From: hist1261@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: soc.culture.new-zealand
Subject: Re: Sir Robert Muldoon Dies
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:30:26 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug13.093733.304@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, paul@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (cantva) writes:
> From article <1992Aug12.161416.10051@waikato.ac.nz>, by hist1261@waikato.ac.nz:
>> In article <1992Aug12.075038.280@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, paul@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (cantva) writes:
>>> Perhaps Muldoons biggest crime was the 1975 National Superann policy -
>>> an election bribe of enormous proportions.
>> 
>> Does "election bride" = democracy?  I thought he put a policy to the people and 
>> he was elected on the strength of it.  It may have been foolhardy but who is
>> the bigger fool, the one who devises the policy or the one who votes for it?
>> 
>> There is nothing sinister in the so called "bribe" - it is merely democracy in
>> action.  Now saying one thing ("consensus government" or "the decent society")
>> and doing something else, that is reprehensible and deserving of such emotive
>> terms.
> 
> The public were certainly foolhardy to believe that such a generous scheme
> was sustainable.  But surely Muldoon, for all his supposed intelligence
> and financial wisdom would have know that this scheme was very expensive
> and at best only sustainable in the very short term (i.e. long enough
> to see him elected on the basis of the policy and then re-elected once or
> twice).

The sustainability of the scheme is only marginally related to demographics.
What has thrown the original calculations out is the high rate of unemployment.
Who could have predicted that?  Certainly not Treasury, who have NEVER got
an economic prediction correct.

If the predicted growth rates had come to pass the Superann. would easily have
been sustainable over the long term.  It certainly is sustainable at present,
and could have been perpetuated into the near future if the National Party
had the courage to keep their word.
> 
> Muldoon was a very skilful as a politician, and had a highly developed
> instinct for getting himself elected regardless of the cost to the country
> (Superann, Think Big, Springbok Tour, etc).

You mean he used the democratic process?  The "cost to the country" of not
having the Springbok Tour might have higher, if you value certain principles
(and these principles don't encompass apartheid by the way).
> 
> Most things are debatable :-).  Given the country's demographics though,
> the sceheme would have come under tremendous pressure when the baby boomers
> start reaching 60 in about 12 years time.

Then why not come clean on a change of policy openly and honestly before that
time and not all of a sudden declare a "crisis" by way of opting out of the
promises you were elected on?  There was no "emergency" with regard National
Super - this is a Richardson lie.

  Any scheme based on funding
> retirement income almost entirely out of current taxation is going to get
> into big trouble when a large population bulge reaches retirment age.

Yes, but only if a large percentage of that population is out of work.

> 
> The fact that since then both parties have suffered major 
> embarassment because of broken promises over this issue indicates
> just how unsustainable the sceheme was ("No ifs, no buts, no maybes :-)").

Not at all.  All it indicates is that the major parties are filled with liars.

> 
>> Personally I'd rather have 61 year old people out of work than 21 year olds.
> 
> So would I, but the difference between the dole and the pension makes the $
> cost considerable.

I take your point, but there is something desparately cynical about it.

> 
>>> The scheme .... gave people the
>>> unrealistically high expectations that they still have today.
>> 
>> What does this mean ? - that the poor should know their place?  These arguments
>> are almost word for word the same ones used against Seddon when he first
>> introduced the old age pension!  I don't think the expectation that politcal
>> parties keep their word is in any way "unrealistically high".  "Realism" is
>> an ideologically loaded term.
> 
> It means that the country is basically broke and that it is unrealistic
> for retired people with substantial income to expect to get the
> same pension as retired people who have very little.  

Your original point - which you in the main delete here - did not refer to
people with "substantial income" but rather to those with rather less.  Your
defense is something of an about face.

> 
>>> I wasn't glad to hear that Muldoon had died, but then again I wasn't
>>> particularly sad either.  Still, I can't help thinking that if he'd
>>> died 20 years ago we _may well_ be a lot better off today.
>> 
>> Your thoughts are your own affairs, sir.  Would anyone else have done any
>> better?  Do you think Rowling would have taken the hard decisions you advocate?    
>> I can just see him implementing an Employment Contracts Bill with Jim Knox's 
>> support.
> 
> Who knows what might have happened under Labour in 1975, or National
> without Muldoon.  I find it hard to believe they could have done any
> worse. Under Labour, for instance, we might still have the scheme they
> started and be reaping benefits of it (such as a large pool of
> investment money, and a much lower bill for retirement income).
> 
> I'm not a new right idealogue, and would be happy to see Muldoons
> superann scheme in place for all time if the country could afford it. 
> It's a great shame that we can't (now and for the forseeable future).

Again, what we can or cannot "afford" is, at least within the parameters of
this
debate, a completely political issue.  I don't believe this country can afford
the frigates, but we've got them.  The country can certainly afford to
continue with the Superann. scheme until the next election when the various
options should be put to the people.

> 
> To me, Muldoon's financial policies were at the very best ordinary, at
> worst totally incompetent.  Couple that with Muldoon's very abrasive
> nature, the way he stacked his cabinets with incompetents, and the
> cynical way in which he manipulated public opinion (which probably
> culminated in the Springbok tour) for political gain, and you have a
> leader the country would have been much better off without.

The 1984 Labour Government was the most highly educated in this country's
history.  It didn't give a stuff about "public opinion", started selling the
family silver (great economics, that), told the country that our legal system
wasn't for sale - and then proceded to sell it, and finally self destructed 
because it couldn't keep control over so many massive egos.  This was what
happened to the dream of "consensus" which was what was supposed to replace the
"abrasiveness" of Muldoon.  If you think that was an improvement you can't have
been in the country during the latter half of the last decade.
> 
> That isn't to say that we've had wonderful leadership since, but I would
> rate them all more highly (even Jim "Fat Lady" Bolger) than Muldoon.

I heard Palmer on the radio this morning prattling on about how we must reform
our electoral system.  It reminded me of reading his book "Unbridled Power" and
wondering why, when he was first Deputy to Lange, and then actually Prime
Minister, he didn't actually implement the reforms he had earlier so earnestly
written about.  That kind of hypocrisy has typified our politicans since Piggy
- Palmer couldn't even deliver on a referendum about reform, and Lange, in the
most shameful political act of lifetime, went on national television to tell
the
world that we would not bow to French pressure and then did just that a mere
three or so weeks later! (and they say Muldoon coddled the farmers!).

Although Muldoon was arrogant, pig headed and at times down right dictatorial
he
at least had a measure of public support.  How many New Zealanders outside
board rooms - and economics departments - actually respect and support the
Jenny and Ruth show?

Richard.
> 
> --
> ----- Paul Ashton ----
> Email: paul@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
> NZ Post:        Dept of Computer Science
>                 University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand