This “world first” amongst nations of the Free World set the stage for sustainable management of a national finances even during times of international conflict when priorities for expenditure of limited public funds may exceed available cash reserves.
The NZ example introduced by the First Labour Government in the late 1930’s has since been adopted by most democracies as an equitable way of balancing the social demands of a growing population with the revenue derived from taxation and the responsible exploitation of natural resources.
After its inception, it had proved to be the bench mark for management of government coffers but only while policies included fiscal self discipline aimed at “ balancing the books.” In its original form, it was never meant to allow spending on pet Government ideologically based projects that would only increase the deficit beyond manageable levels
Unfortunately, while the temptation to respond to public pressure by spending money you don’t have has always been there, in many cases it has become a reckless tradition of bribing voters with their own money simply to gain control of the treasury benches.
Sadly, in this country, those that have chosen the short route to stardom will be faced with the consequences of outbidding the opposition on the campaign trail. Budget blowouts and increased deficits are not the way to “win friends and influence people”, especially when the inevitable following taxes become the unpalatable medicine.
On the other hand, those who show a degree of fiscal responsibility usually enjoy a minimum of 2 terms in office before they too run out of ideas.
Moving on.
Recent worldwide events have shown us that the problem of an unforeseen international financial crisis due to foreign wars (Iran) or pandemics (Covid) are too often used as an excuse to justify increased borrowing to finance deficits - when, in most cases, a mix of reduced government spending or delayed expenditure on pet projects would be a more responsible way of dealing with the unavoidable consequences of matters beyond our control.
But politicians have normally not been, up until now, made of sterner stuff and “fiscal responsibility” are two words that don’t appear in their own vocabulary.
However, times have changed.
Democracies throughout the Free World are currently being overwhelmed by the emergence of “Right Wing” movements focused on returning the country’s economic management to one that is sustainable and rewarding those who see community responsibility as more important than an adherence to ideologically false doctrines – such as those centred on the origins of Climate Change.
In the circumstances you might think that political parties who only recently won elections based on landslides (Ardern’s Labour led Coalition in this country, Starmer’s Labour Government in the UK and Albanese’s Labour Government in Australia) would recognise these developments as a significant threat to their own immediate survival - perhaps the voters are trying to tell them something?
In reality, the voting public are revolting in numbers more than enough to overthrow the current government whenever the next election is called and their reasons for wanting change are simply because they feel betrayed.
Promises made are promises broken!
In political terms, there is no greater sin so why should they not be worried?
Well, because if that is happening, it means next time a majority of votes will be cast in favour of those who can deliver on promises made even if the price might require some personal belt tightening. The people are indicating a bit of pain is worth the gain.
Unfortunately, we have yet to see any commitment to change from the incumbents - or any acknowledgement of failure to serve in the best interests of all.
OK, but time is up. Their fate is sealed.
Some people just refuse to learn.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.