The Significance of the 2005 New Zealand Election

The Liberal left, and the neoconservative Right, have been quick to dismiss the recently elected Labour coalition as 'unworkable'. Whether or not this government is likely to hold together remains to be seen. However, the wider significance of the election result seems to have been missed by the nation's chattering classes. The election of the current Government indicates that an overdue shift is occuring towards pragmatic government with a decline in ideologically driven neo-liberalism and centre-left social reform.

Since the mid 1980s the nation's elites have tried to impose an unpopular 'libertarian' agenda on the populace in which economic policy has been shifted to the right while social policy has been pushed to the left. Today, this is the opposite of what the majority of the population actually wants. Parties that have tried to oppose the excesses of the libertarian agenda, such as NewZealand First, have been automatically dismissed as reactionary or populist.

The treatment of immigration is a classic example of the domination of the libertarian, or 'yuppie' agenda in new Zealand politics. Studies in Australia indicate that most people there are opposed to large-scale immigration and popular opinion in New Zealand is likely to be similar. However, apart from New Zealand First, no party has dared talk of reducing immigration. If fact, no other party even has an immigration policy. This has left Labour and National free to use immigration whenever they want to, to import voters or paper over structural problems with the economy. The Governments of Canada and Australia have also been using immigration in the same way.

Winston Peters may have a charasmatic populist style as an opposition politician but he is known to be a pragmatic realist when in government. Hence, it is no suprise that he has toned down his rhetoric concerning Asian immigration. Nor is this hypocritical , since New Zealand First only advocates limited immigration- it does not rule out increased trade with Asia or more visas for Asian students. New Zealand's Peters bashing, pro-immigration advocates seem to believe that slowing Asian immigration will harm relations with Asian countries. However, this is only an assumption with little evidence to support it. Japan has a very restrictive immigration policy but it doesn't seem to be heavily criticised for its immigration policies by neighbouring countries.

The Green Party sabotaged any chance of forming a coalition with Labour through some ill-conceived policy proposals leading up to the election. Many of the Green's policy ideas seem to directly contradict the policies of most environmentally conscious countries. You don't see Germany, for example, increasing diesel tax since its government realises that diesel cars are more fuel-efficient than petrol ones. Similarly, Finland doesn't appear to be slashing its highway budget or closing down smelters as the Greeens would have New Zealand do.

The Act Party survived the election but only by resorting to sensationalism, excessive character attacks on individual politicians and by tediously highlighting occasional instances of procedural incompetence. Its core neo-liberal economic policies though, are now decidely out of fashion.