"Aspirational goals" are a new political phenomenon. Traditionally politicians avoided making future predictions because if they proved wrong, their political opponents had a free hit (remember 100,000 new houses; 100 million trees planted?) What if these aspirational goals for 2050 fail to materialise?
An immediate mitigating factor is the political life cycle. By 2050, almost all current 2022 politicians will no longer be in office. Any 2022 politician who still remains in office by 2050, will (by then) be certain it was not them, but will be unable to recall exactly which politician it was who made such extravagant promises nearly 30 years earlier. Meaning criticism from voters, if these vistas unfortunately don't materialise by 2050, is unlikely to reach the individual politicians making these promises in 2022. It's a variant of that MMP behaviour under which minor parties can sometimes adopt extravagant policies because they don't expect to get elected and have to implement them. When politicians can make promises with little responsibility for their actual delivery, restraint surely weakens.
But even with little political accountability, what's wrong with aspirational goals? What's wrong with having dreams for the country?
There are several concerns. First, the political process is dynamic, not static. Government struggles constantly to deliver better outcomes. Sectional interests continuously seek increased influence and funding. Extraneous events (think Covid) unpredictably force policy rethinks. Politics and life are dynamic environments, in which countries struggle to stay ahead of the curve. Suggesting a time (2050) will come when these struggles can reduce, and Utopia is at least partially achieved, runs contrary to real life. Aspirational goals distort reality.
Then such goals can distort policy analysis. Take road safety. Sensible policy involves balancing the risks inherent in driving with appropriate freedoms for society to operate. Auckland Transport is reducing speed limits from 50km/h to 30km/h in some areas. This seems unbalanced policy, unduly restraining society. Has the goal of zero road deaths led Auckland Transport astray?
Another example is pest control. Government is currently spending $45 million to exterminate pests from 100,000ha of South Westland within five years. Every rat, possum and stoat gone within five years? Winning Lotto seems more likely. Even if achieved, won't the pests move back in? Targeted extermination on islands is sensible. Elimination from South Westland seems impractical. Has this programme developed from the goal of zero pests by 2050?.
Surely therein lies the problem with aspirational goals. Hard-nosed policy assessments risk being glossed over. Aspirational goals encourage unrealistic policies seeking to implement them. They cloud policymaking.
Looking at a shambolic room after grandchildren's games, I was reminded tidiness with young children is a never-ending battle. Children will not suddenly become tidy. So it is with life and government policy. We will always struggle towards better policy outcomes. Suggesting NZ's struggle might be even partially over by 2050 is unrealistic and unhelpful.
• David Schnauer is an economist and retired lawyer. His free book Covid, Catalyst for Change is available at rethinkingpolicynz.com.
