Colin James on the legislative agenda for the Business Herald for 31 December 2004 Second of two
Workplace productivity is the key phrase on one side, tax cuts and deregulation on the other. The 2005 election battle lines on policy for business are drawn.
They represent different beliefs about the path to prosperity. They promise different operating environments for business.
Colin James on the political year ahead for the Business Herald 30 December 2004 First of two
All election years are crunch years because they decide the next three years’ policy direction. But this year’s election may decide a bigger question: whether if re-elected, Labour can then embed its policy parameters so that for some time ahead future governments have less room for manoeuvre.
How do you get the white wine cool in a Wellington summer? Put it outside for half an hour. So much for global warming.
And what is Pete Hodgson doing about this? Sure, he lost energy and science in the reshuffle. But Helen Clark left him in charge of the climate.
And, frankly, he hasn’t delivered. He and Helen solemnly promised us global warming in 1999 and again in 2002 and you can bet they will promise it again in next year’s election. Just a week back, Pete was in Argentina at a conference of nations dedicated to global warming.
The political silly season arrived prematurely last week: a newsreader’s salary was deemed a national emergency. We are a small country. We fluster about small things.
When I say “we”, I include the Prime Minister. The guardian of our national interest at home and abroad stooped to conquer a flea.
This could have been Don Brash’s year. Ten months ago the potential was there. But the real Don Brash took time out.
The Don Brash I knew for two decades exuded integrity and depth, principle and authority. He was a classical liberal — valuing personal liberty on moral and social matters (voting for prostitution reform and the Civil Union Bill’s first reading) and backing the free-market economy.
Can socialandeconomic be one word? The government thinks so. Not literally, of course, but in its policy approach.
It is, for example, considering mandatory independent reporting of social indicators, which would pick up adverse social impacts of economic policies and potentially constrain future governments.
Michael Cullen has come over very self-congratulatory about the economy. “Our achievements in government so far are indisputable,” he told a public meeting last week.
He sketched a saga of “rough waters” through which, by having “worked hard”, “my government” had guided this country to “one of the most successful economies in the western world” and “the top half of the developed world on so many indices it is hard to keep up”.
The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is done. Next week comes the Civil Union Bill. Another test for this government and this society.
The foreshore bill’s final stage was no monument to democracy, ridden through without giving outsiders a chance to get to grips its myriad last-minute changes.
It will need amending. But the deed is done. New Zealand First, showing tactical skill and even a modicum of statesmanship, got its day in the sun and the cabinet disposed of its most difficult and threatening conundrum so far.
“Balance” is a useful political word. It says a policy is evenhanded, moderate and reaches across a fair swathe of the electorate.
The National party used to have a mortgage on “balance”. Not any more.
National also used to have a mortgage on its claim to be “national” in reach, appeal and membership — acting on behalf of the whole nation. Labour, dominated by unions’ card votes, was sectional, the tool of the unions, National said.
Who is that who has just popped up on the government’s right? Jim Anderton, promoting a 30 per cent company tax rate. Whatever next?
Two years ago once-protectionist Anderton embraced freer trade. He had observed the burgeoning of high-valued-added niche-market textile and clothing exporters who found tariffs, if anything, a constraint.