The good, the bad and the ugly – NBR's plays of the week

Supercity trims the fat
As Aucklanders post in their votes for the new supercity the Auckland Transitional Agency has announced that 1500 council workers will lose their jobs by July 2012.

By that time the number of fulltime equivalent staff will be 7907, down from 9430 jobs across the five local bodies today.

Ratepayers will welcome the $66.5 million reduction in the salary bill but the real beneficiaries of the council “right-sizing” could be those shown the door in the restructuring.

One of my wife’s friends worked for a local council and decided to go looking for another job rather than put up with the uncertainty (many other council workers will have done the same).

She now has a private sector job that is more rewarding than her previous one, has better career prospects and doesn’t involve listening to local nutcases whinging about their neighbours.

Wider benefits
But her move to the private sector is not just good for her but the entire economy because in the private sector you have to do something someone else considers useful enough to pay you for.

Left-wingers are bemoaning the job losses because they either don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge the fundamental difference between market jobs that create wealth and bureaucratic jobs that don’t.

Besides, the 1500 people no longer employed by the Auckland council won’t stay unemployed forever.

Most of these workers have a good education and marketable skills and are in a better position than most unemployed people in New Zealand – some may even start new businesses of their own.

Combined with the continued shedding of central government jobs, the Supercull is a welcome start to the “rebalancing” of New Zealand’s economy.

Confusion for foreign investors
After setting out to simplify New Zealand’s foreign investment rules the government has given in to a xenophobic backlash and gone the other way, adding more confusion for overseas investors.

The National-led government started out with good intentions when it announced a review of New Zealand’s foreign investment regime 18 months ago.

It certainly looked like there would be an improvement from the situation under Labour, which hastily drafted a new piece of legislation to block the Canadian Pension Plan’s bid for a 40% stake in Auckland Airport.

But when it emerged the Crafar farms receivers had lined up a bid of more than $200 million from Chinese investors, National changed its tune almost overnight.

Prime Minister John Key suddenly expressed concern about New Zealanders becoming “tenants in their own country” and a lobby group called Save the Farms popped up.

The public backlash against foreigners buying large tracts of New Zealand land forced the government to make some adjustments it didn’t want to make.

Arbitrary process
In the end it decided not to actually change the Overseas Investment Act but to add new regulations allowing ministers to veto proposed investments if they don’t meet New Zealand’s “economic interests.”

However, it’s not clear how they are meant to decide what investment is in New Zealand’s economic interests and what isn’t.

A cynic would suggest the government made the rule deliberately vague to give itself room to put the kibosh on bids from politically unpalatable buyers.

But regardless of the effect on foreign investment, the biggest problem is giving so much power to individual ministers to make arbitrary decisions.

It means we will probably see more incidents like the one when former Conservation Minister Chris Carter vetoed a marina development because of his personal views on the issue (luckily a court overturned the ban).

Good law needs to be objective, clear and consistent rather than being subject to the whims of one person who happens to be in charge at that point in time.

The big problem with New Zealand law, a colleague of mine opined the other day, is that much of it is very badly written.

The government should concentrate on drafting laws properly rather than giving itself carte blanche to change the rules suddenly whenever an issue pops up that could dent its popularity in the polls.

Stamping out enterprise
A judge has suggested using a stronger punishment to deter those who commit an act that harms nobody, yet is for some reason illegal.

These lawbreakers aren’t rapists or murderers – their only “crime” is opening their shops on a day the state has dictated they shall remain closed.

Oderings Nurseries is one of many garden shops nationwide that dares to defy an edict demanding they shut their doors on Good Friday, a day when people of certain religious faiths commemorate a person’s barbaric execution 2000 years ago.

Garden shops often remain open on this day because the long weekend is an ideal opportunity for keen gardeners to get planting and they need to get their equipment and plants on Friday to take full advantage of it.

These businesses currently pay a fine of $1000 for opening, which is essentially a tax in drag.

Harsher treatment in store?
But even though they haven’t infringed anyone’s rights or committed any crime these businesses face more serious persecution if a judge’s suggestion is followed.

Christchurch District Court Judge Gary MacAskill said that if the Department of Labour was really serious about stopping garden shops trading on Good Friday it should apply for a High Court injunction restraining them.

“Then, if they opened, they would be in contempt of court. That's what the English do.”

Contempt of court is a serious offence that can result in imprisonment.

The thought of law-abiding citizens being thrown in jail for doing no more than peacefully trading should send shivers through the spine of anyone who values freedom.

An overhaul of New Zealand’s farcical Easter trading laws is long overdue but both major parties refuse to confront the issue for different reasons.

Labour doesn’t want to offend workers who get a day off (although getting paid time and a half would be an attractive prospect for many) while National is pandering to its conservative Christian members.

I happen to like basketball but I don’t force the country to shut down during the NBA finals.

Similarly the god people have no right to tell me what I can and can’t do on days of the year that are important to them.