Livication

Let me begin by putting a context to this discussion. It is the year 2005, human beings dominate the earth and face a number of challenges as a result of the abuse of that domination.

We know that we are changing the climate irrevocably through human activity, largely the burning of fossil fuels. That will change our environments in unpredictable ways.

We know that we are coming to the end of cheap oil and the cheap energy it provides us. Not fast enough to stop climate change, but fast enough that if we don’t start preparing now we face a very difficult time over the next 5 – 20 years.

We know that the American way of life we have been taught to aspire to by a multibillion dollar propaganda industry is not achievable for all, and that around three earth’s worth of resources would be needed to do so. Even while population and demand grows.

We also know that concentration of wealth is increasing globally as well as in this country and that workers rights are under attack all over the world.

The question for young New Zealanders today, as for us all, is where do we want Aotearoa to be positioned in all this? What kind of country do we want this to be in ten years, in fifty years, in one hundred years?

Do we want it to be a place where everyone who wants it has meaningful work that provides an adequate income, where we value our young people and our old people and where we recognise a reciprocal obligation to care for others, to provide decent housing, education, health services to all, whether they be rich or poor? The Greens believe that we need a fundamentally different approach to the economy if we do.

Some people say that the Greens have no economic policy. We would say that we are one of the few parties that do – most political parties only have monetary policies. Economics is about more than money – it is about how we use resources.

Market economies have their uses. Markets do allocation well, making sure that resources are allocated in the most efficient way according to the distribution of income. A key failing of the centralised economies of the Soviet empire was poor allocation, which ended up ensuring that it was the illegal market that played that role and gave power to brigands.

But what markets do not do at all well is ensure a fair distribution of income and what they do even more poorly is limit scale – ensuring that economic activity recognises and accounts for the finite nature of resources and ecosystems.

Distribution and scale go hand in hand. If resources are limited and demand is growing, how can we ensure a just society? First, by making better use of resources, by slowing the throughput of resources through the economy, slowing down the journey from raw material to land fill, by increasing utility.

But also, vitally, by ensuring a more just distribution of wealth. Making sure that all people have enough, but also that all people know when to say “enough”.

It is for these reasons that we have been pushing for a GPI. We need to stop counting consumption of ecological capital and the strip mining of our communities as income – eg mining and burning gas and coal is using up ecological capital. Recognising the distinction may mean the difference between investing returns into genuinely sustainable energy generation or pissing it up against a wall with no plan for what happens when either the gas runs out or it becomes impossible to keep burning it.

A GPI would recognise social and ecological goods and bads and allow us to make more informed choices about the policies we introduce.

We have been pushing for eco-taxes. Ideally, fiscally neutral, by removing income tax from say the first $5000 of everyone’s income (disproportionately advantaging the poor) and replacing it with carbon tax, pollution taxes and resource rentals. You have more money in your pocket but if you want to spend it in unsustainable ways you pay more.

This is about future proofing the NZ economy. Corporate economies work by externalising cost and internalising profit. We want to reverse that, let corporations and consumers pay the true cost of what they do. That is the only way to remove competitive advantage from businesses that exploit workers, trash the environment and thumb their noses at regulation.

This is the kind of thing we mean when we talk about a wisdom economy. Knowledge is a good thing, but knowing how to apply it wisely is perhaps even more important.

For that reason we remain extremely concerned about education policy, particularly tertiary education. Student debt is an enormous millstone around the necks, not just of students, but of all New Zealanders. There is growing evidence that student debt affects fertility rates, migration rates and professional urbanisation, career choices, home ownership. That it discriminates against women and against Maori in that they pay more for their education as a result of taking longer on average to repay student loans and thereby accruing more interest.

The research just published by NZEI in association with NZUSA is one more study reinforcing the message. 30% respondents said that student debt would influence whether they had children. 38% had dependent children and of those 51% said student debt influenced their ability to provide for them. 41% had considered leaving NZ because of their student debt and 1/3 planned to leave after 3 years with around half citing student debt as their main reason. 20% had experienced difficulty obtaining finance, and I would expect that number to increase as teacher graduates enter the full time workforce and start to more actively seek finance, for example for housing.

We have a real concern that the student loans scheme, by treating education as a private good, encourages students to do likewise. So its all good for the accountants, dentists and doctors who can pay off loans quickly – and even there we are seeing an increasing reluctance of medical graduates to go into general practise because of the more limited earning potential and an area where New Zealand already experiences shortages, as a result of their debt.

But what about social workers, who will never be high earners? There is a significant disincentive for young people to go into this vital area of work. The statements by the Government about average repayment times obscures the reality of many peoples lives.

The Greens say introduce a universal student living allowance. Around half of the more than $7billion of student debt was borrowed to pay for living costs. It is curious that while we are concerned about over-borrowing among New Zealanders and lack of savings, we are forcing a generation into a debt mentality and I wonder at the long term implications of that.

Greens say, cap student fees and lower them. This requires further investment into tertiary sector, and that’s not just about loans but also staff salaries and infrastructure. As an aside we totally support the campaign of AUS to at least explore national collective employment agreements.

Thirdly, Greens say introduce a debt write off scheme, one that recognises unpaid as well as paid work and which writes off a year of debt for every year a person stays in the country and works full time,. This means that people with significant student debt and who are relatively low paid can see an end to their debt.

Student debt is of course only one issue facing young people. Regardless of level of education, people need work. As well as measures that we would take to address some of the unjust and discriminatory policies currently in place, such as abolishing youth rates, replacing the Independent Youth Benefit with a more easily accessible unemployment benefit and a sickness benefit for young people ages 16 and 17 and introducing consistent age restrictions across legislation (and current alcohol purchase age debate is a good example) we would promote policies that are aiming at increasing availability of meaningful work.

These include more support for the community sector where there is significant potential for the growth of socially valuable and important work and support for small business start ups and self employment. We support local and regional projects that are socially and ecologically sustainable. We would expand the modern apprenticeship scheme, as well as looking at some of the bigger picture stuff – look at shortening the working week, and also a commission into the future of work.

Like to finish with the comment that this is a crucial election. I know you are all enrolled and ready to vote. The question for you, as progressive young people, is not whether you want a Labour or a National government. The question is, what flavour of Labour?

Do you want a Labour Government that is beholden for another 3 years to a right wing Christian support party that opposed all socially and economically progressive legislation and which supports big business. Do you want a Labour Govt beholden to Winston Peters, an unreconstructed populist Tory?

Or do you want a Labour govt working closely with a progressive ally, consistent in supporting progressive legislation, a party with a record of voting for more government legislation than any other (except the Progressive Coalition), a party which has already made and will continue to make a positive contribution in Parliament to better Labour laws, increased recognition of civil and human rights and of the rights of indigenous people, wiser energy policy and an economic direction that has some kind of future? If that is the kind of government that you want, you must party vote Green.