A moral obligation to lie?

On June 3 1998, as Governor of the Reserve Bank, Don Brash gave a speech in London: "New Zealand's economic reforms - model for change?".  In it he ponders whether the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s had worked, and speculates on whether politicians have a moral obligation to lie before elections about policies they think are right. 

The speech rather disturbingly puts into context all of the qualifiers Don Brash is using now as he tries to hide what he really thinks.

Money quote appears as follows:

"But, when I feel like criticising the reformers for not explaining their intentions in advance of making dramatic changes, I recall a conversation which I had with a group of elderly gentlemen in late 1984 shortly after the then-Labour Government introduced a tax surcharge on the taxpayer-funded retirement income scheme – which effectively means-tested that scheme, despite the Labour Party’s strong commitment not to means-test the scheme prior to the 1984 election. My friends were indignant at the Government’s deceit. I asked them whether they were confident that the original retirement scheme, without some form of means test, was economically sustainable in the long term. No, they thought it was probably not sustainable without some form of means test, and indeed its continuation without a means test would almost certainly, in their opinion, create major strains on the economy. I then asked whether they thought a political party could become Government if, before the election, they pledged to introduce a means test for the scheme. Not a chance, they agreed with alacrity.

"Then I asked them whether they were suggesting that the Labour Party had had a moral obligation to lie. They did not like that conclusion, and neither did I, but I am reminded of the conversation whenever it is suggested that Governments should not undertake reforms until a majority of the population support those reforms."

I wonder if this is how Dr. Brash still thinks about policy?

I wonder if he still believes that there might be a moral obligation to lie, in order to impose unpopular policies on New Zealand?

Labour has learned the lesson of the kind of despair and anger such an approach to politics creates. We learned it the hard way: by suffering a decade in opposition with many years of that spent trying to recover from the damage that mode of governing cased - to the country, to the economy, and to the party too.

Unfortunately I believe Brash might just be naive and idealistic enough to think this is a reasonable and proper way to govern. He has always been an ideologue, not a practical man - a Ruth Richardson figure rather than a Bolger-esque one.

Voters beware. The signposts are there.

Comments

[Idiot/Savant]

I think it is exactly how Don Brash thinks about policy. The neo-liberalism he espouses has traditionally been very suspicious of democracy, believing that we are simply too stupid to know what is best for us or too self-interested to accept "necessary" reforms. Which is why we had Roger Douglas's "Blitzkrieg", National's outright lying to the electorate in 1990, and the BRT's opposition to MMP... And Brash still clings to it - look at how often he talks about (his narrow conception of) "the best interests of the country", and the compromises to his previously liberal positions he has accepted in pursuit of getting elected. If he thinks that pandering to bigots and racists are acceptable means to gaining power so as to implement economic "reforms", he's hardly going to draw the line at a few lies, is he?

[Tom S]

MMP was adopted by the electorate in the teeth of a ferocious anti-MMP campaign by big business precisely as a "never again" defence against Douglas/Richardson type palace coups.

If, as the most likely scenario for any sort of National led government would be, National with LESS SEATS THAN Labour managed a coalition with NZ First, could Don really get such a hidden agenda past Winston? I think probably not. If he tries, lets hope his artless autocratic style will stuff him up.

[Mark Ellis]

He states losely that he did not like that conclusion, but is reminded conversation whenever it is suggested that Governments should not undertake reforms until a majority of the population support those reforms.

What is a majority, in politics it's 50% + 1 vote, but there has been plenty of governments that have shown leadership by bringing in new policy that maybe political unpopular at the time.

Nobody would of voted for Labour in 1984 if Rogernomic policies and effects had been stated clearly at the time, in fact if you read most party manifesto released prior to the election they could mean all things to all people.

However, nobody wants a return to the Think Big days\Wage & Price freeze prior to 1984 of the Muldon govt.

If the Labour government had waited until more than 50% of people supported it then the country would of been a 'banana' republic.

[geniusNZ]

I think almost every politician treats politics that way to some extent. as do most comentators.
What varies most is how much self deception people have about what they are doing.

[Gooner]

...they did not like that conclusion, and neither did I...'

Jordan, he doesn't like it. What's your issue again?

How about this quote from Helen Clark in her last speech from the 1999 campaign:

"We want to be able to look the ordinary hardworking taxpayer in the eye and say their money is being well spent".

Yeah, bloody right.

[Paul]

Hey Gooner.

You say the money hasn't been spent well.

I say it has been.

Where do we go next with that arguement then?

[Michael Wood]

All of the signs of a Roger Douglas style blitzkrieg are there. An unwillingness to be specific about any significant policies, the failure to prduce a costed alternative budget, and an intensely ideological conception of the economy and society.

Don Brash at the 63 and the end of his career would not moderately twiddle his thumbs if elected to government. New Zealand would once again by experimented on by the radical right.

[Lucyna]

I agree Gooner. Sending the toilet to Venice for half a mil for starters, and who is the arts minister again?

[Gooner]

Michael, David Lange has defended the blitzkreig. It was necessary because there was no equivalent Fiscal Responsibility Act enacted by Ruth Richardson under a National government.

You are not stupid, so why lead people to think the opposite? What Douglas et al did in '84 was MANDATORY. They had no choice and they had no idea how bad the situation was until the books were opened.

Right now, there is no need for a 'blitzkreig'. The books are showing about 8 billion on the good side thanks, mainly, to Douglas and the policies of the '80's.

I'd say the failed tax and spend experiments over the last 6 yrs are enough, thanks. Brash has nothing to prove. He has been a very, very successful Reserve Bank governor. The left insult Brash and misjudge him totally. I find that offensive.

[Gooner]

That was a beauty Lucyna, $345 million on a failed closing the gaps policy wasn't bad too.

[RWDB]

"You say the money hasn't been spent well.

I say it has been."

Are you taking the piss? Or are you on the piss?

[Paul]

Lucyna,

I know you don't want to debate the issues, but the money spent on the art work to the Venice competition was incredibly well spent.

The work was universally regarded and drew a lot of attention to the country.

But not only is the right willing to dictate to us what economics should be, or for that fact social life and now we are cultre vultures.

RWDB.

Don't need to take the piss, seems that you guys are giving the piss away tonight. Because you folk say something doesn't actually make it so.

If he's allowed his opinion on what is good public spending, then so am I. To deny that would be to infringe on the 'precious individuals' right to an opinion, or are we to control thought now too.

I know a very good book about book burning....

[Paul]

Christ Gooner, I agree.

Lange/Prebble blitz was necessary, it was painful, it was good for us, but also it is now in the past and people are very very suspicious of politicans for what happened.

Many people don't want to be ambuushed ever again, and as we are more open a society these days, it seems very hard to be able to hide such important information from the public as Muldoon did re the state of the economy.

Hence it would be very difficult for anyone to ambush the voter, without lasting only 1 term.

[Gooner]

Also Paul, you could never do it under MMP.

[sock thief]

This is all a bit precious Jordan. Was it a lie when Cullen said there was no jam going to be spread about and then the student loan policy came out? There is always a bit of guile in politics, on both sides of the political spectrum.

And Brash is not advocating lying - you are putting words in his mouth. It's a more subtle point he's making about Government responsibility vs. getting votes - the two do not always coincide.

[Whaleoil]

Mikey, fine Union inspired drivel again...well done...got any ideas of your own? Huh...didn't think so.

[Insolent Prick]

Okay, Michael. Let's say a miracle occurs on September 17, and through some bizarre realignment of the planets, you end up in Parliament. Let's say, also, that you suddenly develop charisma and intellect, and Helen Clark drops dead, Michael Cullen comes down with the flu, Trevor Mallard gets TB, and Steve Maharey has a serious accident in front of his mirror. Let's say, also, that the rest of the Labour Caucus simultaneously get dengue fever, and in their collective hallucination, accidentally vote YOU as leader of the Labour government.

In this scenario, explain to me this. Which of the key macroeconomic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government that Roger Douglas introduced, would YOU repeal?

[tim barclay]

I guess people get put on the spot with a question they simply do not want or cannot answer. It is a bit like asking someone a personal question, frankly the questioner deserves to get a lie for asking it in the first place. But it is better to simply not answer the question. I think Brash is a bit too honest when he says he does not know, the Labour Party would prefer a smart alec slick answer that is uninformative but entertaining.

[Tony]

Except this guy wants to be Prime Minister - hello! If he says National are going to get rid of NCEA, surely he must then have an opinion or know what they will replace it with. This guy is supposed to be a mad of principle. He's not answering because he doesn't know - he has a very ideological view on what should happen. He's not answering because he feels that his policies are too unpopular to promote (asset sales, nuclear, iraq, etc).

[Gooner]

I don't think *he* feels his policies are too unpopular to promote, I think the rest of his caucus do. Therein lies his problem.

[Sam]

The rest of his party are right (or else ACT would be polling a lot higher).

'Middle NZ' is not as far to the right as Brash - he is dragging the party to defeat.

[GPT]

Jordon - always amazed the contortions that Labour will go to in order to show that Brash *might* or more likely is not a liar. I am particuarly amazed b/c Helen Clark, like or loathe the women, is hardly squeaky clean on such things. Leaving aside the wee painting incident are you really so gullible as to believe that she did not notice the speed that she her motorcade was going at?

[geniusNZ]

Better to be honest about being dishonest than in denial about it.
Just a little bit better.