The Green Party Must End the Era of Neoliberalism and Campaign for an Interventionist State

Green Party
1

By Elliot Crossan

 

The following is a speech I gave at the Green Party Summer Policy Conference 2018.  Sources and recommended readings are at the bottom.

Kia ora koutou, and thank you to the policy committee for allowing me this chance to speak.  I am going to argue today that the ability of democratically elected governments to actively intervene in the economy in the interests of people and the planet is perhaps the single most important factor which will determine our ability to honour the Green Party’s founding principles.

I want to start by placing this discussion within the historical context.  Between the 1930s and the 1980s, Aotearoa had an economic system which provided a much higher level of equality and dignity to working class people than does what exists today.  The economic pillars of this social democratic consensus were:

  • well funded public services and a robust welfare system paid for by high taxes on the rich;
  • and an interventionist state, with policy targeting full employment as a priority, and with significant sectors of the economy under public ownership or heavy regulation.

This social democratic consensus had its flaws, and existed in a time before the significant advancement of women’s rights, LGBTQIA rights and Māori rights, but it was nonetheless a system which facilitated a far more just distribution of resources than we see in 2018.

Roger Douglas, New Zealand’s Finance Minister in the Fourth Labour Government from 1984-1988, transformed the economy of this country from a welfare state to a free market model at alarming speed, and with no democratic mandate to do so.  Image credit: Te Ara

This system was deliberately and successfully dismantled from 1984 to 1993 by right-wing free market ideologues.  I’m sure many of you know what Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson did, but to briefly reiterate, their agenda included:

  • large cuts to public services and welfare along with the introduction of GST, allowing for huge tax cuts for the rich;
  • and an end to the policy of full employment, along with fire sale privatisation and rampant deregulation of industry, commerce and trade, reducing the size and role of government and leading to the dominance of finance, insurance and real estate in the economy, as well as, crucially, to massive environmental destruction, such as the rapid expansion of dairy farming.

We are all acutely familiar with the results of the political project which we know by many names: Rogernomics, trickle-down economics, or most accurately, neoliberalism.  We know the big picture effects: a dramatic rise in poverty and inequality, with low wages, the worst housing crisis in the OECD, high personal debt, and environmental destruction all occurring alongside the accumulation of fabulous wealth by the owners of corporations, land, and financial institutions.  We know it on a more personal level, in our own lives and in the lives of people we care about.  This was what Metiria’s story was about—cuts to welfare directly caused the poverty she and her daughter suffered in the 90s.  This shocking inequality crisis is a direct result of the neoliberal economic system we have been living under since 1984, which the Fourth Labour Government and the Fourth National Government never had a mandate to implement—it is a system which should have immediately been overturned.

Metiria Turei confessed to the fact that she committed benefit fraud in the 1990s in order to feed her daughter.  She was forced to do so because of the welfare cuts which were a vital piece of the neoliberal project.  Image credit: Newshub

But the neoliberal project did not end after National were voted out of power in 1999 and Helen Clark entered the Beehive.  Jane Kelsey outlines in her 2002 essay The Third Way: A Road To Nowhere that what followed the 1999 change of government was a more deeply embedded form of neoliberalism.  Rather than being toppled as voters wanted, the rule of the free market became the new common sense—whether people liked it or not.  Clark’s government was an administration which knocked off the very sharpest edges of neoliberalism, but was nonetheless utterly committed to the economic fundamentals put in place by the free market radicals.  It was an exercise in careful management, not meaningful reform.  Most privatisations were not reversed, net government spending was not increased, full employment was not reintroduced, and both labour law reform and tax increases on the rich were extremely limited.  As a result, the bottom 10% of New Zealanders got poorer under Clark, while house prices doubled, and the rich continued to get richer.  Emissions continued to rise and fresh water quality continued to fall.

When National replaced Labour in 2008, they continued not the legacy of Roger and Ruth, but the legacy of the Clark Government: careful management of the system, albeit with minor alterations in favour of capital rather than labour.  The overall structure of neoliberalism continued unperturbed.

The Budget Responsibility Rules, the fiscal policy we along with Labour contested the 2017 election on, were a commitment to the same exercise in management rather than genuine reform which the Clark government embodied.  BRR committed the Greens and Labour to keeping core crown spending to an average of 30% of GDP over a three year cycle, roughly 1% of GDP more than National intended to spend, while running surpluses, and reducing debt to 20% of GDP.  This is while international interest rates are the lowest they have been in decades and while New Zealand has a public debt level so low that it is the envy of the developed world—and far more importantly, it is while so many of our people are struggling to make ends meet, and while our environment is facing utter devastation from climate change and other forms of pollution.

There is no economic rationale for BRR whatsoever—on the contrary, this was a political choice.  Andrew Little declared at the launch of the policy that Labour and the Greens if elected would be “a smart government, not necessarily a big government.”  This was not sound economics—it was neoliberal ideology.  It was stating that Labour and, to our shame, the Greens were campaigning to blunt the blade of neoliberalism, but not to fight back against it whatsoever—BRR could not have been a more blatant refusal to champion a new economic order in the interests of the majority of New Zealanders.  BRR was political cowardice and an utter neglect of the kaupapa the Green Party exists to fight for.

The lack of commitment in our election priorities to reversing privatisation was worrying.  Privatisation is one of the main reasons why our economy is a dictatorship of profit and greed, while inequality and environmental destruction are produced as toxic byproducts of wealth accumulation.  Any progressive party which refuses to commit to renationalisation is, implicitly if not necessarily rhetorically, agreeing with the neoliberal dogma that market is best.  All this dogma does is entrench an economic system rigged in the interests of profiteers at the expense of everybody else.

Privatisation was one of the main forces which drove the dramatic rise in inequality in the 1980s.  Image credit: Closer Together

So what is an alternative policy, one which breaks with the era of small government and resultant obscene inequality and environmental destruction?  The Green Party needs to commit to rebuilding a state which intervenes directly into the economy to redistribute wealth—not just to end poverty, but to dramatically improve the living standards of the working class as a whole; a state which invests in urgently resolving the colossal environmental crises we face, such as climate change and the impending extinction of much of Aotearoa’s biodiversity.  This means a policy of fiscal expansion; rather than arbitrarily capping our ability to spend public money, as BRR did, we must declare that we start from the principle of wanting to ensure higher living standards and a healthier environment for the majority of the population, that we will spend as much money as we require to do so, and that we will tax the rich to pay for it.  Austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity.

We must end the era of privatisation and commit to reintroducing public ownership.  Universal basic services is a model which has been proposed by inequality experts in the UK, which would entail the public ownership of housing, healthcare, education, transport, energy, water and communications, all of which would be provided free at the point of use, at a high standard, to everybody.  Rather than redistributing money after market forces have taken place, as the welfare system currently does and as a proposal such as universal basic income would, universal basic services means rejecting the dogma that market is best and reducing the cost of living for everybody by ending private control and the profit motive in areas of the economy most crucial to society.  Universal basic services would ensure a new era of equality and stability for Aotearoa.

A UK Labour Party poster from 1945 called for “public ownership, not private monopoly!”  NZ Labour has abandoned its commitment to nationalisation and is a neoliberal party to the core—the Green Party must now advocate for public ownership instead.

Direct public ownership in energy, transport, housing and water means government would be able to intervene to create better environmental outcomes, far more so than does the system based on short-term private profit taking precedence over the people, the planet, and the future.  As British economist Paul Mason argues in his 2015 book Postcapitalism: A Guide To Our Future: “[t]he real absurdists are not the climate-change deniers, but the politicians and economists who believe that the existing market mechanisms can stop climate change, that the market must set the limits of climate action and that the market can be structured to deliver the biggest re-engineering project humanity has ever tried.”  Mason is absolutely correct; a Green future must be forcefully and urgently constructed by an interventionist state.

Fiscal expansion and public ownership are absolutely key to realising our Charter principles of Social Responsibility and Ecological Wisdom, and also, I would argue, to creating power structures based on Appropriate Decision-making.  It is a complicated subject however, as many in the Green Party rightly have an uneasy relationship with the idea of a centralised and top-heavy state.  My view is essentially that under capitalism, democratically accountable governments are far preferable to corporate control for protecting people from the greed of the wealthy, and for empowering people and giving them agency in their lives.  In her maiden speech in parliament, Metiria quoted a conversation between Noam Chomsky and a group of Brazilian activists which perfectly sums up my view on this complex relationship between anti-authoritarianism and the state: “We know we’re in a cage.  We know we’re trapped.  We’re going to expand the floor, meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow.  And we intend to destroy the cage.  But not by attacking the cage when we’re vulnerable, so they’ll murder us.  You have to protect the cage when it’s under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power.  And you have to expand the floor of the cage.  These are all preliminaries to dismantling it.”

I also propose we examine closely two reports to better honour Appropriate Decision-making in this policy.  One is the recently released report to the UK Labour Party on Alternative Models of Ownership, which goes into detail on how to ensure that the state is more participatory and democratically accountable than ever in its processes even while fiscal expansion and public ownership are taking place, with workers in and users of public services having a say in how they are run rather than succumbing to big state bureaucracy.  The other of course is the Matike Mai Report, which is essential for understanding how we might design a state which functions according to Te Tiriti and does not violate the tino rangatiratanga of Tangata Whenua in its actions.

The questions before us come down to the very core of debates within the Green Party at the moment: are we going to be a party which exists to manage the status quo, or are we to be the political force which calls time on inequality, environmental catastrophe, and unaccountable private power, and argues for government intervention in the interests of the many, not the few?  I think I know which of these options the inspired activists who founded the Values Party 46 years ago had in mind.  I know which option resonates with myself and my peers as we yearn for a future in which ourselves and the generations who come after us can once again live with dignity, safe in the knowledge that across society nobody must suffer for the sake of wealth accumulation.  Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

 

Editor’s note: I decided to publish this speech I gave to the Green Party Summer Policy Conference as a precursor to a series I am writing on whether or not the Greens can be a vehicle for radical politics.  I will finish the essay series I started this blog with, part one and two of which you can read here and here, but I wanted to make an intervention on the state of the Green Party while the co-leadership contest between Marama Davidson and Julie Anne Genter is taking place and the debate about the future of the party is in full swing.  Thank you for reading and I am sorry that I have taken so long to continue my other essay series!

 

Recommended Reading

  • Barrlott, C., Brown, M., Cumbers, A., Hope, C., Huckfield, L., Jump, R. C., McInroy, N., Shaw, L., & Anonymous. (2018).  Alternative Models of Ownership (Rep.).  London, UK.: Labour Party.
  • Chomsky, N. (1997, April).  Expanding the Floor of the Cage [Interview by D. Barsamian].  Z Magazine.
  • Harvey, D. (2005).  A Brief History of Neoliberalism.  New York, USA.: Oxford University Press.
  • Jackson, M., & Mutu, M. (Eds.). (2016).  He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mo Aotearoa: The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa (Rep.).  Matike Mai Aotearoa – The Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation.
  • Kelsey, J. (2002).  At the Crossroads: Three Essays.  Wellington, N.Z.: Bridget Williams Books.
  • Klein, N. (2017).  No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump’s Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need.  London, UK.: Allen Lane.
  • Malva, S. (2017, December).  Land, Housing and Capitalism: The Social Consequences of Free Markets in Aotearoa New Zealand.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from http://www.academia.edu/35718593/Land_Housing_and_Capitalism_The_Social_Consequences_of_Free_Markets_in_Aotearoa_New_Zealand
  • Mason, P. (2015).  Postcapitalism: A Guide to our Future.  London, UK.: Allen Lane.
  • Mazzucato, M. (2011).  The Entrepreneurial State.  London, UK.: Demos.
  • Percy, A., Portes, J., & Reed, H. (2017).  Social prosperity for the future: A proposal for Universal Basic Services (Rep.).  London, UK.: Institute for Global Prosperity.
  • Rashbrooke, M. (2017, September 22).  A Tenuous Grasp on Inequality.  Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2017/339982/a-tenuous-grasp-on-inequality

 

Sources

Barrlott, C., Brown, M., Cumbers, A., Hope, C., Huckfield, L., Jump, R. C., McInroy, N., Shaw, L., & Anonymous. (2018).  Alternative Models of Ownership (Rep.).  London, UK.: Labour Party.

Chomsky, N. (1997, April).  Expanding the Floor of the Cage [Interview by D. Barsamian].  Z Magazine.

Duncanson, M., McGee, M., Morris, S., Oben, G., Simpson, J., & Wicken, A. (2017).  Child Poverty Monitor Technical Report (Rep.).  Dunedin, NZ.: New Zealand Child and Youth Epidemiology Service, University of Otago.

Jackson, M., & Mutu, M. (Eds.). (2016).  He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mo Aotearoa: The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa (Rep.).  Matike Mai Aotearoa – The Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation.

Kelsey, J. (1995).  The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjustment?  Auckland, N.Z.: Bridget Williams Books.

Kelsey, J. (2002).  At the Crossroads: Three Essays.  Wellington, N.Z.: Bridget Williams Books.

Kelsey, J. (2015).  The FIRE Economy.  Wellington, NZ.: Bridget Williams Books.

Little, A., MP, & Shaw, J., MP. (2017, March 24).  Budget Responsibility Rules.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/smarter-economy/budget-responsibility-rules

Malva, S. (2017, December).  Land, Housing and Capitalism: The Social Consequences of Free Markets in Aotearoa New Zealand.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from http://www.academia.edu/35718593/Land_Housing_and_Capitalism_The_Social_Consequences_of_Free_Markets_in_Aotearoa_New_Zealand

Mason, P. (2015).  Postcapitalism: A Guide to our Future.  London, UK.: Allen Lane.

McCammon, B. (2016, June 28).  10% richest Kiwis own 60% of NZs wealth.  Retrieved September 30, 2017, from http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/307458/10-percent-richest-kiwis-own-60-percent-of-nzs-wealth

Minto, J. (2008, May 05).  Labour’s policies continue to keep NZ children in poverty.  Retrieved September 30, 2017, from https://johnminto.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/labours-policies-continue-to-keep-nz-children-in-poverty/

Pasquali, V. (2015, October 31).  Percentage of Public Debt in GDP Around the World.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economicdata/public-debt-percentage-gdp?page=2

Percy, A., Portes, J., & Reed, H. (2017).  Social prosperity for the future: A proposal for Universal Basic Services (Rep.).  London, UK.: Institute for Global Prosperity.

Rosenberg, B. (2017, August 28).  Economist Bill Rosenberg details how low and middle-income wages have been hollowed out as higher earners experienced greater growth while those below them had to work more hours each week.  Retrieved January 01, 2018, from https://www.interest.co.nz/news/89552/economist-bill-rosenberg-details-how-low-and-middle-income-wages-have-been-hollowed-out

Rashbrooke, M. (2017, September 22).  A Tenuous Grasp on Inequality.  Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2017/339982/a-tenuous-grasp-on-inequality

Turei, M., MP. (2002, September 03).  Maiden Speech of Metiria Turei.  Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://home.greens.org.nz/speeches/maiden-speech-metiria-turei

Turei, M. (2017, July 15).  Mending the Safety Net – Metiria Turei’s speech to the Green Party 2017 AGM.  Retrieved February 28, 2018, from https://www.greens.org.nz/news/speech/mending-safety-net-%E2%80%93-metiria-turei%E2%80%99s-speech-green-party-2017-agm

Wright, T. (2017, February 27).  Special report: how polluted are New Zealand’s rivers?  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/02/special-report-how-polluted-are-new-zealand-s-rivers.html

Author unknown. (2017, January 11).  Global Housing Watch.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from http://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/index.htm

Author unknown. (2017, March 09).  Global house prices.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/03/daily-chart-6?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2F

Author unknown. (2018).  Interest rates – Long-term interest rates – OECD Data.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from https://data.oecd.org/interest/long-term-interest-rates.htm

Author unknown. (n.d.).  Greenhouse gas emissions.  Retrieved March 02, 2018, from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-progress-indicators/home/environmental/greenhouse-gas-emissions.aspx

Author unknown (n.d.).  New Zealand Households Debt To Income  1991-2018.  Retrieved January 01, 2018, from https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/households-debt-to-income

some feedback
1
seems little high brow
and
2
theres the dismantling of the 3 legs of the stool of legislation (all in name of freeing up our society the flow on rewriting what is human nature and anti collectivism of the 60s)
-automatic union membership
-blanket coverage, and
-no fault universal ACC,
the dismantling of industrial framework which led to almost no unemployment and relative richness of our society. that you seem to have not included – have you read alf kirk and rob cambells book and rogers douglas book theories and looked at the alternative economic strategy of the FOL the sell out of so much with the introduction of gstthe trigger point art which neoliberalism became dominant in labour party a longer and wider historical exploration especially of the poliics of 30s and 40s and the ICA act-the red feds etc
3
also think theres a need to say it simply-i.e. neo liberalism as a description that has become a term thats lost its ability to communicate to ordinary people the nature of the beast.

4
more warrants further discussion

5
also think it a useful tool to no. your para to assist the reader respond to your treastise/story analysis.

great speech .

1 Comment

Leave a Reply to russell Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Election 2017
3
We Cannot Escape the Tide of History—Nor Should we Want to: Analysing the Outcome of the NZ Election, Part 2 of 4

By Elliot Crossan   The world is currently experiencing its greatest moment of political upheaval since the 1980s.  The presidency of Donald Trump is normalising authoritarianism and white supremacy in the United States to an alarming extent.  Worse still, ideological fascists are on the rise across Europe.  This year, Marine …

Election 2017
55
What Happened? A Class Analysis of the NZ Election, Part 1 of 4

By Elliot Crossan   Once again, and for the fourth time in nine years, in the wake of New Zealand’s general election, the aftermath for the left is despondency and despair.  The National Party has again won a percentage of party votes that should be impossible under MMP; a racist …