Time to call in the myth busters
As a nation, one of our most enduring myths is that we live in a small, trade-dependent nation, geographically distant.
MYTHS are hard to bust. And political myths – not to be confused with legends (see: Winston Peters) – can be the hardest of all.
So it was good to see Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse doing his bit for truth and the Kiwi way at last week’s select committee with his contribution to myth busting about the health and safety bill that is currently languishing with the committee.
Officially, its two months in parliamentary limbo are for a spot of i-dotting and t-crossing.
In reality, it seems to be parked up so National MPs can get up to speed with its impact and smooth ruffled feathers in the farming community.
Because, let’s face it, health and safety law is a petri dish where mythic micro-organisms multiply and then spread like the flu.
Sample one is the person who had to be in a harness because they were on the third step of a stool. Nope, said Woodhouse, that would not be so – though he might like to tell one of his Cabinet colleagues who seemed to think it was.
Then there was the one about the farmer who was given an ‘‘improvement notice’’ because his quad bike helmet was hanging on the wall when it should have been dangling from his handlebars. Nope, never happened, Woodhouse said.
Last year, in the pre-Christmas rush, a rumour spread like a tropical virus that changes to the law would add extra obligations on employers to police work drinks. That one went bottoms up.
It reminds you of all those myths about EU regulations, rife in euro-sceptic circles in Britain especially; everything from a ban on sweet and toy advertisements once the Swedes got their hands on the presidency to outlawing the sale of blooming plants in garden centres.
We have had a few of our own. The much-derided Fart Tax of 2003 was actually an industry research levy on methane emissions which in the case of cows predominantly comes out of the pointy end. But Burp Levy just didn’t have a ring to it.
As a nation, one of our most enduring myths is that we live in a small, trade-dependent nation, geographically distant.
For all its use as a way to describe everything from our devotion to free trade deals to our self-congratulatory ability to ‘‘punch above our weight’’ to our ‘‘little battler makes it on to the United Nations Security Council’’ it seems only one of those – the end of the Earth thing – is really true.
At least that was the point made by German Institute of Global and Area studies director Patrick Koellner in his presentation at Otago University’s Foreign Policy School.
He argued that, looking at New Zealand from an outsider and European perspective, the ‘‘small, trade-dependent nation’’ was arguably a self-defining myth. So, small? No. New Zealand’s 270,500 square kilometres ranks it 75th out of 234 countries and territories. That’s bigger than Britain, Uganda, Romania or Laos.
The median countries – Serbia and Panama – are only 75,000 square kilometres.
Within the United Nations’ 193 members, New Zealand is in the top half.
In terms of coastline we are a relative gorilla – ninth or 10th, just behind the United States but ahead of China.
Our exclusive economic zone is about the sixth biggest, if you factor in Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands.
Even in terms of population our 4.6 million souls rank us 124th – around the median spot.
When it comes to the OECD’s measure of ‘‘trade intensity’’ – exports and imports as a proportion of GDP – we are also not that extraordinary. In 2012 that metric was 57.8 per cent – squarely in the group of nations for which trade mattered the least for overall economic output. Only Japan (31.3), the US (31.4), Australia (41.6) and France (57.2) were lower among wealthy nations.
Koellner pointed out that, according to the OECD, ‘‘trade intensity is low in New Zealand compared to other OECD countries of similar size’’ and had remained little-changed since the 1980s, despite increased globalisation.
If we were in the EU, and not next to the much larger Australia, New Zealand may well have a different sense of itself, he argued.
It would rank 18th out of 29 in terms of GDP, 12th in GDP per capita (between Italy and Britain) and eighth in size.
‘‘Of course the more accurate self-identification of New Zealand as a ‘medium-sized country with a low trade intensity’ might not be considered useful or desirable in terms of constructing a national identity or for the purpose of promoting external identity,’’ Koellner said – with a smile.
So don’t expect John Key or Trade Minister Tim Groser to start rewriting their ‘‘little Kiwi trade battler’’ speeches any time soon.