Opinion & Commentary
Policy debate isn’t helped when the Left descends into hatred
Last year, Conservative member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan described Britain's National Health Service as ‘a 50-year mistake’. In response, The Guardian's Charlie Brooker called Hannan ‘a boggle-eyed, slap-headed, unpleasant, revolting, heartless, s...-brained, attention-grabbing, foetid excuse for a p.....’.
‘It's what the Left does,’ said Hannan. ‘They don't think, 'He's wrong'. They think, 'He's plainly a w.....'.’ Hugo Rifkind, the Spectator columnist who recorded this interview with Hannan, sums it up thus: ‘On the Left, you have to hate a lot.’
Back in New Zealand, much of this sentiment has rung true as the Government's new Welfare Working Group (WWG) was announced. Much has been made of the supposed terribly political nature of this committee (as if committees appointed by governments are anything but political) and the people who have ended up on it.
And it should be recognised that the committee membership selection does seem odd, and indeed the very idea of this committee is a curious one. Paula Rebstock, former chairwoman of the Commerce Commission, is not an obvious choice, nor perhaps is Catherine Isaac. This, of course, doesn't mean they are poor appointments.
Among those announced, not on the committee but as academic advisers, were Professor Emeritus Peter Saunders, former social research director at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) and Professor Bob Gregory from the Australian National University.
The appointment of Prof Saunders in particular has drawn angry denunciations and misrepresentations from those on the Left. Gordon Campbell has denounced him as a ‘nut job’, Greens MP Catherine Delahunty put out a press release (and wrote a subsequent piece in The Dominion Post) explaining that he represented the ‘Friedmanite fringe’ and claimed that, under his advice, New Zealand would end up with ‘beggars on the street’. Even the usually measured Chris Trotter muttered away on Radio New Zealand that he was worried about the ‘CIS devotee’.
Political posturing aside, it is remarkable that Prof Saunders' appointment has drawn such vitriol. He is professor emeritus of sociology at Sussex University and a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and has held visiting fellowships at universities around the world (including Canterbury). He is not actually on the WWG, only an adviser, and he is a world-leading welfare expert, having written several books and many papers on the subject in British, Australian and New Zealand contexts. He has acted as consultant to the New Zealand government before, and has often been called as an expert witness in various Australian parliamentary inquiries into family benefits, work-life balance, poverty and income support.
These are hardly the kind of ‘nut job’ credentials being described by some. And so it is that, instead of keeping mum and evaluating the experience of Prof Saunders, let alone any policies he may advise on, personal abuse is meted out and supposedly pejorative political/economic labels are bandied about. If Ms Delahunty could define exactly what a ‘Friedmanite fringe’ is, one would be surprised.
Perhaps this ‘hate’, as Rifkind calls it, comes from a fear that the state handing out cash – the basic model in which the Left invests so much of its emotional and political capital – is simply not very good at achieving favourable outcomes.
The model that the Left has to support unerringly is that the state is there to be used as an agent for change and to bring about a better society. Without that core assumption, there is no basis for the political Left, apart from some empty slogans and a bit of support for diversity, union bosses and the arts. This obviously causes a problem if state activism doesn't work very well.
The sorts of welfare reforms Australia introduced 10 years ago, which New Zealand has yet to follow, were followed by generational lows in unemployment and increases in living standards. The focus on single parents in particular, championed by Prof Saunders, has resulted in fewer people falling below the relative poverty line.
Moreover, the OECD has said that Australian privatisation of employment services was world-leading, and other member countries are now following that lead. Not exactly ‘beggars on streets’ stuff.
But these, of course, are only outcomes – they don't involve using the state to achieve it directly.
As it so happens, the high-profile committee reports commissioned by the Key Government are, at best, cherry-picked for politically saleable recommendations (Tax Working Group) and at worst repudiated and ignored (the 2025 Taskforce). The Government can therefore act as the pragmatic (if rather unprincipled) arbiter of recommendations given by an expert group. For this reason, we should all be rightly sceptical of the usefulness of this committee. And, of course, all recommendations produced should be critically scrutinised across the board.
However, that is a world away from some of the shrill, conspiratorial denunciations being put about. Is Hugo Rifkind right? Do you have to hate a lot to be on the Left?
For the sake of constructive policy debate, we should all hope not.
Luke Malpass is a New Zealand Policy Analyst with The Centre for Independent Studies.
