Editorial: The year of the political steamroller

Perhaps we should blame a persistently buoyant economy for a marked shift that came over New Zealand politics this year. Maybe it gave the Government a sense of infallibility, even though the plenitude was not of its doing. Certainly, National Party failings played a part. The party failed in both of the roles attributed to an Opposition, neither casting itself as a viable alternative nor challenging ill-judged policy effectively. But whatever the reason, a rising tide of Government arrogance was the chief feature of politics in 2003.

It showed in a variety of ways, not least through a Prime Minister who demonstrated a growing tendency to put on airs and became ever more resentful of adverse publicity. Helen Clark's "I sometimes wonder whether I'm a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister" was the most telling comment of the year. More dangerously, however, the Government adopted a steamroller-like approach to issues of considerable national importance.

The axing of the Privy Council was a decision of great constitutional significance; it should never have been contemplated without recourse to a referendum and the support of three-quarters of MPs. In a breathtaking abuse of power, it was accomplished through a wafer-thin parliamentary majority and without a popular mandate.

A similar disdain greeted others who placed themselves in the Government's path. There was firm ground for lifting the moratorium on field experiments in genetic modification. The Government could point to the consultation undertaken by a royal commission, which had delivered well-balanced recommendations. Yet it was clear from the start that it would pay no heed to the increasing public opposition to the lifting of the ban. Or to voices railed against most other of its policies.

In its first term, the Government fell foul of the business community by ignoring that sector's criticisms. Now, it seems increasingly unwilling to acknowledge opponents, let alone listen to what they are saying. Except if they are the President of the United States and Helen Clark has suggested there would have been no second Gulf War had Al Gore been in the White House.

The blunders did not stop there.

There was a power crisis, farmer fury over a proposed flatulence tax and the ongoing imbroglio of a variety of Maori issues, the most vexing of which concerned the seabed and foreshore, and the troubled birth of a television service.

Yet neither these mistakes nor the pattern of arrogance harmed the Government's popularity. At the last election it secured 41 per cent of the party vote; it is now polling around 45 per cent and is in a stronger position than at this time in the last electoral cycle. Enough perhaps to encourage a bullet-proof feeling, and an even greater degree of presumption.

The basis of the adulation should temper any such attitude. The Government is basking in an enduring period of largely cloud-free economic skies. Soaring house prices and cheaper imported products are huge feelgood factors. This, however, is as good as it gets. The question is not whether the economy will slow but by how much. And most of the factors driving that deceleration will be beyond the Government's control.

The Finance Minister has attempted to build a dyke of sorts, assembling surpluses in a manner that is both fiscally astute and, in terms of spending as the 2005 election looms, politically sharp. But the pressure to spend ever more will mount, just as the economy loses its momentum. Also, the Government must confront Don Brash who, although an inexperienced politician, has the cogency to drag National from its torpor.

The pervasive arrogance suggests a Government blissfully unenlightened about how little it has contributed to the good times. Or how dangerous a switch in economic fortune could be. Thus far, it has been a lucky Government. Tougher tests lie ahead.