As most of us should know, the political landscape is changing rapidly, and many voters are struggling to keep up with what is happening to democracy. One feature is that politics around the world is drifting away from what we have come to know as the political centre.
New Zealand politics and, indeed, New Zealand governments, have typically hovered around the centrist line. One side of that centre has sometimes seen a social focus while the other side delivered an economic focus. But beyond those modest differences, a centralised logic has seen us pave our way.
As a result, the majority of our big policies around health, education, trade or justice, to name a few, have gone largely unchanged. Sure, there may have been a 10% swing in ideology from time to time over the years, but by and large our big policy settings have remained consistent.
But the times are changing. Social media has empowered those people with extremist views to reach a wider audience. And as the extremists, whether left or right of the political centre, have taken the stage, another group, nowhere near as fanatical as the far right or far left, but potentially greater in numbers, have diverged away from the political centre. This “disengaged middle” has become more diverse in their views as the political centre shrinks.
The risk of such a dynamic suggests that we would see more policy swings as governments change. Our MMP political system exaggerates the impact as the major parties are required to endear themselves to potential coalition partners on the extremes.
So while the Act Party may pull National to the right and the Green Party drag Labour to the left, the centre becomes increasingly abandoned. The problem with that is that it is in the centre, away from the emotion, where the art of compromise is practised and where the best solutions ultimately lie.
The problem for New Zealand is that we are a small and relatively fragile country. Right now, we are more economically fragile than we have been for some time. Simply put, we cannot afford to have core policy settings on matters as important as infrastructure, education, the economy and so on, swing back and forth as governments change.
In short, we need to find a road back to the centre.
And so, Christopher Luxon’s letter was the right idea. There was only one problem. He didn’t ask for enough.
On reflection, there is ample need for New Zealanders to have a broad series of agreements and understandings that are not up for negotiation. Here are seven areas where we should seek to lock in broad-based bipartisan or multi-party agreements to secure our long-term future.
A drilling platform at the Pohokura Gas Field project back in 2005. Photo / SNPA Rob Tucker
To take the Prime Minister’s lead, we should start with an ongoing commitment to Oil & Gas exploration. The previous ban was a “captain’s call” by a previous Prime Minister, which was unsupported by research or consultation. It impacted an industry, the international investment community and one of our cities. The current government is working hard to turn that around. But if they were to be unseated, and their replacements reinstated the ban, any future recovery would be impossible. The PM was right to attempt to avoid such a catastrophe. His Labour counterpart missed an opportunity.
Next up is Education. We’re now in the middle of an extensive overhaul of education, particularly at primary and college levels. Things that haven’t worked are being corrected, idealist agendas are being confronted and old-fashioned skills are being championed and reinstated. The young people in our education system have been seriously let down by the abandonment of basic skills and the inadequacy of NCEA over the past 20 years. This new approach should be left to settle for a generation in order for Education to become a cornerstone of our success once more. An agreement to ‘leave the new system alone’ would be welcome.
The Retirement Age is a topic that plenty of political leaders have spoken about over many years. Changing the age is something that many of us see as necessary, but doing so is regarded as political suicide and none of our politicians have been brave enough to lead the change for over 40 years. Our very own Treasury department recently announced that maintaining the current retirement age of 65 without changes would see the costs of NZ Superannuation rise from about 5.1% of GDP now to around 8% by 2065. A bipartisan agreement to raise the age by two years every decade for the next 40 years would make a major impact on our long-term economic viability.
Another area where we need consistency is in everything around our Criminal Justice system. There’s plenty of rhetoric and labelling around this topic. Some parties are regarded as “soft on crime”. Others say we’re “losing the battle on gangs and drugs”. The most important message we could deliver to criminals is one of consistency. Every person in the criminal justice system, from our police to our judges, would benefit from consistency of expectation and interpretation. And if we want crime to decrease, it even helps the bad guys if they know what the rules are. Here’s an example. Most of us know what will happen if you’re caught delivering drugs into countries like Bali or Saudi Arabia. We might not agree with the severity of such policies, but the consistency of application will enhance understanding and decrease crime.
For reasons that should be obvious to us all, we also need long-term bipartisan agreements on Infrastructure. The last government cancelled plans for the Mill Road project and the highway from Warkworth north and established new plans for a rail link to the airport. Housing is a political football. Our energy strategy feels directionless. But this is one-hundred-year planning stuff! You can’t spend three years doing one thing and six years doing something else. In the long term, we know that we need more houses, a better highway north and better public transport around Auckland. A second Auckland harbour crossing and improved transport links around the Tauranga – Hamilton – Auckland triangle are essential. Our ports and airports all need long-term planning horizons that cannot be interfered with by comparatively temporary governments. These things need to be locked down and untouchable.
International unrest and geopolitical tensions are forcing all governments to review and restate their commitment to their own defence capabilities (Image: NZ Defence Force)
The environment around Defence has changed dramatically in the short time the current Government has been in the Beehive. International unrest and geopolitical tensions are forcing all governments to review and restate their commitment to their own defence capabilities as well as their obligations to international alliances. Defence is expensive. And we’re traditionally good at it. Despite our current financial woes, we don’t have any choice. We need to agree a plan and stick to it. Again, it’s long-term stuff and we need to keep it out of the hands of future politicians for 20 years.
Last but not least, we need bipartisan and ideally multi-party agreement on our Borrowing Limits. As we learned with the last government, there is currently nothing to stop our Government borrowing money, apparently with no upper limits. As a result, we are crippled by debt to the extent that it threatens government effectiveness and the way of life of every New Zealander. Our current government debt sits at almost 45% of GDP. As Finance Minister in 2015, Bill English targeted 28%. Like most things, we need a goal before we can build a sustainable plan. We need to enforce a debt cap that gradually winds back to something that’s viable. Perhaps a maximum of 48% and dropping to 25% over the next 25 years. That way, we should only be able to grow debt if we grow the economy.
These are just ideas. Shots in the darkness, if you like. But the reality is that we need all hands on deck if we are going to get the country out of this mess. It’s not good enough that almost half of our parliamentarians – including those responsible for much of the damage – sit on the sidelines, make no contribution to solutions, and instead criticise the efforts of those trying to sort it out. I know that’s how democracy works, but perhaps, given the times, it is not unreasonable to expect everyone to contribute rather than criticise.
Chris Hipkins’ rejection of the Prime Minister’s request for a bipartisan approach was short-sighted. If his Labour Party want a pathway back to power, it would seem unlikely given the behaviour of their logical coalition partners.
But being part of the solution, even in opposition, may enable a move back to the centre, and allow them to rebuild their reputation, and us to rebuild our country, one step at a time.
Bruce Cotterill is a professional director, speaker and adviser to business leaders. He is the author of the book, The Best Leaders Don’t Shout, and host of the podcast, Leaders Getting Coffee. www.brucecotterill.com