Thanks to MMP the Greens only have to crest 5% — which on current polling it will do comfortably — or win an electorate seat, as the party also looks quite likely to do, to be back in Parliament after the election in October.
With such security comes boldness, and there is plenty of bravery in the party’s tax policy, announced yesterday.
It begins with the bold claim that anyone earning under $125,000 will pay less tax, which sounds more outlandish than anything even the most taxation-averse party, Act New Zealand, might have conjured up.
However, there is plenty of devil in the detail of how the Greens’ cornerstone policy — a "decent income" for all — will be funded. Leaving aside the question of what the definition of "decent" is — and one suspects the Greens regard it as being less than the current cost of living crisis might need it to be — what is proposed is an ideological assault on the haves on behalf of the have-nots.
Corporate tax would be hiked back up to 33% — the level it sat at before 2008 — and a new top rate of income tax of 45% would be imposed on income over $180,000. In addition, a 2.5% wealth tax would be imposed on assets worth more than $4 million for couples and $2 million for individuals, and a trust tax of 1.5% introduced.
Robin Hood is a popular legend and the principle behind his thievery — taking from the rich and giving to the poor — usually plays well, even though it tends to ignore the fact that the Sheriff of Nottingham employed several hundred people and also had to pay to provide protection to them in times of trouble.
Many people will dismiss their policies — it took Act New Zealand just two hours to shrilly claim this was the politics of envy.
It is also a policy which seems counter-intuitive to the wisdom espoused by the likes of the Retirement Commissioner to salt away plenty of money so that you can enjoy a comfortable retirement. Although the Greens were quick to stress that their proposals would not affect most family homes or retirement savings, not everyone saves for retirement through a superannuation fund. Many a small investor has a second rental property, which not only provides much-needed housing but is the nest egg for their golden years.
The Greens’ economic policies, of course, are anathema to National, which took a further step distancing itself from the faint hope some still hold of a blue-green coalition, by yesterday pledging to scrap the ban on use of gene editing and genetic modification.
This should not be regarded as a bold move — the science concerning such technologies is well-accepted and much-used around the word — but it will be, because the stigma against GE and GM is deeply rooted.
Many will remember heated debate about "Frankenfoods" and the fevered expectation that toad genes would be spliced into potatoes before we knew it.
A kneejerk ban was imposed, a move which has hampered New Zealand scientists from carrying out valuable work in fields such as disease resistance and reduction of biogenic carbon emissions.
A dedicated regulator would be established with the intent of ensuring that any use of biotechnology was safe and ethical use, and that approval for trials and use of the technology aligned with processes used by other countries, especially major trade partners.
New Zealand has some of the best scientists in the world, and the continued ban meant there was a risk of losing them to countries where cutting edge science in their chosen fields was possible. No less a person than Sir Peter Gluckman, a distinguished scientist who was also the first chief science adviser to the prime minister, has pushed for the ban to be reconsidered.
National’s GE/GM policy sounds reasonable. So, in its own way to its own audience, will the Greens’ taxation policy.
Elections, as the cliche goes, are meant to be a contest of ideas. Here are a couple of bold policies — now let’s hope that they are keenly and cogently contested.
