This is the third and final part of a three part series about the New Zealand experience with neoliberalism. I examine the Jacinda Ardern years, and look at where to with a new Government – my hopes, my fears.
The improbable victory of Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party in 2017 can be distilled down to a few things not necessarily appreciated in New Zealand politics. A combination of historical factors at play and some stunning behaviour by the then Leader of the National Party Bill English, were at work. Briefly:
- National were the largest party in Parliament post 2017 election, but not big enough to form a government with their ally A.C.T.
- A four term Government in peacetime with the exception of the Holyoake Government has never happened
- Jacinda Ardern’s improbable Government was helped immeasurably by Bill English rejecting New Zealand First, who were the king makers and said they would give the largest party in Parliament first go at forming a coalition
To some extent Jacinda Ardern may have thought after going from Deputy Leader of the Opposition to Prime Minister in the space of a year, that she needed to play her cards cautiously. It is also possible, despite her clear emphasis on being more friendly towards vulnerable and disconnected parts of society, that not everyone in Labour shared that philosophy. Some of her Ministerial picks after a year were clearly unfit for their jobs, having not made – and some cases never making – any tangible announcements about policy in their respective capacities. With this backdrop, we now look at the Ardern years from a neoliberal standpoint.
Ms Ardern promised much. 100,000 new houses would be built. The minimum wage would increase to near living wage levels. Reform of environmental legislation, health and other sectors would happen. A Forestry Service would be established and a Minister for Regional Development would oversee work on economic boosts for the regions. All well and good. It was announced that a review of New Zealand’s taxation structures would be undertaken.
The usual business complaints about an increase in bureaucracy came, as did ones about tax increases and a new one: wokeness infiltrating Government and morally bankrupting the country.
From a workers standpoint I did quite well out of the Government in the first term. Propelled by minimum wage rises, my wage had an appreciable increase that funded my return to postgraduate study and an overseas trip. It also helped me start to put money away for future needs, none of which was I was really able to do under the previous National Government.
But there were failings as many friends, some of whom have Aspergers or other long term medical conditions, noted. Work and Income, and the larger Ministry of Social Development was never overhauled despite the Minister for Social Development having six years to enact changes. Despite a much improved understanding of the impact on Police resources, we failed to vote for the legalisation of cannabis in 2020, which would have freed up millions of dollars of resourcing and countless hours of Police time. Despite the need to reform how we service infrastructure, the 3 Waters reforms were so badly managed that they became a liability.
But the biggest failing was to not introduce a Capital Gains Tax/Land Value Tax/Luxury Goods or Wealth Tax. This is despite it being strongly recommended by the Commission led by former Treasurer Sir Michael Cullen. This is despite several parties allied or potentially friendly to Labour announcing their own significant policies on tax reform. This may have contributed to the significant loss of even traditionally Labour friendly electorates in the 2023 election.
What did all this mean for neoliberalism? In short a range of piecemeal approaches were made instead of a co-ordinated attack on an ill that has afflicted New Zealand since 1984. If they had all succeeded, it would have been a victory of sorts, though not a complete one, in that many of the smaller venomous barbs would have been tackled. People would have seen that there is an alternative to neoliberal economics.
It needs to be said that there is four parts to the neoliberal strategy;
- A Government entity is not performing as well as it should, or viewed as being something that is a threat to Government policy
- The entity is underfunded
- The entity’s performance worsens because of the underfunding
- The entity is scrapped or made powerless, by the delegation of its functions to private structures
I mention this now because as the Sixth National-led Government gets underway in New Zealand, it is becoming very obvious that they view parts of the Government like the Public Service as some kind of malfunctioning or underperforming entity. Watch this space for their demise or disempowerment.
National and A.C.T. are proponents of neoliberal theory because it suits their donor base of businesses, landlords and special interests very nicely. They have done extraordinarily well out of it, so no one should be surprised at them wanting normal neoliberal service to resume. The problem is that the haves and the have nots has become so huge that there is now a real possibility that large tracts of the latter simply give up bothering to work, give up trying to make a contribution to an economy that clearly rigged against them. Their argument is a simple one: why contribute to something that doesn’t care for you in return?
There is now a real risk not just in New Zealand, but in other western countries too of at least partial societal collapse because the worker base that has made the profits of a very select few possible, simply cannot bear the burden for much longer.
In effect, neoliberalism has become its own worst enemy.
Leftist Kiwi Writes 