|
Skip to make comment
|
Skip to read comments | 
Send to a friend
NZCPD
Guest Forum
Opinion piece by Douglas
Myers
18 February 06
Ten
Years Adrift
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>>
Although
I’ve been back briefly over the summer for the past 4 years,
New Zealand hardly makes the front pages of the Anglo-American
print media I’m addicted to, and inevitably one loses
contact. I’m conscious of that and also Tom Stoppard’s
line about
Russia
that one must be careful about becoming a spurious expert
about any place just because it has an airport.
In
a talk at the
University
of
Auckland
last November I spoke of the
New Zealand
to which I rather reluctantly returned in 1965: smug,
colonial, the extensive barriers to contact with the rest of
the world. Life was highly institutionalised; individual
expression was subsumed by unions, business, trade and
sporting associations.
Discourse
between groups was limited and lacking in spontaneity.
Competition was artificial and people seemed content. And yet
gradually over the next 20 years our options were foreclosed,
our disengagement from the rest of the world became a trap and
people came to see life, as we’d known it, had run its
course. Few understood why, other than
UK
entry into the EEC, nor what was in store.
In
1984 I’d recently bought into Lion, when
New Zealand
, jolted by crisis, embarked on a political programme that
allowed the country to rejoin the world a freer and more
secure place. Threats and opportunities were transformed, many
companies took advantage of the new freedoms, some did not
cope well, and others lost the plot.
The
Roundtable had recently been established, based on foreign
models of chief executives’ organisations. I was offered my
predecessor’s place and willingly accepted, interested to
sit with older men, no women, but at the time I didn’t see
it offering anything especially different - a group
established to put forward the interests of Big Business. Big
business in those collusive days, with some good reason, was
not a popular place to be.
Rather
like Americans, I believe New Zealanders can tolerate wealth
so long as it’s discrete and self-effacing and won in
competitive markets; it’s the combination of money, power
and privilege that’s unacceptable.
The
‘old model’ of self interested lobbying was out, no doubt
like the fall of the Berlin Wall, everyone was scrambling for
new stabilities. There were, I believe, only two groups to
handle these changes well, not surprisingly both supported the
Government’s free market thrust; Federated Farmers under
Peter Elworthy and the Roundtable under Sir Ron Trotter and
Roger Kerr.
Without
the support of groups like the Roundtable outside Parliament
New
Zealand
’s comprehensive reform programme may well have foundered
– so that alone well justified the Roundtable’s existence.
After all, there’s nothing inevitable about history;
individuals do make a difference.
Argentina
and
Uruguay
are great examples of wealthy, temperate, agricultural based
economies that didn’t make it. For reasons similar to
New Zealand
– Government propensity to give their citizens more than the
country could afford.
My
memory is that there was a feeling New
Zealand
was undergoing a revolution, that it was exhilarating and
that, if sensible and robust policies were developed, the
Government would be supportive of promoting them. Ministers
were open and collaborative – about 180° from where things
are now. When a decent domestic history is written of the last
Century I’m sure 1984 will be seen as a seminal event.
For
nearly 10 years
New Zealand
was an exciting place to be, witnessing and participating in
an extraordinary surge of thinking and activity from a country
that had largely written itself out of the world script.
With
Ruth Richardson’s ouster after the 1993 election the scene
changed, few further reforms got implemented, and those that
did – like producer board reform and ACC – took an
eternity to materialise. Our frustrations grew, and perhaps we
made them a bit too obvious at times. In hindsight, it shows
the necessity for political leadership; without it momentum
was lost.
While
a lot has been made, in a self-serving way by the Prime
Minister, of
New Zealand
’s reform fatigue, I personally don’t subscribe to it.
Leadership and clearly articulated vision by the National
Party could well have continued to attract electoral support.
Another
major accomplishment over the period has been the welding
together of the wealth creating forces in the country.
Previously they were polarised and manipulated by some
politicians and it has been helpful in giving a shared sense
of purpose.
It
has been a tough, largely thankless task, faced with an
apathetic and often hostile media and until recently low
quality, timid leadership by the National Party.
In
the past couple of years I’ve spent most of my time in
countries with hopeless, nakedly corrupt Governments. Given
New Zealand
’s high standards of political probity it makes one wonder
why so many lacking any sense of vision, are even attracted to
politics here.
I’ve
now been resident in the
UK
for four years – my overall impression is how good life is
for most people here. I misread the sustainability of the
Douglas/Richardson reforms, although I don’t believe the
country can continue to run on autopilot forever.
To
read the Herald it’s of a contented, multicultural, high tax
paying society, at peace with itself, untroubled by the
outside world, generally satisfied with its institutions and
optimistic about themselves and the country. And yet, high
emigration rates continue, a Labour Government presiding over
a buoyant economy barely scrapes back into power – indicates
that not all is rosy in spite of the Herald’s lobotomising
attempts to portray it as such.
After
the
UK
there seems to be a high degree of intolerance for views
outside the mainstream, a lack of grace and humour in public
debate, and a lack of knowledge and interest in the world
outside
New Zealand
.
Certainly
productivity trends are a worry, although here the Herald is
constructive. Cover to cover in 10 minutes max, the only
broadsheet surely that can cover the world in 3 pages, with
one third at least devoted to ads. The major debate in the
Herald since my return has been whether or not Exotic’s
should be retained in
Queen Street
. Why this issue uniquely should be allowed to challenge their
normal PC line I’m not sure, although it may be tied to a
report denying that council had tried to execute their
decision over the holidays, the cereal king said that in fact
they’d been ‘talking trees’ for 8-9 months.
My
take is that like the
UK
,
New Zealand
is driven by a small clique of the like minded – judiciary,
media, unions, bureaucracy.
They’re
tinkering with the economy which they don’t understand, and
while they’ve been in power long enough for the envy thing
to have abated, there’s no philosophy, no vision, no charm,
little contact with average Kiwis, the Government seems
consumed with social initiatives of little attraction to their
rather conservative constituency.
The
third way, which was so keenly promoted, must be the
shortest-lived political philosophy in thousands of years of
human thought.
While
creating a political breakthrough is difficult with a media as
absorbed in sub Marxist themes and allied so naturally to
resentment politics, the absence of any consistent historical
adherence to liberal conservative policies makes it
particularly tough here. Why change from the Government
you’ve got unless different, more attractive policies are
created and clearly articulated? The trouble in
New Zealand
is that the National Party has not been the party of reform,
nor has it ever been especially interested in promoting
freedom, rather a soft porn version of socialism.
A
recent leader in the Times deplored the appointment of David
Cameron, seeing it as an attempt to go for style rather than
substance, and worse the Mandelson/Campbell spin, whereas
Blair had adopted much that was good from Thatcher. The writer
went on to say he saw the remorseless growth of public
expenditure and lack of commensurate improvement in
productivity in health and education especially, to be the
next political battleground and that Cameron had clearly
established himself with all the wrong positions – old
Labour in fact.
In
subsequent articles the writer has gone on to promote the view
that for the Tories to base their approach on aping Labour,
even if the polls show them to be popular positions will
remove the policy tensions required for successful
democracies. He can foresee a drift to 1960’s/1970’s
consensus politics or worse replicate the inertia that’s
taken hold in
Europe
. He said Cameron had adopted Labour’s position on high
taxes, rising public expenditure, anti elitist education and
health, totally Government financed, which effectively rules
out any serious debate on the role or size of Government.
The
Cameron Tories too are mindful of Bush’s compassionate
conservatism, forgetting that by pretending to be what he
wasn’t he’s become hostage to every special interest group
and uniquely has failed to veto even one financial bill.
I
think these concerns are valid, Don Brash is the first
National Party leader to articulate policies that clearly
differentiate the party from Labour and gave the confidence
he’d affect them. The first Orewa speech showed the
electoral impact of addressing contentious issues clearly and
giving leadership.
I
would hope that the Labour party could rethink its directions.
Mike
Moore has recently said; “Isn’t it good the last two
Governments have not changed the fundamental reforms of the
‘80’s?” – despite the earlier rhetoric about “failed
policies”. Labour could easily adopt more reforms and
policies like Labour parties in the
UK
and
Australia
. It has taken decisions to scrap the carbon tax and reduce
business taxation, but only under duress – it has a long way
to go.
If
Labour persists with the same lack of doctrine, flexibility,
capability in media manipulation, how else does the National
Party win other than by clearly identifying themselves with
policies the Government cannot/will not replicate. I don’t
believe a losing party will reverse its fortunes merely by
adopting policies and slogans of the party that keeps beating
them.
And
surely there is an enormous list to choose from: mal
performing public institutions, an over-extended welfare
state, all the silly social agenda and mindless PC that is
consuming the country.
As
well on the economic front it’s hard to think of any area,
be it over-taxation, labour or economic policies that aren’t
going to be destructive of enterprise over time.
In
the
UK
post the July bombings, multiculturalism – all the moral
equivalence stuff - is being bashed around. There’s a new
assertiveness of Britishness, traditional values of justice
and freedom, the very reasons in fact that attract migrants to
our societies. There’s also a much greater appreciation than
in
New Zealand
of the importance of being prepared to defend and fight for
values so different from those around us, rather than turn
from traditional allies that we’ve worked with successfully
in the past.
Our
Government shows confidence in the UN and other multi national
agencies in defiance of their repeated inability to act
decisively. What one writer describes as regulationism is
their guiding philosophy and a willingness to try every silly
idea to help the poor either at home or overseas rather than
follow the tried and true.
So,
overall
New Zealand
seems in remarkably good shape to me.
The
country is well-positioned post the 1984 reforms, low skilled
secondary industry has largely gone, and the country has
extensive natural resources, high-grade temperate agriculture.
Europe
being eclipsed after 500 years hegemony, the agriculture
protection policy imploding, the growth of
China
, these are the big developments and they’re all positive
for
New Zealand
. In fact, after ten years drift one can only believe that
supportive rather than destructive Government policies would
propel
New Zealand
into the top half of the OECD pretty easily.
New
Zealand’s advantage is our size and for all the Left’s
social divisiveness the remarkable homogeneity that exists
amongst New Zealanders, together with an extraordinary degree
of social integrity and trust.
Our
problem, it seems to me, if it is such, arises from the ease
of life, and a media unwilling to keep the current Government
in line or to focus the community on the inevitable impact on
our place in the world of current policies. The contrast with
Australia
is striking.
There
much of the media is far more pro-reform, conscious of the
need for
Australia
to stay competitive and dynamic, and so are the community and
political parties in general.
Here
the absorption with domestic life, a Government determined to
shelter citizens from being in control of their own lives,
enhances the probability that over time the country will drift
into another crisis or just gradually lose competitiveness as
we did in the decades prior to 1984.
Our
role as I see it is to keep the faith, to raise the awkward
and difficult issues, to keep them before the public, media
and politicians. It’s a role many find unappealing, and it
doesn’t lead to popularity, but it is necessary and it does
work. At least next time we’ll know what to do.
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Send to a friend
Your
Comments:
Your comments
will be published here.
Skip to top |
Send to a friend |
Skip to read comments
To
leave a comment:
NOTE: The forum moderator
reserves the right to edit material that may be objectionable
or offensive.
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Skip to read comments
Send to
a friend:
|
