Column: Super problem for Shipley and English
Tuesday, January 9th 2001, 9:24PM
by Rob Hosking
Nine years ago, one of her first decisions as a fresh Cabinet Minister was the bitterly opposed U-turn by the newly elected National government on the superannuation surcharge. Labour had introduced it, National pledged to dump it - "no if-s no buts, no maybes" only to find when they reached the Treasury benches the outgoing Labour administration had left the fiscal cupboard somewhat bare.
National¹s U-turn was very much in keeping with the needs of the time, but one which a large part of the grey vote have never quite forgiven her.
Six years later she rode to the National Party leadership (and the premiership) on the back of the groundswell of popular feeling against Winston Peters' compulsory superannuation referendum. The then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, was initially happy to merely go through the motions of supporting the New Zealand First leader in a bid to shore up the scratchy coalition between the two parties.
Shipley's insurgence flushed him out into taking a more active role, and this, seen as yet another sign to restive National back-benchers that he was losing his grip, helped doom his political career.
Within a year more cuts to superannuation were on the agenda, this time a change to inflation link the payment rather than to the average wage.
A partial response to the Asian Crisis as well as to the problem of aging baby-boomers, an increasingly embattled Shipley struggled to paint the decision as not being a cut, and Labour was able to paint the move as the only way National could pay for its tax cuts.
A couple of years on, the Labour-led regime is touting its pre-funded superannuation scheme, and once again, superannuation is a problem for the National leader. Her own record made it very difficult for her to go on the front foot on the issue and there was the threat that heir apparent Bill English would use it to displace Shipley, just as she had used it against Bolger.
If that was the plan of English and his backers, it has misfired. As followers of the political form will be aware, English's star has been waning over the past few weeks.
Any assumption that this is all to do with that memo about the economy accidentally left on a coffee room chair in the Beehive is wide of the mark.
A large part of the problem is that his caucus colleagues have looked at English's handling of opposition to the pre-funded scheme, and have not liked what they have seen.
A lot of this is not quite fair. Like it or not, opposition is largely about sound-bites, and superannuation is a difficult issue to turn into a sound-bite, unless you want to try the sort of breathtaking fiscal leap the late Sir Robert Muldoon did in 1975. And look where that got us.
Nonetheless, the lack of a punchy attack on the scheme has hurt English's standing with his colleagues quite dramatically.
The National caucus is uncomfortably aware that the pre-funded scheme has been very well received by voters they just feel that this has happened largely by default, and they are looking to their own spokesman as being responsible for that opportunity going begging.
Which is why National grudgingly voted for the introduction of the pre-funded scheme. This vote only gets it on the Parliament's order paper the next step is the long select committee process, which will provide plenty of scope to make the necessary hits.
But no major party especially one which sees itself as the natural party of government likes voting for its opponent's programme, however tactical that vote may be. It is bound to make MPs tetchy and that has been taken out on English.
Rob Hosking is a Wellington-based freelance writer specialising in political, economic and IT related issues.
| « Stock Exchange takeover defies logic | King builds an empire » |
Special Offers
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
