Rod Oram
Between the lines
Five politicians, each determined to hold the economic reins in the next government, made their pitch to business yesterday about the route they would lead us to reach prosperity.
There was no debate between Anderton, Cullen, English, Hide and Peters about the destination. And they all fancied the same vehicle to get there - a booming business sector, particularly in exports.
But there was, of course, plenty of disagreement between them about the road to take: sharp left or right; a gentle curve left or right; or a Peters' zig-zag.
For fuel, the left promised to pump up the economy with spending while the right promised tax cuts. To relax travellers for the journey ahead, all five expressed sympathy and support for business.
With choice as broad as this, New Zealanders could be forgiven for feeling confused. Standing at this crossroads, could we really take any one of the five touted roads to prosperity?
No. Experience here and abroad over recent decades shows that the roads to the sharp left or right wander off into wearying detours, social divisions and dead-ends.
Zig-zags are a waste of time and effort too. Peters made the most ridiculous claim yesterday. He said he as Treasurer was responsible for bringing down interest rates and the value of the kiwi dollar.
That could be true only if he were the architect of America's boom, Japan's slump, Asia's crisis, plunging global commodity prices and the near collapse of the international financial system.
So that narrows the choice of roads to two - the curve left or right. Both paths are well worn by other countries with varying degrees of success. But they are not interchangeable. The differences between them vary from country to country but each electorate has the same responsibility: to vigorously debate with politicians the merits and pitfalls of their policies.
That is particularly true with this New Zealand election. Labour and National are not close cousins. The differences between them are big on such issues as labour relations, taxation, government spending and how big a hand government should take in guiding the economy.
Thus far in the campaign the economic debate has been muted and too narrowly focused. It has been pre-occupied with precise promises on tax rates and number crunching to show whether parties can or can't pay for their pledges.
After yesterday's rather tame exchange between politicians who were unchallenged by polite questions from the floor, the great debate was no closer to catching fire.
It must in the last 15 days to polling. The issues at stake are crucial to the welfare of the nation. Politicians of all hues have made dreadful policy mistakes over the past couple of decades. Without debate, we're in danger of forgetting the lessons, condemning ourselves to making the same mistakes all over again.