nothing else” – see: Nats’ President breaks party rules.

Harman explains how policy development has chaotically evolved over this year: “National had been developing a series of policy discussion documents under the leadership of Nelson MP, Nick Smith. These were posted on the party’s website, but at the start of the Covid lockdown, they were taken down, apparently at the direction of then-leader, Simon Bridges. When Todd Muller replaced Bridges in May, Amy Adams was appointed to head up a series of policy development teams. Politik understands Adams’ teams have yet to produce any policy and what policy the party has produced has come from the campaign director, Tim Hurdle.”

National is heavily pushing its slogan about jobs and the economy. But according to Duncan Garner the public requires more than that: “Saying ‘jobs’ and ‘economy’ doesn’t make anything happen. We need to see your plans and ideas – now” – see: Labour, National need to put out new policies as election draws closer.

Here’s Garner’s wider point: “We need to see your plans and ideas – now. There is drought on new policy from both parties. I’m not voting on how well Ardern handled the crisis, that’s now banked. I want to know what these parties are offering for the next three years. Labour, are you going to tax us more to pay for the cost of Covid? National, if you’re going to spend less – what goes? Enough about yourselves, what about us? I can barely name a policy anyone has put out in recent weeks and in 66 days, we go to the polls.”

Of course, it’s not easy in the current volatile environment to come up with policy solutions. This is emphasised by Interest’s Jenée Tibshraeny: “Creating policy in response to a pandemic and recession is of course a mammoth task – especially for broad-base parties like National and Labour. What’s more, the situation with the virus is evolving, making it difficult to look too far ahead. Parties would be foolish to set too much in stone, when they need to be agile” – see: Distractions and fear of freaking people out has led to a dearth of policy being put on the table two months out from the election.

Tibshraeny points out that the Greens and Act are coming up with some detailed policy, but she suspects the other parties are simply “too afraid of alienating voters by tackling the issues facing the country in this new Covid era”. She warns against allowing any party to treat “the election as an inconvenience to its God-given right to govern” and concludes “We need to demand a realistic contest of ideas from our leaders.”

But are the public actually interested in policy detail? The Greens have put out a 52-page election manifesto, which leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury has poked fun at: “Only the biggest politics geek with an enormous luxury of time or the most fastidious Green Party follower who recycles their own body waste is going to read all 52 pages. Sure there are some great ideas amongst all this, but the point is to sell those ideas in easy bite sized chunks, subsection 5A with 12 point KPIs will sail over the heads of 95% of the electorate” – see: What would happen if the Greens held a conference and no one noticed?

Finally, political journalist Thomas Coughlan says that “the current paucity of election policy is something of a scandal”, as is the propensity of governments to farm out policy questions to working groups and experts. He looks for solutions to the problem – see: What can we do to get more good policy?

The world is changing fast, with digital technological innovation that is both liberating and disturbing. The threats and opportunities this presents requires a massive debate, and intervention, to ensure such changes are as healthy as possible for humanity. The online dimension of the Christchurch terrorist attacks is now provoking a sea change in attitudes towards social media.

Around the world we are now seeing attempts to rein in the tech giants with government regulations. There are blunt questions being asked about whether the likes of Facebook are “monetising hate”, and whether the dream of social media enhancing democracy and social connectedness is over.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Christchurch Call to Action campaign is currently at the most visible end of this new momentum, and commentators have declared her trip to Paris a success. For example, this afternoon Henry Cooke has concluded: Jacinda Ardern’s big day in Paris ends with her getting what she wanted.

Likewise, Gordon Campbell is impressed with how the final Paris manifesto has come together, apparently managing to satisfy all sides, including Facebook – see: On the Christchurch Call.

But the campaign isn’t over yet. According to Kelsey Munro, a research fellow at Australia’s Lowy Institute, Ardern’s bid is still a difficult one – see: Christchurch Call: Jacinda Ardern’s Paris pitch a sign of tech giants’ power.

Munro points out that attempts to regulate social media so far, have been fraught and dangerous: “Many nations around the world have concluded that the public sphere must reassert a regulatory role; the problem is how to do it within reasonable limits. No one wants anything resembling the Chinese model. Australia’s ‘knee-jerk’ reaction has been widely criticised by the tech industry and lawyers as rushed and ill-defined.”

Clearly Ardern has been keen to keep away from some of the issues around free speech that are brought up by government regulation, as I explained in my previous column – see: Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” might not be so simple.

So is her campaign going to work? There are all sorts of risks with this sort of attempt at regulation. And this is best dealt with in Henry Cooke’s article, The risks Jacinda Ardern faces with her ‘Christchurch Call’ in Paris. He outlines three broad threats: 1) Over-reach, 2) Under-reach, 3) Being used by Macron to launder his image.

In terms of those first two dangers, the Christchurch Call might end up being too strong or too weak. The third point is the idea that in collaborating so closely with the French President and other world leaders, Ardern is naively being exploited for their own electoral opportunism. Cooke suggests that Ardern might need to “make her disagreement with these other leaders clear”.

This is also the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper: “What is French President Emmanuel Macron playing at? The answer’s pretty obvious, he’s trying to boost his flagging popularity at home while at the same time trying to establish himself as a world leader on cleaning up the internet” – see: Jacinda Ardern being used by Emmanuel Macron to boost his image.

Soper suggests that Macron has been rather disingenuous in his role: “If you needed any convincing that she’s being used, get a load of what happened as she was packing her designer bags for the French capital. Macron releases a 33-page report he’d commissioned… Why he couldn’t delay the release until this week’s summit is an insult to those attending. And what’s more, the investigation was only halfway through but Macron decided to make a song and dance about how well France is doing.”

The bigger problem is that Macron has a terrible record in terms of civil liberties, and is clearly no friend of free speech, which could taint the ongoing campaign to regulate social media. This is all very well explained by leftwing journalist Branko Marcetic who puts forward “a brief review of what Macron’s done while in power” – see: Jacinda Ardern must not let Emmanuel Macron co-opt the Christchurch Call.

Marcetic then asks whether New Zealanders should be comfortable with such an alliance: “This is the man Ardern is teaming up with to figure out a way to regulate online spaces. Concerns over this shouldn’t be limited to the New Zealand right – with Macron at the helm, there are legitimate worries the outcome could threaten free speech, including for that of the liberals and left that are backing such measures right now.”

He concludes: “Ardern should be careful that Macron and any other embattled leaders in the G7 don’t use this meeting as an opportunity to push measures that harm not just journalism, but all of our civil liberties. But more importantly, the New Zealand public needs to hold her to account and make sure she doesn’t.”

And some are worried that the clampdown will inevitably intrude on the traditional media. Barry Soper criticises Ardern for “trying to reign in the mainstream media’s coverage of events to ensure it’s not gratuitous, and that for all of us should be worry. It’s not for the politicians to dictate how events should be covered” – see: The media here is generally self regulatory.

It’s clear that the task of social media regulation isn’t a simple one. And one of the best outlines of the pitfalls and best practices that Ardern and co should keep in mind can found in Dan Jerker B. Svantesson’s article, It’s vital we clamp down on online terrorism. But is Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ the answer?

He cautions against the “risk of hasty, excessive and uncoordinated responses” to social media problems and suggests that we are currently seeing a rush of politicians who all want to gain political capital from coming up with fast answers. He says “as part of this we must avoid hasty ‘solutions’ that will only mask the issues in the long term, and potentially cause other problems such as excessive blocking of internet content.”

Svantesson’s own list of requirements for new regulations are the following: “Effective legal regulation of the internet must be clear, proportional (balanced for all involved), accountable (able to be monitored and checked) and offer procedural guarantees (open to appeals).”

Similarly, Jordan Carter and Konstantinos Komaitis, of Internet NZ and the Internet Society, have put forward their own suggestions of what needs to underpin any new rules and laws – see: How to regulate the internet without shackling its creativity.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has also jumped into the debate this week with the launch of her own Foundation think tank report, titled “Anti-social Media”. This calls for a new body to be set up to regulate social media in this country in the same way that the New Zealand Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority does with traditional media. For an in-depth discussion of the report, see Thomas Coughlan’s How to regulate social media.

Clark has explained the thinking behind this, and how it’s partly based on her own personal experience: “What I’m concerned about is that the rising level of rhetoric on social media from people who think they can get away with just about anything… And let’s face it, they can. I have regularly reported very hateful content, and very often you just get these reports dismissed. So that’s why you now need what this report recommends, which is the statutory duty to self-regulate, and then you need the regulator overseeing that” – see 1News’ Changing hate speech laws would ‘not necessarily’ have prevented Christchurch attacks – Helen Clark.

For more on this, as well as other debates about regulation of social media in New Zealand, and what sort of agreement was expected from the Paris meetings, see Derek Cheng’s Christchurch Call summit: New rules must leave nowhere to hide. In terms of the Paris agreement, he notes that “whether it will have any teeth will be a key issue, given it will be a voluntary framework.”

A new survey out shows that there’s a strong demand amongst New Zealanders for this problem to be sorted out: “More than half of New Zealanders want livestreaming stopped until platforms work out a way to immediately remove violent or other harmful content, a survey indicates. The online survey of 1134 adults carried out in the second half of April, found 54 per cent of those questioned wanted a halt to livestreaming in the meantime. In contrast, 29 per cent thought platforms should be given time to sort out a solution” – see: Most Kiwis want livestreaming halted until violent content can be curbed: survey.

Much of the debate about the problems of online extremism and regulation comes back to The Matrix movie’s concept of being “red-pilled”, which is explained in today’s Christchurch Press editorial: “To be red-pilled is to have the shackles of delusion removed and to see things as they really are” – see: Cleaning up the dark corners of the internet. But if this sounds like a positive development, then for a bigger explanation of the problem, see Henry Cooke’s Christchurch Call could lead to work on ‘red-pilling’ of online radicalisation.

Despite the difficulties involved, there’s no doubt that the tide has turned, and there is now a significant public appetite for some sort of action to be taken that might deal with the tech giants. After all, their reach affects everything in society – including democracy and politics.

This is a point well made in a report released this week, “Digital Threats to Democracy”, which suggests that the way New Zealanders are interacting with information online “can lead to the rapid spread of incorrect information and hinder the discussion and debate of issues of public policy” – see Brittany Keogh’s Social media influences New Zealanders’ opinions on politics and hurts democracy, study says.

Finally, there’s plenty of other disturbing evidence of the brave new world we are moving into. For one of the best recent accounts of this, see Danyl Mclauchlan’s book review, Big Google is watching you. Looking at an important new book by Shoshana Zuboff, a professor of social psychology at Harvard Business School, called “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power”, Mclauchlan explains why he feels so uncomfortable at the supermarket.

A traditional view of the tension between research and policy suggests that researchers are poor at communicating their research findings to policy-makers in clear and unambiguous ways.

I am arguing that this is an outdated view of the relationship between research and policy. Science, including social science, and policy come together in many interesting and creative ways.

This does not mean that tensions between the two are dissolved but the conversation between research and policy centre as much on ideological and pragmatic issues as it does upon the strength of the scientific evidence itself.

READ MORE: The DevNet 2018 conference

Researchers are increasingly “smart” in the ways that they seek to influence public debate while policy-makers genuinely value the insights that research can provide in supporting political and policy agendas that goes beyond simply legitimating pre-existing policy choices.

For example, in climate change debates science cannot be seen simply as an arbiter of “truth” that informs policy and political decision-making. Science also plays an advocacy role in alliance with some social interests against others.

Likewise, policy can draw on science but it can also reject the evidence of science where scientific evidence is weighed against the interests of other powerful voices in the policy-process.

Oceans research and policy provides a good example of this more sophisticated relationship between science and policy and suggests some of the significant disconnects and tensions that challenge the relationship as well as how creative tensions between the two operate in practice. Three areas of disconnect can be identified.

Practical disconnection
The first of these is practical disconnection of regulation with regard to the Oceans. An integrated legal framework for the ocean might be considered critical for progress towards meeting the objectives of SDG 14 (Life under the Sea) but complexity and fragmentation present many challenges which are both sectorial and geographical.

National laws lack coordination across different ocean-related productive sectors, conservation, and areas of human wellbeing. In addition, these laws are disconnected from the regulation of land-based activities that negatively impact upon the ocean – agriculture, industrial production and waste management (including ocean plastic).

“These disconnections are compounded by limited understanding of the role of international human rights and economic law, as well as the norms of indigenous peoples, development partners and private companies.” Image: David Robie/PMC

These disconnections are compounded by limited understanding of the role of international human rights and economic law, as well as the norms of indigenous peoples, development partners and private companies.

Disconnected science is itself a problem in this area. Ocean science is still weak in most countries due to limited holistic approaches for understanding cumulative impacts of various threats to ocean health such as climate change, pollution, coastal erosion and overfishing.

Equally, scientific understanding of the effectiveness of conservation and management responses is poor, so that the productivity limits and recovery time of ecosystems cannot be easily predicted.

Even when science is making progress, effective science-policy interfaces are often poorly articulated at all levels. As a result, there are significant barriers to effectively measuring progress in reaching SDG14.

Oceans research policies rare
National oceans research policies to support sustainable development are rare. This is compounded by limited understanding of the role of different knowledge systems, notably the traditional knowledge of indigenous people.

Third, there is a disconnected dialogue. Key stakeholders, most notably the communities most dependent on ocean health, are not sufficiently involved in developing and implementing ocean management; yet, they are most disproportionately affected by their negative consequences.

More positively, there are some good examples of effective science-policy diplomacy collaborations and networks. For example, in the Pacific my own university (University of the South Pacific) has worked very effectively to support Pacific island countries, especially Fiji, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, to successfully lead arguments at the International Maritime Organisation for international commitments to reduced carbon emission targets for shipping.

Technical, scientific support has been critical to support the advocacy of Pacific leaders and their ability to mobilise wider political support.

Building the capacity to achieve such outcomes within the regions of the world that confront these problems most sharply is a significant challenge. Aid policy can play an Important role in this respect – for example, by supporting capacity building through investment in local institutions such as universities rather than funnelling aid money back into donor countries through consultancies.

The scientific dominance of the global north is every bit as disempowering and threatening as post-colonial political domination.

For countries in the developing world, capacity building in research is critical to supporting their own countries. Another good example of this is found in the High Ambition Pacific coalition led by the Marshall Islands which secured significant support from European countries and elsewhere, in their campaign for a 1.5 degrees emissions target at the COP21 meeting in Paris in 2015.

Science-policy-advocacy alliance
This coalition was a good example of a science-policy-advocacy alliance which did not come from the global north.

Scientific as well as policy collaborations between the global south and the global north are certainly possible but it also the case that scientific research and intervention in the countries of the south from the outside can very easily reinforce the political domination that politicians and policy-makers from the south so often experience in international forums and through the aid policies bestowed upon them from outside.

The aggressive assertion of the privileges of Western science to do research in developing countries at the expense of building local capacity demonstrates another side of this post-colonial experience. It is impossible to credibly talk of “giving voice to the ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘vulnerable’” where the research practices of outside researchers and their institutions cripple the ability of local researchers to speak.

Yet, researchers in the Pacific are more effectively operating at the cutting-edge of the science-policy interface than many outside the region may understand or recognise.

In our own case at USP, genuine collaboration across the boundaries of south and north have been possible but just as our leaders and our communities have had to fight against patronising notions of “vulnerability” our scientific need is to build our own capacity to effectively engage with the priorities of our own region and its people. We aim to build a scientific and research capacity that is neither dominated by or exploited from outside.

So, in summary, the tensions that have traditionally been used to characterise the science-policy interface greatly oversimplify the reality. They oversimplify it at an abstract level by whether by characterising science as disinterested or by characterising the aim of policy-makers to rational and evidence-based.

They also oversimplify the relationships within and between scientific communities, ignoring the social interests and power structures that serve the continuation, whether intentionally or not, of post-colonial domination, restricting opportunities to build scientific capacity which enables the achievement of locally determined priorities.

Professor Derrick Armstrong is deputy vice-chancellor (research, innovation and international) at the Suva-based University of the South Pacific. This was a presentation made at the concluding “creative tension” panel at the DevNet 2018 “Disruption and Renewal” conference in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week.

Professor Derrick Armstrong speaking with other members of the final “creative tension” panel at the DevNet 2018 development studies conference. Image: David Robie/PMC

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz