The Christchurch earthquake and aftershocks, the Pike River Mine tragedy and a host of other not so pleasant issues, the Rugby World Cup and the General Election have all kept the New Zealand Government away from its workstation for well over a year. Prime Minister John Key showed leadership qualities of decisiveness, speed and efficiency in handling each of these issues.
New Zealanders rewarded him with a thumping victory at the November 26 general election, returning him and his National Party with improved majority.
Mr Key has shown pragmatism and inclusive politics in signing confidence and supply agreements with ACT and United Future, albeit these parties accounting for just one MP each. Again, although such inclusiveness did not extend to New Zealand First or the Green Party, the Prime Minister has shown political acumen and astuteness. As we write this, he was giving shape to his new Cabinet and his government would be assured of a smooth run for the next three years.
Mr Key is seen as a refreshing change in Prime Ministerial material and a charismatic leader who can lead the country well into the future. His youthful exuberance and yet firmness in handling matters have been the hallmarks of success during the first term. In moving towards the second, he would undoubtedly be guided by his electoral promises and a series of economic and financial reforms. He would divest a part of the Government’s interests in a number of State Owned Enterprises, partly to raise finances to bridge the ballooning deficit and pay off external debt and partly to involve the private sector more closely in major infrastructure and public utility companies.
Although he would have the numbers to pass the legislation in Parliament, Mr Key would not find it easy to ignore public opinion, which is largely against such a proposal. However, he may be able convince the people of the desirability (and not the inevitability) of a mixed ownership and the advantages of public-private partnerships in such ventures. So long as the majority shareholdings in these enterprises remain with the Government, Mr Key may be able to gain public support for partial sale of state assets.
National’s election campaign of ‘Promising a Brighter Future’ was essentially seen as Mr Key’s campaign. A major point of difference between the campaigns of incumbent Governments was that of National in 2011- other ministers did not enter the publicity equation, be it the radio or press advertisements or television debates. The smiling face of Mr Key was impossible to ignore.
Some international observers described it as the ‘Presidential style of campaigning’ as if the people were voting for a Prime Minister, rather than for political parties and individual candidates. Mr Key had consistently high rating in all opinion polls as the most preferred Prime Minister with his rival remaining a distant second.
Mr Key’s adversaries say that the ‘Tea Cup’ issue (the supposedly private meeting that he had with ACT Party’s Epsom candidate John Banks (who subsequently won and expected to be a Minister outside the Cabinet) was a political misstep that would someday return to haunt him. The photo opportunity at a coffee house in Newmarket in Auckland’s high street of consumerism went badly wrong when a cameraman’s microphone picked up a private conversation.
The photo opportunity was supposed to demonstrate Mr Key’s support for ACT, which was beset by internal strife but still useful to National, as it was proved during the post-election period. When the New Zealand Herald sought permission to publish the “teapot tapes”, Mr Key dug his heels in, comparing the affair to the Milly Dowler scandal in Britain.
Such drifts and sideshows apart, the end of the election should signal the beginning of decisive action on the administrative front. With an impressive performance and a government with a somewhat comfortable majority, National should be able to order a brighter future for New Zealanders as per his electoral promise. Some of his ministers are capable and efficient but he alone would bear the mantle of responsibility over the next term.
With New Zealanders feeling the global economic pinch, they will be looking for real signs of improvement. If the asset sales, already viewed with suspicion, do not deliver, National would be in for rough weather.
The goodwill shown towards the Government over the management of the Christchurch earthquake could yet evaporate if the recovery there, which justifies in part National’s prediction of a return to surplus, does not speed up.
Much of what might happen to New Zealand on Mr Key’s next watch may be dictated by events elsewhere. As Financial commentator Bernard Hickey said in his recent article in New Zealand Herald the Government (and the opposition, for that matter) lacks a plan for coping with the very real possibility that a meltdown in Europe should derail New Zealand’s recovery.
Such a situation, said Mr Hickey, would result in the Government needing to administer “a giant dose of financial Berocca,” which would be a change from a cuppa, but one Mr Key would dearly like to avoid all the same.
As we had mentioned before, Mr Key has swept back into power, not only because people did not want a change, but also because they believed that he had delivered on many of his promises made prior to 2008 Election. His opponents would not agree of course, but to a majority of New Zealanders, tax incentives, improving law and order, tougher sentencing for convicted criminals and repeat offenders, delivery of better health services, higher standards of education and most important of all, benevolent governance are issues on which he and his party have secured a good mandate.
The party is over. It is time to get down to some serious work.
