China not the US is undermining NZ's security - Nicholas Khoo and Reuben Steff
It is China and not the US that is undermining New Zealand's security, Nicholas Khoo and Reuben Steff argue. Photo / Getty Images
Opinion by Nicholas Khoo and Reuben Steff
Nicholas Khoo is Associate Professor in the Politics programme at the University of Otago and a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs in Christchurch. Reuben Steff is Senior Lecturer at the University of Waikato. Author of 'New Zealand's Geopolitics and the US-China Competition'.
THREE KEY FACTS
Does New Zealand's increasingly close security ties with the United States and Australia put our security and sovereignty at risk?
In their op-ed in the NZ Herald on May 2, Helen Clark and Marco de Jong contend that 'by aligning with the United States and further integrating
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Greg Dixon's Another Kind of Politics: One-legged recruits not proof of sliding police standards says minister
Minister of Police Mark Mitchell: Rushing to meet election pledge of 500 additional frontline police by December. Photo / Getty Images Online only Greg Dixon's Another Kind of Politics is a weekly, mostly satirical column on politics that appears on The country's first one-legged cops will be hopping the beat within weeks, as the government rushes to meet its election pledge of 500 extra frontline police by
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Plan to end census criticised
The days of the government counting (almost) everything on a five-yearly basis are over, but a leading academic is worried its replacements will not be as effective. Yesterday, the government announced it would can the census, and instead it will be replaced with a combination of administrative data from other government agencies and smaller annual surveys that a sample of the population will complete. This means there will be no 2028 census. The announcement drew a mixed response from University of Otago professor of public health Michael Baker, who told the Otago Daily Times while he was aware that changes had been mooted, it was nonetheless surprising the government had taken this approach. "We know we depend on the census for so much decision-making in New Zealand. "It's not just at the national level. A lot of it is the fine-grained data you need at the local level, which has always been the strength of the census because it basically aims, of course, to get total population enumeration and total coverage of all dwellings in New Zealand." Prof Baker said this was the "great strength" of the census in its existing format. "Right down to even the smallest local authority in New Zealand can get a sense of what is the population they're looking after and what is the distribution, particularly of dwellings, and all the services they need." Prof Baker acknowledged although the census attempted to capture everyone, there were some groups — in particular minorities or Pacific communities — that did not have as definitive information as others. "The groups that have been under-counted have been more recent migrants, like Pacific communities, and I think some groups who perhaps have less trust in government. "So that's always been a challenge, and that may get worse with a system that relies on administrative data, because it can, if you like ... magnify current inequalities in the way some groups are measured." The government's announcement was made just as England and Wales look set to abandon a similar approach for their 2031 census, with the UK Statistical Agency recommending that a traditional census go ahead instead. However, Statistics Minister Dr Shane Reti told RNZ he was confident the approach would work in New Zealand. "Among other things, we've got a smaller population, so it's a smaller problem to grapple with," he said. The change followed a major review carried out last year, after the 2023 census. Dr Reti said the traditional census was "no longer financially viable". "Despite the unsustainable and escalating costs, successive censuses have been beset with issues or failed to meet expectations," he said. Prof Baker said the census was "actually an investment in making good decisions that will save vastly more if we get it right and cost far more if we get it wrong". "I don't think from what I've seen, that we can be as confident in the shift to an admin data first model that it will actually fix those deficiencies, limitations of the census, and give us something that's at least as good to replace it." Prof Baker said there had been other proposals, such as a a centralised register-based system, which could potentially be more effective and encapsulating than the present census approach. This method had been proposed in a Public Health Communication Centre briefing, released yesterday to coincide with the government announcement. "It would go a step further in that it would actually have everyone on a unique register. "So that would give you ongoing high-quality data, but also it would be much better at avoiding under-counting of some groups. "It would be updated every time someone had an encounter with the system. "Also, you'd give the public access to their records so they could correct it, and that would probably enhance trust."
NZ Herald
4 days ago
- NZ Herald
Chlöe Swarbrick and Green economics - the lost Monopoly lessons: Simon Wilson
Even while we lose trust in institutions. Even as we recognise that the mainstream policies we have relied on for so long cannot solve the health crisis or the infrastructure deficit and cannot protect us from the climate catastrophe or the AI revolution. Even as our media ecosystem relies ever more strongly on algorithms designed to destroy society. Margaret Thatcher said it, most famously: 'There is no such thing as society.' If it hasn't always been obvious what she meant, it should be now. We're not supposed to think and act communally, for the greater good. We're not supposed to notice what's not working and, more pointedly, to do anything about it. We're not citizens, we're consumers. What we're supposed to do is go shopping. But if the great establishment of liberal democracy has betrayed us, it doesn't follow that Donald Trump is the inevitable answer. We don't have to believe those who sow misery and discord in the world for their own advantage. We don't have to accept the demonisation of indigenous people, immigrants, trans people, feminists, by those who tell voters it's the 'others who are not us' who are causing our problems. Nor do we have to accept the marginalisation of scientists, academics, unionists, community leaders and journalists. We're told all the time that the left has no answers, but that isn't true. Kate Raworth invented Doughnut Economics, as a guide to learning how to live within planetary boundaries. Thomas Piketty has shown incisively how billionaires, as a class, don't liberate wealth and drive economic development, but instead suck wealth out of the economy. British economist Kate Raworth: How do we solve the intolerable dilemma? Photo / Getty Images Mariana Mazzucato has championed the risk-taking potential of the public sector in innovation: it was governments that funded the internet, touchscreens, voice-activation and GPS, before the private sector turned all that into smartphones. They, along with Jason Hickel, Adam Tooze, Janis Varoufakis and many others have produced bracing critiques of the failures of status-quo economics, otherwise known as neoliberalism. And in the real world, the Nordic countries regularly remind us that economic wellbeing, strong welfare and widespread social satisfaction are all possible, especially when society agrees not to be obsessed with lowering taxes. In this country, a month before the Government's Budget, the NZ Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) released Aotearoa Reimagined, a proposal for a different framework for economic and social progress. Largely ignored. The Green Party has a Green Budget, featuring a wealth tax designed to make free healthcare and early childhood education both realistic possibilities. It also proposes a Ministry of Green Works, to speed the creation of infrastructure that will serve the country resiliently and efficiently through the rest of the century. The party's emissions reduction plan sets out a programme the party says will allow us to decarbonise energy generation and consumption while improving public options for warmer homes, better transport and lower power bills. And the Greens also have an $8 billion industrial strategy, which includes a green jobs guarantee for at least 40,000 new jobs. None of this is fantastical. In fact, much of it draws on the same technologies, such as residential solar, the Government also supports. It's just that the Greens want to do it at scale and speed, without also indulging the fantasies of fossil-fuel industrialists who believe there is a future for their industries. Also, the Greens want a focus on poorer and more vulnerable communities. But if there's one thing guaranteed to generate some frothing at the mouth, it's Green economics. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the party's alternative budget was 'absolute madness. And kookiness.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis called it 'ludicrous la-la land', while Winston Peters started referring to 'Chloe Marx and Marama Engels'. Such deep thinking. On Tuesday the Greens released a Fiscal Strategy: a heavyweight piece of economic analysis that builds on the party's budget plans. At the strategy launch in Wellington, party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said that 'no field is treated with more mysticism than economics', and yet many economists and the politicians who follow them 'have nothing to say about why we have a society in which homeless people sleep on the pavement outside luxury stores'. 'We don't live in a game of Monopoly,' she added. Monopoly, she explained, was invented in the 19th century 'to teach children about the pitfalls of an economy based on land speculation and luck.' Land barons got a Get Out of Jail Free card. 'Somehow,' she said, 'the purpose has been lost.' Worth a try. Indeed it has. The Herald on Sunday published an editorial calling the Greens' budget 'delusional'. But isn't what we're doing now delusional? The Government just took expected wage rises worth $17 billion over four years away from low-paid women workers, so it could cut $14b worth of tax paid by the country's wealthiest people. That's delusional twice over. Once, in the belief that it's socially acceptable. Twice, in the belief that it will help the economy. See Piketty, above. Swarbrick said her party's spending plan is 'entirely credible' and 'will be recognised as such by international debt markets'. Yes, you'd expect her to say that. But she also pointed out that the list of critics of the Government's economic strategy includes 'such well-known Marxists as the IMF, the OECD and Standard & Poor's'. The IMF's critique, released last week, points to more delusion in what we're doing now. It says we don't lack 'entrepreneurial energy', but capital is rewarded for investing in low-productivity sectors. This translates into less investment in machines and technology and makes local investment half as efficient as in Australia and Finland and 60% less than in Denmark. Those Nordic countries again. This shouldn't be news, but somehow it needs to keep being said: As long as the rational thing to do with money in this country is to buy property, our productivity will keep falling. There's a very big thing going on in this critique. The IMF isn't full of Marxists. It isn't even the Green Party. And it isn't even arguing for radical change, compared with the economies of many comparable countries. It's no standard bearer for a sustainable circular economy or the elimination of poverty. It's just saying that conventional economic growth has been held back by the very governments that keep wringing their hands and blaming someone else. Often, it's unions. As for the OECD, it has long told us that we have all the headroom we need to take on more debt, so we can build the infrastructure, healthcare and other services we need. And that will help build prosperity. At that fiscal strategy launch on Tuesday, economists Ganesh Nana and Susan St John both rejected the idea that debt is merely a way to burden future generations. 'We're burdening future generations by not investing in the future,' said St John. Swarbrick noted that according to Treasury, the Government's books are in trouble if it has not allowed for 'two Covid pandemics happening at the same time, or 23 Cyclone Gabrielles'. A fraction too much caution. She also said, 'The Greens don't pretend we have all the answers. This is an iterative process.' Just as it was in the 1980s, she added, when what is now the neoliberal orthodoxy took hold. They didn't have all the answers then, either. 'People had some vibes, some ideology and some ideas.' Meanwhile, instead of reforming the tax system and genuinely boosting productivity, the Government continues to attack unions and their members. There's a really simple way to look at the value of unions. They fight for higher wages, and to the extent that they win, everyone is that little bit wealthier and therefore more able to participate in the economy. They help forge a sense of community; they make society healthier and wealthier. This is not delusional. The proof is Australia.
