John Roughan: Brash - a hero set for a fall

When Don Brash announced he was retiring as governor of the Reserve Bank to enter Parliament my heart sank. I knew even then that I would lose a hero.

Precious few people in national life are as resolute and brilliant as Brash was at the bank. With novel legislation giving him sole charge of the country's money, he was chartered to bring chronic, double-digit inflation down to near zero, and he did.

He did it against the constant caterwauling of short-sighted social comforters and kept his nerve while industry contracted under punishing interest rates and a high dollar.

He did it quicker than anyone expected, helped by two rare politicians, Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley, who cut welfare and other public expenses to harmonise monetary and fiscal influences on the economy.

And he did it with style. By the dusty standards of central banking, Brash was a personality. He was a free thinker and he had presentational flair. He attracted international attention. The Economist frequently noted him.

In New Zealand he readily gave interviews and was forever affable, polite and patient. He would attend any sort of public forum where there was a chance to explain what he was doing, and he was exceptionally good at explaining it.

By 1993 it was done and the country began to recover without the cancer of inflation for the first time in 20 years.

Nevertheless, it remained a thankless achievement. It had cost Richardson her career and Shipley was never forgiven. Brash faced the continual charge that he was using unemployment to hold inflation down.

He always denied it (the Presbyterian in him hates unemployment as much as inflation) and time vindicated him. Unemployment was dropping steadily and forecast to descend to today's level by the time he finished at the bank three years ago.

I was surprised at my foreboding when he made the move. His political ambition was hardly a surprise; he had twice stood unsuccessfully for Parliament long ago and had remained close to the action in Wellington for much of his working life.

And, as he had proven in those lucid, jargon-free interviews on monetary policy, he had the communicative skill.

But it seemed ominous. To succeed he would have to raise the standard of politics or lower his own. Neither seemed likely, which meant he would probably fail.

Even the best political careers end in failure. No matter how long they are at the pinnacle of power, people rarely leave until they are defeated or facing defeat. Even heroes for a time leave with feet of clay.

His television contest with Helen Clark this week was like watching a train wreck. No matter how long you see it coming the force of the impact still stuns you.

She was pumped with determination to deny him a chance to put across the tax package National had announced that day. He ought to have ignored her and concentrated on his news. Tax of just 19 per cent on income to $50,000 has a sweet ring to most ears.

Instead he listened to her, tried to answer, and she shut him out. It wasn't pretty of her but it was effective.

The following night Michael Cullen was on the same script. Labour has decided the only answer to National's tax attractions is to shout them down.

They hardly need to bother now. Brash's declaration that he has difficulty debating fiercely with a woman is one of those moments of truth.

Not literal truth, I would prefer to believe. It sounds like a phony excuse for a performance that, he knows, would have been no more assertive against an aggressive male. The irony is that a man considerate of women would not utter that excuse even if it were true. But Brash's attitude is disturbing at a deeper level.

He genuinely does not realise, I think, how unfair and oppressive it is to women, just as he seemed innocently, genuinely unaware of the injury he did Maori at Orewa last year, when he questioned not just their distinctive place here but their very ethnic validity.

I can't decide whether his innocence makes these attitudes better or worse. But the apparent inability to imagine how they are received suggests a deficiency of normal human empathy.

It is a condition that would be worrying enough in any citizen, let alone one running for our most powerful office.

My hero, I fear, is unsuited to the job. I just hope his record survives his political foray. It is a little sad to see the champion of low inflation presenting tax cuts that rest partly on borrowings and public savings his party has yet to make. The plan is largely the design of finance spokesman, John Key, a former financial professional.

It is a mistake to imagine profligacy is peculiar to the political left. Parties of business people are probably more capable of blowing a Budget. They are accustomed to borrowing and operating on overdraft, unlike members of Labour governments who tend to live within their personal incomes.

The state is not a business. It has none of the risks that check private investors' willingness to borrow. When business people get their hands on a treasury with low debt and healthy cash surpluses, it is time to sound an alarm.

Dr Brash said he was going into Parliament to further reform the economy, particularly in education and social welfare. He did not say he would increase public debt and gamble a Budget surplus on savings he hasn't made. He knows spending cuts are the unpopular side of the equation and probably sees no Richardson or Shipley at his side.

People have a good instinct for political truth. They suspect National's leader has more in mind than he can safely let on. It leaves him looking tentative and rather timid, a mere shadow of the Brash he was at the bank.