Are the Greens bonkers? The Greens have come out and criticised Judith Collins for tinkering with the Public Service Commission census – that's a voluntary survey run over three weeks and it's a follow up to the initial 2021 survey of the same name. Now Judith Collins and her office had a look at the 2021 survey, and they suggested a few changes. They had thoughts about the census, and they said we don't really need the questions about disability, rainbow identities, religion, te reo Māori proficiency levels, on-the-job training, and agencies’ commitment to the Māori-Crown relationship. Instead, Judith Collins’ office said, we want to put in a new question about whether public servants give excellent value for my salary, there are instances when I consider my work wastes taxpayers money, or I would rate my manager as someone who cares about the effect of my work. They're focused on productivity rather than personal well-being, which seems to be what the 2021 survey was all about.  

So the Greens and PSA Union have come out and said it's a form of political censorship, he says several ministers seemed more interested in fighting imported culture wars – there's all kinds of criticism for putting in questions on productivity. Judith Collins says she doesn't really care, to be honest. She says: “I think the Greens are frankly bonkers. I mean, how can they find it difficult that the public service should be delivering value for money? The Greens can go off on their fine little tangents. Frankly, that's their problem. I think it's very, very important.”  

So bonkers. The Greens received the same criticism from some quarters when they released their Budget this week. They pledged, among other things, free GP visits, free childcare, funded through new taxes and increased borrowing. The policies include a wealth tax, a private jet tax, ending interest deductibility for landlords, restoring the 10 year bright-line test, doubling minerals royalties, and changes to ACC levies. It would see net debt climb from 45% of GDP to above 53% by the 2028/29 financial year. Criticism was immediate. Idealistic pie in the sky, policies that would mean the death knell for Kiwi businesses. Clown show, economics, Marxism. You probably heard it, you may even have uttered a few criticisms yourself of the Budget.  

But is it bonkers? Yes, net debt would climb from 45% of GDP to above 53%, but 60% is considered a sustainable level of debt. It's considered a prudent level of debt by economists around the world. Sure, they're talking bigger economies and when you're a smaller economy, you don't have as much wiggle room, 60% would probably be way too much for a country as small as ours. But 53% – is that completely unsustainable? And do all Kiwi businesses think this is nonsense? I don't think so.  

Remember the group of millionaires who wrote to the government a year or so ago? I think it was in the final stages of the last Labour government. It was a group of 96 wealthy New Zealanders who called on the government to tax them more. In the open letter, they said the current tax system contributed towards the gap between the poor and the wealthy. They said they didn't mind if the taxation is done through increased income tax or wealth tax, or a capital gains tax, but the increases should only apply to the wealthy.  

Now, how do you define wealthy? According to the Greens, if you're on $120,000 a year, you should pay more tax, Under the Budget that they released —the proposed alternative Budget— If you're earning 120,000 a year, your tax will go up to 39 cents in the dollar. If you're on $180,000 your tax will go to 45 cents on the dollar. Does that then put you in the group of 96 wealthy New Zealanders wanting to be taxed more? When it comes to the differences between the parties, how helpful is it for the name calling, for the bonkers? Do we need to have a look at what policies might work? Are they aspirational policies? Are they policies that need more thinking through? I mean, when you look at the previous Labour government under Jacinda Ardern, initially there were some great ideas. I thought brilliant, fabulous, but they hadn't been worked through, and the unintended consequences was so damaging, and the fallout was so great, from nice ideas that hadn't been thought through.  

So before you dismiss ideas completely, is it worth looking through how they might work? Is it worth discussing rather than dismissing ideas completely out of hand? Could there be a generational and ideological divide that blinds us, perhaps to some good ideas?  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.