07 Feb 2016
by Jim Rose
in constitutional political economy, discrimination, economic history, law and economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, property rights, Public Choice
Tags: Aboriginal land rights, Maori economic development, native title, racial discrimination
From 1965 onwards, 1/3rd of terrestrial Australia – 2.5 million sq kms of land – was returned to indigenous owners, with half of that since the Native Title decision in 1993. Tasmania pioneered aboriginal land rights with the Cape Barron Island Act 1912.
Source: Jon Altman, The political ecology and political economy of the Indigenous land titling ‘revolution’ in Australia, March 2014 Māori Law Review.
New Zealand extinguished native title twice in its history with the 2nd of these takings of Māori land by the last Labour government with the foreshore and seabed legislation. In her op-ed today, has Jacinda Ardern forgotten why the Māori party came into being?
Unlike New Zealand, Australia welcomed migrants from a wide range of ethnicities after the Second World War. It abolished the White Australia policy in the 1960s along with any discrimination in its Constitution against aboriginals.
Australia takes 8 times as many refugees as New Zealand on a per capita basis.
This redress of indigenous grievances was done out of the generosity of the Australian heart. Aboriginals are a tiny minority in Australia with little independent political pull.
06 Feb 2016
by Jim Rose
in development economics, economics of regulation, entrepreneurship, fiscal policy, growth disasters, growth miracles, industrial organisation, labour economics, law and economics, macroeconomics, monetary economics, property rights, public economics
Tags: capitalism and freedom, Chile, China, The Great Escape, Venezuela
06 Feb 2016
by Jim Rose
in economics of media and culture, fiscal policy, income redistribution, labour economics, labour supply, law and economics, poverty and inequality, property rights, public economics, rentseeking
Tags: basic income, car racing, Finland, guaranteed minimum income, negative income tax
05 Feb 2016
by Jim Rose
in labour economics, labour supply, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, public economics
Tags: 2016 presidential election, British election, Canada, Denmark, family tax credit, in work tax credit, taxation and labour supply
For some reason the Labour government in New Zealand in the mid-2000s could not bring itself to admit it was introducing a huge tax cut for families. To avoid admitting it ever gave a tax cut, that Labour government called the huge family tax credit introduced in 2004 and 2005 Working for Families.
Source: Taxing Wages 2015 – OECD 2015
The above data does not include the effects of GST and VAT.
Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments