By Chris Trotter*
Bill Rowling told New Zealanders that he felt as though he had been run over by a bus. The metaphor was apt. Rob Muldoon’s 1975 electoral victory represented one of the great turnarounds in New Zealand political history. Three years earlier, Labour’s Norman Kirk had sent the National Government of Jack Marshall packing. But, just three years later, Muldoon, Marshall’s populist successor, exactly reversed Kirk’s landslide. National’s majority in the House of Representatives was identical to Labour’s – a whopping 23 seats. New Zealand had voted for the nation they wanted – and Muldoon was determined to give it to them.
It is nearly 50 years since Muldoon’s bus flattened poor Bill Rowling, but, for those with long political memories, the parallels with the election of 2023 are striking. The greatest of these is the profound sense of shock and disorientation among the activist supporters of the Left. Their discomfort is born not only of the brute facts of the election results, but also by the growing realisation that the incoming coalition government is determined to roll back practically all of the Left’s policy advances of the past six years.
Two generations have grown to adulthood since Muldoon’s reactionary political agenda was unleashed upon New Zealand. Young New Zealanders are not accustomed to governments committed to actually dismantling the changes of their predecessors, or, at least, not outside specialist areas such as workplace relations and educational assessment. For citizens under 50, the changes of the last few decades have all been in more-or-less the same direction. Economic policy has been neoliberal. Social policy has been “progressive”. Indigenous policy has been radical. Matters may have moved more swiftly under Labour, and slowed down a little under National, but, since 1984, the direction of travel has always been the same – onwards and upwards!
That’s what makes the experience so wrenching for the progressives of 2023. Especially with regard to the one, recurring issue which New Zealanders cannot escape: Race.
It was the National Government led by Jim Bolger that set in motion the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process – ably guided by his Treaty Settlements minister, Doug Graham – in the early 1990s.
Not to be outdone, Labour, under the leadership of Helen Clark in the early 2000s, launched a policy effort dedicated to “closing the gaps” between Māori and Pakeha. The public backlash created by the policy was hugely strengthened by the Court of Appeal’s surprise affirmation of an enduring Māori proprietary interest in the foreshore and seabed. To keep Labour’s electoral prospects alive, Clark was forced to rein-in Māori expectations dramatically, a move which led to the creation of the Māori Party
Don Brash, Leader of the Opposition in the run-up to the 2005 General Election, capitalised on the growing public disquiet over ethnic relations by throwing the National Party’s support behind calls for a comprehensive rolling-back of the state’s support for Māori sovereignty.
Brash lost the 2005 election, but only narrowly. “Progressive” New Zealand was profoundly disturbed by the breadth of support for National’s reactionary policies. Brash, himself, was forced to endure what amounted to excommunication from “polite” political society. His fate was intended to serve as a warning to all serious politicians: mess with Māori (and Te Tiriti) at your peril.
Brash’s successor, National’s John Key, restored his party’s reputation (in the eyes of the political class) by sending the Māori Party’s co-leader, Pita Sharples, to New York to add New Zealand’s signature to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.
Labour’s next prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, went one better; commissioning a group of hand-picked “experts” to compile a secret report, He Puapua, setting forth a step-by-step pathway to the UN declaration’s full implementation by the 200th anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi’s signing in 2040. Driven forward by Labour’s radical Māori caucus, Ardern and her Pakeha colleagues felt obligated to support the controversial, Te Tititi-driven constitutional innovation of “co-governance”.
As happened in 2004-05, these bold moves towards Māori sovereignty ignited a Pakeha backlash. In 2023, however, the Left lacked the collective political strength to head-off the forces of reaction.
Across a broad front of social issues, public hostility towards the scope and speed of proposed and/or actual changes neutralised almost entirely the massive support Labour had received in 2020 for its highly successful early handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, the psychological and material damage inflicted upon the population by the pandemic, and the measures adopted to contain it, after 2020, contributed significantly to what the Left only belatedly registered as an alarming resurgence of the Right.
Separated by nearly 50 years from the strikingly similarly political derangement that followed the onset of the global oil crisis in October 1973, the sudden collapse of public trust and confidence in the Labour Government in 2022-23 was experienced by the Left as a Black Swan event of perplexing severity.
Young leftists had read about the swift succession of progressive moves undertaken by Norman Kirk’s Labour Government. The abolition of compulsory military training; the troop withdrawal from Vietnam, the recognition of “Red” China; the sending of a NZ frigate to protest French atmospheric nuclear testing at Mururoa; the cancellation of the 1973 Springbok Tour; the creation of ACC and the NZ Superannuation Fund. This is what Labour was capable of delivering – from the left.
Less well understood were the social dynamics which made it possible for a right-wing politician as shrewd and ruthless as Rob Muldoon to bring about an absolutely catastrophic change in the political climate. In the 15 months following Kirk’s sudden death in August 1974, New Zealanders egalitarian instincts were harnessed to an aggressively populist campaign directed against a Labour Party portrayed as having been taken over by intellectuals and radicals whose values were wildly at odds with those of “the ordinary bloke”. Not only was Muldoon able to present himself as the saviour of the country’s middle-class, but of its working-class as well. National’s slogan: “New Zealand the way YOU want it”, said it all.
Depressing though it is to admit, New Zealanders’ deeply ingrained social conservatism; their fury at any person, or group, who see themselves as being better than everybody else; their unwillingness to tolerate one rule for thee, and another for me; their impatience with intellectuals and artists; their wariness of difference; their hatred of privilege; their comfort in conformity; remains as powerful today as it was 50 years ago.
Perhaps, not seeing a Muldoon figure looming over the electoral landscape, the Left felt itself to be safe. But, 50 years on from 1974-75, charismatic leadership is no longer strictly necessary. Fifty years on, we have the Internet, social-media, and algorithms. Today, we can manufacture a Muldoon for every taste. A protean Muldoon, who addresses tens-of-thousands of voters every day, with a message cleverly crafted for them alone, and delivered instantaneously through those magic rectangles of glass that never seem to leave the voters’ hands.
The sum total of these messages, as aggregated in the polling booths, is a conservative political agenda stronger than anything New Zealand has seen in five decades. In 1975, Bill Rowling was run over by one bus, driven by Rob Muldoon. In 2023 Labour was run over by a million busses – driven by ourselves.
86 Comments
Pooh, Eeyore and Piglet.
(in answer to the headline)
The problem is simple: short term-ism rapes out habitat. Doesn't matter which political hue does it, or whether it is Woke; it's still habitat rape. Extrapolated, we get the excellent Roubini article, and should be discussing consequences. From the media? Sycophantic short-term-ism too. Come on CT - the Left weren't about REAL sustainability, any more than the Right; the Right just go over the falls a little quicker.
Speaking of Muldoon, it's interesting to note the following infrastructure that 'Think Big' built;
A methanol plant at Waitara; an ammonia/urea plant at Kapanui; a synthetic-petrol plant at Motunui; expansion of the Marsden Point Oil Refinery; expansion of the New Zealand Steel plant at Glenbrook; electrification of the North Island Main Trunk Railway between Te Rapa and Palmerston North; a third reduction line at the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter near Bluff; and the Clyde Dam on the Clutha River.
Admire Helen Clark’s government for stepping in and rescuing Kiwi Rail and AirNZ. The premise being, like it or not, they their operation were vital to the running of the nation. It is arguable that in the same vein, that reasoning should have been applied as well to the Bank of New Zealand and Marsden Point.
This lot have just turned on the 'wealth pump'; but it's within a zero-sum game.
Next election will be interesting; I suspect more votes going to 'either end' - reflecting further polarisation - and a more hollowed-out middle. And negative voting a permanent feature; 'out with this lot' being as far as the thinking goes...
Actually, I don't think they've actually turned on a 'wealth pump' - they'd just like us to think that NZ/NZers will 'grow' wealthier under their leadership. We're trapped in a debt spiral and it's just going to get worse. All we are 'growing' is debt - and we're doing a great job of it.
Check out local government projected rates rises - double (and more) the rate of inflation.
Our 'wealth' is an illusion;
https://croakingcassandra.com/2023/11/24/breathtaking/
Our current account deficits create a flow of NZ Dollars into foreign hands and which must be replaced either by the government running deficits or by increasing private sector borrowing or both otherwise we end up with a loss of money to support the economy. We are too dependent upon primary products for export and where it is difficult to expand further and we have no ability to control the value of our imports due to our free trade deals and selling off our assets has only exacerbated the problem over the long term.
Our current account deficits create a flow of NZ Dollars into foreign hands
Wrong
must be replaced either by the government running deficits or by increasing private sector borrowing or both otherwise we end up with a loss of money to support the economy
Mostly wrong
Foreigners trading with NZ do not receive NZ$, they will invoice in their own currency or mostly likely US$. If you walk into a cafe in Bondi do you hand over NZ$? No. Does Fonterra receive NZ$ for it's exports? No.
A current account deficit is financed by the capital account, not the NZ Govt. It has nothing to do with public debt.
Yes and what do we use to obtain foreign currency? We exchange it for NZ Dollars and that is why our currency is traded on the foreign exchange markets. I never said the government finances our current account deficits, not directly anyway but it must balance out the financial flows in the three sectors of the economy as sectoral balances describes.
IIRC there have been calls to economically diversify since the 1960s wool price crash.
NZ produces the know-how but much of it has gone overseas, in large part because the investment capital that would normally go towards the productive sector has instead gone into low-productivity property investment. Bernard Hickey has described NZ's economy as a "housing market with bits tacked on". Hopefully it won't take a housing crash to force a meaningful change to NZ's economic paradigm.
And the one thing that would have directly built-in some resilience (sorting out our waters infrastructure) was canned - largely by the public and council opposition. How one could even consider more people, more buildings and more roads while sewerage transport/treatment; freshwater water allocation/reticulation; and storm water management are in such a state of decay, is beyond me.
What they were proposing wasn't resilience, Kate; it was centralisation and more complexity. All water systems, in and out, are fossil fuel-dependent. Plastics, diggers, pretty obvious. The only way to make our water systems resilient is to simplify them, and localise their maintenance.
You second sentence is right on the money - shooting ourselves in the foot.
Maybe we're all meant to pray?
Did you seeing the contractor who posted here the other day? Had two jobs across two councils that border one another. Completely different specs for the same infrastructure - replacing a simple leak required a completely different set of parts. How "more local" do you think is needed? Plumbers, these days work across multiple municipalities. Terribly complicated when they use different specs to do the same job.
I'm with PDK on this Kate. I disagreed with Three Waters from the beginning. a stupid solution to a big problem. I suggest that all that was required was a means to ensure local councils built and maintained their basic infrastructure before they spent on the nice to haves. this would require legislation and regulation with regular audits. A regular audit on water standards, and a mandated requirement to meet standards would ensure councils did not neglect their duties here. Some councils do it well, others not. The people from the areas where it is done well would end up paying for those who did not, with little guarantee of it working.
This is a long standing problem, that has gone on for years. People don't like paying their rates bills and then complain when their infrastructure breaks down. It happens every where but some areas are worse than others. But a part of the problem is also central government fobbing off some areas onto local government without allocating funds for these things to be done. That has to stop too.
Can add to Kirk’s government, The Rural Bank to facilitate primary production, The Shipping Corporation of New Zealand, to keep freight rates competitive, the Property Speculation Tax to dampen down a speculation boom underway. It’s not so much that Kirk’s government was badly on the left it was more that, after he had passed, Muldoon’s utter savagery and mastery of TV, introduced personal attacks to previous unseen lows, which Labour then just could not withstand. Despite NZ’s general antipathy by that time, It is often overlooked that even after nine years of extreme Muldoon he didn’t lose the schnapps election in 1984 by all that much and if it hadn’t been for the intervention of Bob Jones New Zealand Party, may well have retained power.
FG. Bit of personal nostalgia; I was in the batch of CMT lads called up just before Kirk came to power. Medical completed, on notice to report to an army base in the new year. The Vietnam war was still going and while reservists such as I wouldn't have been involved there was still a sense of 'you never know'. Makes me cringe now but back then I quite admired Muldoon.
I was at a meeting he attended not long before he left parliament. After it was finished there was a bit of chat round the table and someone asked him if there was anyone in the Labour Party he could speak well of. He actually got a bit wistful and said yes he admired immensely Arnold Nordmeyer and then added , of course they knifed him in the back. Thought to myself silently, et tu Jack Marshall.
Because my father was in the military I toyed with that as a career. Ended up in some sort of officer cadet induction course at Burnham over the school holidays with enough of us for a platoon. Hot nor wester and we got a bit stroppy . Enter the RSM and thus we were circuiting the parade ground at a double march, 303s at the slope. Not pleasant, exhausting, a very unhappy lot. Finally ordered to stop put at ease and the RSM bellowed “don’t put it out if you can’t take it in.” Frankly at the time as young un’s we were all baffled by that but as years passed I got to realise the worth of the advice but not as quickly as I had determined there were other career opportunities on offer.
.. their fury at any person, or group, who see themselves as being better than everybody else; their unwillingness to tolerate one rule for thee, and another for me; their impatience with intellectuals and artists; their wariness of difference; their hatred of privilege; their comfort in conformity.
I'm having a hard time seeing these as anything other than good qualities.
It's not like New Zealand hasn't led the world in a number or world firsts either and maintained a prosperous and modern society for the last 150 years.
Don’t agree. CT’s has published here many columns of late decrying the content and direction of the sixth Labour government. In fact in one such column he explained why he would be voting NZF. Have followed his pieces for over thirty years and yes he would easily be considered a longstanding stalwart of the left side of politics but before anything else he has never strayed from prioritising what he sees as being in the nation’s best interests.
What about their love of tax free gains and dislike of Maori.
While I'm all for egalitarianism, we don't like paying our fair share of tax and we don't like the brown man getting whats fairly his.
A lot of those qualities have sadly made NZ a mediocre western country.
It's been a long time since we were first at anything.
The centre is always moving "left" (progressing). Previously the centre thought being gay should be a crime, that women shouldn't get a vote, that Maori language shouldn't be taught in school, etc.
This result doesn't represent the centre because the ACT party have had a lot of say. Just like if the green party got enough vote to introduce a wealth tax or similar.
Its called moving the Overton Window. And best illustrated by Elon Musk's cartoon
https://images.wsj.net/im-535576/?width=700&size=1.5&pixel_ratio=1.5
And ACT is not a "far right" party despite the Left's efforts to brand it as such. They have no concept of what real "far left" looks like (and if you want to find out, go see some of the Swedish Democrats policies).
I find this view a little annoying; "New Zealand had voted for the nation they wanted". Note that more than a few argue the point today. But the reality is Kiwis were given just two choices; the Labour one and continuing Government, or the National one and a change of government. That doesn't look like 'voting for a nation we wanted' but rather picking between just two choices, one of which was what we knew we didn't want. At best it is a Clayton's choice.
But the real point is that the politicians are not serving the people of the country particularly well. As democracy our governments have a dismal record for delivering for the people. Doesn't look like much is going to change any time soon.
Doesn't look like much is going to change any time soon.
From our friends across the ditch, 4 minutes of juicemedia goodness. Could this happen here in NZ?
https://youtu.be/N3WTlyuhDs0?si=Tk5pONbJQ7oO4FjS
A bit sweary, but it kind of fits.
I've been a fan of Juicemedia for years, their takedown of SCOTUS is a classic I posted a while ago.
What is very unlikely to happen in NZ nowadays is the less NSFW but similarly politically incorrect comedy cutting to the hypocritic bone that we used to get on mainstream media in the days of John Clarke, McPhail and Gadsby, Billy T...etc.
it's an easy comment to make, but it is specious. It seems logical and correct, but in reality it is not. Pre MMP at an election we usually just got a choice between two options; Labour or National. Some argue that when we chose one that was the preference over the other. But in my view it is more often, when a change of government results, not necessarily a preferrence for the incoming government's policies but more getting rid of the incumbents. With MMP that has become more complicated but it remains true. MMP coalitions will have the benefit of moderating a new government's more extreme policies (hopefully).
Chris Trotter does Robert Muldoon a disservice. He it was who gave us a universal old-age pension, funded by taxing the rich; its only qualification to be a New Zealand resident aged 60 or over. This replaced Roger Douglas's neoliberal compulsory contributory superannuation funds introduced under Norman Kirk, and now reborn under a later neoliberal Labour Government as state-subsidised KiwiSaver.
Muldoon's universal pension lives on as NZ Superannuation, the jewel in the crown of New Zealand's social welfare benefits.
https://eveningreport.nz/2022/02/10/keith-rankin-analysis-unemployment-…
Gaynor wrote as a fund manager. What he said may be true. But state-subsidised savings schemes like KiwiSaver are fundamentally unfair: they are great for those who have the surplus cash to save (and get an undeserved state subsidy); they leave behind the poor who must eat every dollar they earn.
The triumph of NZ Superannuation is its universality: (nearly) everyone gets it at 65. Its failing is that the surcharge on other income was abolished in 1998, so that it goes to those who don't need it as well as to those who do.
I think Trotter is missing the big difference here - this is the first MMP result where an extremist party (ACT) has been allowed its extremist policies. Had ACT only got one or two seats the outcome would have been a lot different, National would have been a lot more centre.
Many would argue the same of the greens: a wealth tax and clean air just seems like good sense in a crazy world. But I would call them extreme too.
Removing racial division or creating it? I guess we will find out.
If you take a proper look at ACTs policies they are actually the most extreme of all the major parties by a long way. You can't get a 17.5% tax rate without some massive changes to society.
The biggest difference now is the obession with house prices. If houses prices were still going up , and interest rates were lower , I don't think the govt would have been punished so hard.
And of course the Greens and TPM wern't winning seats . The left block lost by less than 10 %, say 5 % if you count 1/2 of the nz first supporters as left leaning) , only Labour itself got a trouncing.
I was going to say the same thing, the left didn't actually lose by that much. If you ignore NZF and the minor parties:
Labour / Greens / Maori / TOP: 43.7%
ACT / National: 46.6%
A lot of that difference would be the poor performance of the Labour party (their supporters not voting) rather than a radical shift to the right.
A proper comparison should really just be labour/greens vs ACT/National.
Maori party is a pretty unique beast and voting demographics don't really fit with typical left/right perspectives.
TOP is a centrist party and a minor party.
So more like 38.51% to 46.7%. Still only a difference of about 8% to the right which isn't much really.
New Zealand's misfortune is the perception that a land tax is left-wing.
https://taxjustice.net/2016/02/25/which-countries-have-a-land-value-tax/
Why would you ignore NZ First? Just to make your argument convenient? As soon as Winston ruled out working with Labour, NZ First became a party of the right, and as such, people voted for them. And their votes count just as much as those who voted National or ACT.
It would not surprise me if Peters/Luxon ask Albanese to rescind the favourable citizenship pathway introduced this year.
They are both totally devoid of idea's, their mandate is purely to unwind Labour's policy and that's it. Even as a landlord who voted in self-interest, I'm not sure the blood money will be enough.
The Australian Govt won't do that. They are going even bigger on immigration than NZ is - and they much prefer importing skilled workers from NZ than places like India. Every Govt agency and State in Australia has been recruiting in NZ recently - for doctors, nurses, police officers, teachers, prison officers, early childhood workers, and all the trades. So long as they still keep out the welfare bludgers they will continue to offer a pathway to citizenship - although I would not be surprised if they tighten it up a little bit, like applying minimum income levels or health status.
As well intended as most people are, the whole Labour/left 'launched a policy effort dedicated to “closing the gaps” between Māori and Pakeha' has been shown to actually increase the gap, and at the same time worsen everything for everyone.
Thomas Sowell covers this extensively in his many well-researched books, which also went from Martin Luther King, 'One day I want people to be judged on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin,' to somehow immediately after his death defined that as implementing policy that did the very opposite in that they enacted raced based policy that somehow was to add to the content of their character.
And since they did that, every statistic has gotten worse for all groups, but in particular, for the group it was supposed to help the most, by many multiples, just as it did in NZ and is still doing.
This video with Thomas Sowell sums it up, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX9fEz59aFs and as a bonus has him being questioned at one point by Joe Biden, when JB could string a sentence together.
National are not Maori's enemy, their well-meaning friends are.
There is no more damning statistic of the Labour Govt than the 51% increase in the number of Maori people on the unemployment benefit over the last 6 years. Maori are most definitely not better off, and handing out ever greater welfare benefits has achieved nothing than increasing the number of Maori going on the benefit.
You can repeat the same statistic for the Single Parents Benefit, paying single mothers to keep having more children has simply resulted in more children living in poverty as 25 year olds with 6 kids find themselves unhouseable (also due to Labour's tenancy laws) so stuck living in emergency motels while their social housing ghetto is being built for them.
Yes, the evidence of their policy failure is so obvious to see, but see how they interpret it.
In their minds it's not working because not what they are doing is wrong, but just that they aren't doing enough of it, faster.
All they need is total control and more of your money to make it work - as said every past failed control and command economy.
Tell me PDK, what is even the point of reply making this type of statement?
It sounds like you're on your third bottle of elderberry wine.
If every past economy, including Maori, overran its resource base, then it's pretty much baked into evolution.
Under your scenario, unless we go back to the stone age, it's not a matter of if, just when.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.