Full text: Richard Prebble's paper to the Act board

Think-tanks are privately funded research organisations that examine social and political issues. Some think tanks are very research orientated; others are closer to being organisations that influence public opinion by publishing information.

Worldwide the development of the think-tank has had a profound effect on democratic politics. The think-tanks have tended to be right wing and to counter the influence of the left-wing universities. (Universities tend to be left wing because they are Government funded).

Although the think-tank funding is tiny compared to Government funded research, their output and influence has been profound.

The intellectual lead that the Republicans now have is the result of the work of the think-tanks. Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph founded a think-tank that intellectualised much of what became the Thatcher programme.

In a democracy an important part of the struggle for power is the battle of ideas. Think-tanks have made a vital contribution.

In New Zealand the only real think-tank is the Round Table who has had a real impact on policy making. The only research on many issues is by the Round Table. By using recognised international standards, the Round Table has gathered an impressive reputation.

The Roundtable is not a popularist organisation. Nor does it apply its self to the task of devising a way to implement the research findings it generates.

So there is a gap in the market.

The Maxim Institute is a form of think-tank. It does seek to influence the development of social policy. The organisation is conservative and Christian. As a result a great deal of its efforts is devoted to issues like marriage, prostitution, homosexuality etc.

The Maxim Institute is not capable of being able to provide intellectual leadership outside a narrow range of issues.

Political parties themselves are caught up in the time consuming task of winning election.

There is no organisation on the right in New Zealand devoted to winning the intellectual popular contest. So it is being lost by default.

The right does not lack policy. We have the solution to most issues. More free enterprise, freedom, better property right protections, less government, more choice and the rule of law.

Applying these well known principles to most issues produces a workable practical solution. The real goal of a think-tank is long-term, to influence the values of our society.

I am personally convinced that our values are what matters more than any individual policy settings. Of course policies can influence values. Welfare has lead to dependency. Middle class welfare has lead to big government.

I think the priority should be to influence values. So studies of what values pupils are being taught. Are they learning the value of hard work? Are they learning achievement thinking, cause and effect? What values does our health system reward? Does our tax system reward entrepreneurial activity?

So we need a think-tank not to produce new policy but to take known policy solutions, like tax cuts, privatisation, school choice, welfare reform and promote it.

Tax cuts

There needs to be articles on the flat tax movement in Eastern Europe but put in a New Zealand context for a local audience.

Research of proposals that have not met the threshold rate of return because of the tax rate.

Updating the work on the churn effect of collecting tax. What is it now?

Publishing a popular work on why flat tax is best.

Putting out a steady stream of articles on the effect of tax.

A popular work on the effect on civil liberties of a high tax. My brother Prof John Prebble says that people do not realise how police state the tax law now is. A work by some one like him could be very powerful.

A much better promoted national tax day i.e. the day when we begin working for ourselves.

Privatisation

The SOEs need to be properly monitored. Hiring private sector analysts to do a proper analysis like they do for publicly listed companies. Could be devastating.

School choice. Publish a school list. Best to worst school

Replicate research from overseas on the adverse effects of welfare dependency

The work could have a practical aspect by drafting private members bills.

Promotion by organising seminars. The [Act-organised] Seabed and Foreshore Conference is an example of how major issues can be influenced.

An obvious way to proceed would be to establish close working relationships with centre- right think-tanks in America, UK, Canada and Australia. Replicate what has been proved to work.

There is in New Zealand a respect for the international expert. The Roundtable has been very smart in its invitations to overseas scholars.

A gap is that no one invites politicians to make speaking tours.

Inviting activist policy makers to do a New Zealand version of their work could introduce centre-right ideas into New Zealand. A more popular version of what the Roundtable does so well.

Resources

I suspect that the capital is the right place for a think-tank, as close to Parliament as possible.

One might get away with as few people as a director and very able secretary and then contract in everything. I have my doubts about how useful interns are but they are worth a try.

Funds

Here is the tough part. Office space, communications, no change from $200,000.

Another $200,000 for direct salaries. So one would need at least $200,000 for research and another $100,000 for publicity. Say $750,000 a year. I have real doubts about the chances of raising that sort of money.

Conclusion

There is a need for a new centre-right think-tank. Such an organisation would complement the work of the Roundtable and give intellectual grunt to the policies of parties like Act and National. The organisation should also aim to influence all parties and all policy makers, to actively lead the debate.

It would be reasonably easy to set up. I think an independent board so one could aim for charitable status. (Not sure if it can be got but worth aiming for).

Like many things it is just a question of money. If it took away from money already raised for Act and the Roundtable, I would be opposed. If it could raise new money, then we should do it. A well run think-tank would, over time, make a real difference.