The Opportunity Party (TOP) has arrived at the coalition negotiating table with five non-negotiable demands. Nothing quite like laying down the conditions before the negotiations have even started.
On the surface, the headings sound wonderful. Who doesn't want lower prices, better healthcare, cleaner politics and a healthier environment? Hardly anyone would argue with those objectives. But look beyond the political packaging and there are some very real questions about how TOP intends to achieve them, what it could cost and who will ultimately pick up the bill.
Let's take a look.
1. More Government Intervention and Red Tape.
TOP wants to give the Commerce Commission considerably stronger powers, including the ability to investigate, intervene and force structural separation of businesses deemed anti-competitive. Competition is important, but handing regulators more power doesn't automatically mean better outcomes. There's a fine line between protecting consumers and giving government another opportunity to interfere in the private sector. More intervention can also mean more compliance costs and bureaucracy for businesses.
2. More Regulation of Lobbying and Political Donations.
TOP wants a mandatory register and code of conduct for lobbyists, along with a cap on political donations restricted to registered voters. Transparency is one thing, but introducing more political regulation raises questions about who sets the rules, how they're enforced and whether restrictions could affect legitimate political participation. Apparently, we need another layer of regulation to clean up the people who make the regulations.
3. More Government Spending Without Guaranteed Results.
TOP wants a ten-year, cross-party health plan, with increased funding and investment in primary and preventative care. It sounds reassuring, but where is the money coming from and how will success be measured? We've seen governments spend billions on healthcare without necessarily delivering the improvements patients need. A longer plan is not a guarantee of better results. Taxpayers deserve accountability, not just another promise to throw more money at the problem.
4. Restrictions on Commercial Fishing, Jobs and Coastal Communities.
TOP wants an immediate end to bottom trawling in the most damaged inshore areas, followed by a staged phase-out elsewhere. Environmental protection matters, but there are real people, businesses and coastal communities behind the fishing industry. What happens to those livelihoods during the transition? It's easy to announce restrictions from Wellington. It's considerably harder for the people affected to replace their income and investment.
5. More Climate Commitments, Higher Costs for Businesses and Taxpayers.
TOP wants New Zealand to recommit to its Paris Agreement obligations and protect the independence of the Climate Change Commission. More climate commitments might look good on paper, but they don't come without economic consequences. Businesses face transition and compliance costs, and those expenses can eventually find their way into the prices consumers pay. New Zealand needs to consider affordability, productivity and international competitiveness alongside its environmental commitments.
So why would National want to go there?
In my opinion, this is precisely why National won't form a government with TOP. And it's worth remembering that Christopher Luxon had already ruled out working with the party back in July, citing its proposed land tax and universal basic income. That was before these five non-negotiable conditions were even announced.
Now TOP has added another five demands to the equation. More regulatory powers, more political restrictions, increased health spending, fishing restrictions and further climate commitments. That's quite a shopping list for a party whose economic direction is already difficult to reconcile with National's.
And let's not forget, the land tax and universal basic income haven't disappeared. They simply weren't included in the five bottom lines. TOP has made it clear that its wider policy programme remains available for negotiation.
There's a difference between coalition compromise and being expected to swallow another party's shopping list just to secure the parliamentary numbers.
TOP is perfectly entitled to set its conditions, but voters are equally entitled to question whether they're affordable, practical and in the country's best interests.
Five non-negotiables might be TOP's price of admission. But at what cost to the taxpayer, business confidence and the wider economy?
Coalition government is supposed to be about finding common ground, not handing over the steering wheel.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.