With another election approaching, I wanted to do something a little different.
Rather than simply looking at campaign announcements, social media posts and party slogans, I decided to put questions directly to politicians and give them the opportunity to answer in their own words.
Next up is Sam Plummer, Opportunity candidate for the Taupō electorate.
Sam was an interesting one to interview because Opportunity isn’t coming into this election carrying the baggage of having recently been in government. Instead, it’s proposing some fairly fundamental changes to how New Zealand taxes land, invests, produces energy and even how our politics could work.
So I wanted to push beyond whether those ideas sound good on paper and ask what happens when they meet the real world.
We got into land-value tax, mortgages and farmers, government debt, immigration, productivity, the size of the public sector and what Sam learned from spending 15 years working internationally.
I also asked the question every smaller party eventually has to answer: if you only get around 5% of the vote, what can you realistically get done?
And unlike Chris, Sam didn’t introduce me to OBEGAL. Although he did use the word “ameliorate”, so apparently nobody is getting through this series without making me reach for a dictionary.
Sam described the questions as “quite thought-provoking”, and his answers are published below in his own words.
Thanks for the opportunity answer these quite thought-provoking questions. It’s great to reflect on why I’ve stepped up and what my desired future looks like.
1. Opportunity proposes some fairly fundamental changes to New Zealand’s economic and political systems. What makes you confident these policies would survive contact with the real world rather than simply working well on paper?
We have a great policy team that works through these policies and their implications. I’m always impressed with their ability to respond to any little angle that we throw at them on behalf of inquisitive voters that we, the candidates, talk to. They seem have thought through most scenarios and if they haven’t, they are willing to review positions to ensure they achieve our goals.
Let’s also remember that these policies will be put through the rigours or parliamentary interrogation – debate, select committees, etc, which will ensure that they land fully tested and ready to make a positive difference.
2. One thing I struggle with in Opportunity’s land-value tax is that asset wealth and available cash aren’t the same thing. A Taupō family might own valuable land while still owing hundreds of thousands on a 25- or 30-year mortgage. A farmer can own millions of dollars in land while carrying substantial debt and operating on tight margins. If the value of that land rises but their income doesn’t, where does the money to pay an annual land-value tax actually come from?
We recognise that such significant reform will impact those who have invested well under the current system, but the current system is not sustainable. We have indicated a 10-year transition to allow people to adjust their investments to take advantage of the new tax settings and will provide mechanisms to ameliorate the impact of the Land Value Tax (LVT) for those who are not earning an income from their land.
One intention of the LVT is to moderate land value increases and make owning a home more affordable for the next generation. For those who remain invested in land, ensuring the productivity of that land over time will provide a better return on their investment, and leave LVT as a cost of business.
3. Opportunity talks extensively about changing how New Zealand taxes and redistributes wealth, but I’m interested in how we create more wealth in the first place. What would Opportunity actually do to strengthen New Zealand’s productive economy our businesses, manufacturing, energy and infrastructure — so we’re generating and investing more wealth here rather than becoming increasingly dependent on overseas capital, imports and continued borrowing?
Our Breakthrough Economy policy is all about unleashing productivity and wealth. We’ve got a real focus on growing research and development and on luring graduates with international experience back to New Zealand. We’re going to provide budgeting, R&D, and ACC support to small business and our Land Value Tax is structured to redirect investment away from land and towards more productive sectors of the economy.
Our Abundant Energy policy will remove the constraint of electricity supply and cost. We’re also looking to strengthen the Commerce Commission to improve competition in critical business sectors such as banking, insurance, and utilities to both moderate core business costs and to provide increased opportunities for new players in these sectors.
4. Following on from that, if reducing government debt matters, what does Opportunity believe New Zealand should stop spending or borrowing money on? Every party can tell us what it wants to fund, but eventually something has to give.
I don’t think reducing government debt is a primary concern – it’s more about what that debt is generated for and what return we get on that borrowing. Our infrastructure is a mess and is impacting on our productivity – borrowing to improve that is a wise investment where the right case can be made.
The big parties have recently committed to a 30-year National Infrastructure Plan – we need to ensure this is followed through with a focus on financing and maintenance of these assets.
5. New Zealand continues to bring in significant numbers of overseas workers while unemployment and underemployment remain concerns here at home. Before looking to new taxes or redistribution to address inequality, should we be looking harder at immigration settings, productivity, training and why New Zealanders aren’t filling those jobs? What does Opportunity believe the right balance is?
We need to follow the evidence. The reality is that 200 kiwis are leaving NZ every day, often with skills we need, and we need to replace them.
Firstly, we’ve got to train our workforce to ensure that we have skills required in our economy, and then we’ve got to retain them by providing an economy that delivers jobs and good incomes and a good standard of living. After that, we fill the gaps which might mean attracting back kiwis with international experience or it might mean attracting migrants with the right mix of skills.
This requires a responsive immigration policy and it also requires that we make those who respond to our needs and commit to our country welcome and part of our communities.
6. New Zealand has accumulated layers of legislation, regulation, government departments and programmes over decades. Do we actually need more government policy, or do we need simpler and more effective government? What would Opportunity be prepared to simplify, consolidate or abolish?
We certainly need effective government, but we shouldn’t sit on the sidelines and set arbitrary limits on government resources. The public sector should be as big as it needs to be to serve New Zealand’s needs, and no bigger. We need to constantly monitor the demands on government and ensure that departments have the budgets and resources to do their jobs effectively. Respond to the needs, not the politics or ideology.
7. You’ve spent a significant part of your career working internationally in governance and public-sector reform. Rather than New Zealand constantly reinventing the wheel, what have you seen overseas that genuinely works? Is there a system, piece of legislation or approach used elsewhere that you believe New Zealand could learn from and adapt to our own circumstances?
I’m going to turn that around. I spent 15 years overseas telling other people about how well we do government in New Zealand and was somewhat embarrassed to come back and find things so fragmented and short-term. I think that the main contributing factor is our weakening democratic structures. In parliament, I’m hearing less talk about the issues that people are experiencing and more about what needs to be done to sustain our corporates. The economy needs to work for ordinary kiwis, not just the sharemarket.
If there’s one thing I learned in international development, it is the value of local engagement and decision making. Different people and different communities have different needs and priorities. One-size-fits-all responses will not always address the core issues or be owned by the target beneficiaries.
It is critical to get alongside those stakeholders and let them guide or design the solutions, even let them deliver them. If you empower community, great things will happen.
8. Opportunity presents itself as an alternative to the traditional left-right divide. Rather than telling me which parties you’re prepared to work with, which existing New Zealand political party would you say Opportunity is actually most similar to and what fundamentally makes you different from them?
As a centrist party we naturally have common ground with every party, but given our three intertwined pillars are business, people, and the environment (‘innovation, unity, nature’) we are both similar to and different from National, Labour, and the Greens.
So I can’t single out one.
What I can say is that I think the main parties are constrained in their ability to think differently as they represent those invested in both the past and the status quo.
What makes Opportunity different is that we are unencumbered by party history and political ideology and have the freedom to dream of what a better future looks like. We have the freedom to think and debate and challenge and change.
Being in the centre, we can reach out to any party to progress reform. Our policies overlap with other parties in areas like energy, infrastructure, and environment and so we look forward to collaborating in those areas. It’s how MMP should work. Rather than the legislative agenda being set by a coalition every three years, parties should be able to team up with like minds in parliament to progress policy issues.
9. Voters hear ambitious promises every election, only for many of them to be watered down, abandoned or prove politically impossible. If Opportunity entered Parliament with around 5% of the vote, you wouldn’t have the numbers to simply implement your entire programme. Name three things you genuinely believe Opportunity could get implemented during that first term — not what you’d ideally like to achieve eventually, but what you realistically think you could deliver.
I can’t speak officially for the party here, but as I touched on above, I think we could work with other parties on energy, infrastructure, and the environment, with electrification initiatives being an obvious point of convergence.
Two other areas that both sides of the political spectrum have acknowledged as problematic without delivering any significant reform are competition in sectors like grocery and banking and in political and lobbying and donations transparency. I’d like to think that we can hold government accountable for progress in these areas.
10. If being a good Opportunity MP and being a good MP for the Taupō electorate ever became two different things, which would you choose and would you be prepared to risk your political career over that choice?
That’s a curly hypothetical question which I couldn’t really answer until it’s in front of me!
A Member of Parliament is accountable to both party and to those they represent so if there was a clash, it would always come down to values – what do I believe is the greater good for the electorate, the country, and the future.
Two bonus questions
1. You’ve had a substantial career outside Parliament, including working internationally, and you’re now a business owner. Politics isn’t exactly the quiet option. What made you decide to enter politics, knowing how public, demanding and sometimes brutal it can be? What makes it worth it to you personally?
I really don’t think New Zealand is fulfilling its potential. We’re slipping backwards in terms of living standards and the way we look after our environment and one another.
I recently read about the concept of being a good ancestor. I don’t want to pass on a country that is fraying at the seams to my kids and theirs. My parents made sacrifices to give me the best life possible, and I have an obligation to do the same for my children. This is what I believe is necessary.
2. Politics aside: If you had to describe yourself with one song, what song would you choose and why?
Now this question has caused much deliberation and a dig back through my LP collection. (Which I have thoroughly enjoyed, so thanks!)
I’ve settled on “Heroes” by David Bowie. It’s a song that has resonated since I was a teenager. It’s a song about defiance and finding beautiful moments in an oppressive world. This is my chance to be a hero for one day.
Leave a Reply