Chris Trotter produced a typically thoughtful commentary on my speech to the Orewa Rotary Club late last month (The Independent, 5 February 2013). But I confess I do not fully understand his argument.
He acknowledged that the Labour Government has reversed very few of the great policy changes of the late eighties and early nineties, and added (as I had not) that the Government has not even reversed the benefit reductions of 1991, but he argued that “in the eyes of most voters it has steered New Zealand away from the flinty-faced policies of the ‘New Right’ and so achieved a commanding electoral advantage.”
What that seems to be saying is that, while pretending to decry the policies of the late eighties and early nineties, the Labour Government has in fact gained a great electoral advantage by retaining those policies while creating the perception of change. I suspect that may be absolutely correct, though it is a dangerous approach to politics. In due course, the New Zealand public may wake up to the reality.
I certainly agree with Mr Trotter that “it is time we brought New Zealand’s ideological war to an end”. But if, as I believe and Mr Trotter appears to accept, so few of the policies of the late eighties and early nineties have been reversed, the “ideological war” has come to an end because what he describes as the “flinty-faced policies of the ‘New Right’” have been accepted by both major political parties as altogether mainstream.
And perhaps that is hardly surprising. The policies which were adopted during that period of reform, and the policies which I advocated in my Orewa speech (available on my website at www.donbrash.com), are entirely consistent with where most other developed countries have moved in recent years – an emphasis on keeping inflation low and on reducing public sector debt, the deregulation of banking and the freeing up of capital movements, the privatisation of government-owned commercial operations, the abolition of import controls and the reduction of tariffs, the greater use of the private sector in health and education, and changes to the welfare system.
There are some 400,000 adults of working age dependent on a benefit in New Zealand today, despite a serious shortage of staff in many parts of the country, and that is a clear indication that there is something seriously wrong with the present welfare system. My suggestions for change in the welfare system were quite consistent with what President Clinton – a Democrat – did in the United States in the nineties.
Over 40 per cent of adult New Zealanders can not read and write sufficiently well to enable them to participate in a modern economy, and that is a clear indication that there is something seriously wrong with the education system. My suggestions for change were quite consistent with the approach to education in Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden.
In other words, the recommendations in my Orewa speech were in the mainstream of policy thinking in other developed countries.
Mr Trotter suggested that I persist “with the notion that New Zealand’s economic difficulties can be solved by reducing the costs – primarily the labour costs – of New Zealand employers.” Certainly I believe strongly that making life more difficult for the small businesses which predominate in New Zealand is daft, and that has been the thrust of a lot of this Government’s legislation in the last two or three years. Business New Zealand has estimated that the costs of a company employing just 20 staff have been increased by $44,000 a year by recent Government moves.
But while I am a strong believer in cutting the compliance costs facing the business sector National’s programme is principally not about cutting costs but about improving productivity, because that is the only way we can lift the living standards of all New Zealanders. It is for this reason that my Orewa speech devoted so much emphasis to improving the education system, reforming the welfare system, reducing the size of the government sector, and reducing the tax rates which do most to discourage investment and innovation.
Chris Trotter is absolutely right that there is much that is very good about this country. He implies that under the circumstances the best course of action for the National Party would be to follow a kind of Keith Holyoake line, promising to protect the status quo and not rock any boats.
But that would be a gross dereliction of duty. Mr Trotter fails to recognise that many of the good things about New Zealand are at risk. In 1960, New Zealand and Australia had very similar standards of living. Today, the Australian standard of living is about one-third higher than that in New Zealand – which is not some abstract concept but something which has huge implications for the quality of the education our kids get, for the quality of our healthcare, for the quality of our housing, for the quality of the jobs we can get, and all the rest. Unless we can begin to close that gap, we are at serious risk of seeing our brightest and best leave and not return.
And that is hugely bad news for all New Zealanders. Continuing down our present track, with the Government continuing to erode the competitive position of the economy, may be a politically attractive option in the short term. It might even be a politically attractive option in the long term, if New Zealanders can be conned into believing that this is the best option. But it is in fact a very dangerous option for all of us – and especially for those who now live in poverty, dependent on a benefit, with little prospect of ever getting a well-paid job.
This is a very important point to make. If New Zealand degenerates to the point that we become another Argentina, or, heaven forbid, another South Pacific island basket case, it won’t be the skilled and the affluent who are most adversely affected. They would be able to leave – with sorrow perhaps, but leave nevertheless. It would be those without skills or capital who would pay the heaviest price for this complacency. And Mr Trotter and I would both regret that greatly.
Even if accepting the status quo were the only way for National to get back onto the Treasury benches, I for one would sooner resign from politics than recommend that course of action, which would be the ultimate betrayal of the New Zealand people.
Copyright © 2024 Don Brash.