Mike Moore and the art of striptease

Last updated 09:56 21/01/2010

I remember the night of the 1990 election after Labour under leader Mike Moore had been tossed from government by an electorate fed up with free-market policies. Workers had seen themselves and their families going backwards while a select few of Labour's cronies became bloated with unearned wealth from the sale of state assets.

Mike MooreMoore had been prime minister for just a month or so before the election following Geoffrey Palmer's resignation. With Labour hopelessly behind in the polls, Moore took the political equivalent of a "hospital pass".

That he tried and failed to win the election is no criticism but his belief in his ability to turn things around was delusional. Moore now claims he was just trying to soften Labour's defeat but the extent of his poor judgment became clearer when he delivered an election-night concession speech which seriously questioned his grasp on reality. Charitably one could view it as an attempt at lofty rhetoric in the American style when he assailed us and implored that we "keep hope alive". Whatever it was supposed to mean was never clear.

Before his brief stint as prime minister, Moore was minister of overseas trade and it's here he did real and lasting damage to our economy. Moore led the charge to cut tariffs on imports in the hopelessly naïve belief that other countries would follow suit.

Removing tariffs has often been likened to a group striptease where countries make concessions bit by bit while keeping a close eye on each other to make sure no one is cheating. Moore was having none of this. As minister he challenged the world to reduce tariffs and boldly (and stupidly) led by example. After he'd finished, the country was left with just a breezy G-string while the rest of the world kept fully clothed.

Well-paid jobs disappeared in their tens of thousands as cheap imports flooded the country and decimated our manufacturing sector. There were no quid-pro-quos for our agricultural exports and no reason even today to think there ever will be. The cold winds of free trade have blown through New Zealand ever since.

Mike Moore must accept a large measure of responsibility for the 25 per cent decline in real wages in the decades following his time as minister of overseas trade.

Moore would have remained a quirky footnote in New Zealand history had he not then set out internationally to champion so-called free trade. Moore discovered, like Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble before him, that there are plenty of wealthy individuals, right-wing think tanks, conservative governments and multinational corporations willing to promote someone who will help provide political cover for the push to neo-liberal policies.

It's well-paid work and Moore did them proud in his stint as head of the World Trade Organisation, where he pressured (bullied is the word typically used) developing countries to agree to negotiations which would benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

Martin Khor, director of the NGO Third World Network and a veteran observer of WTO negotiations, described the outcome of the Mike Moore-led 2001 WTO Doha meeting like this:

"The outcome is profoundly anti-development, despite the rhetoric of developed countries and the Secretariat that they launched a Development Agenda at Doha. The process that produced it is just as shocking. It has been undemocratic, discriminatory, deceitful and untransparent, based not on rules, but on power-tactics. What a shame, and a mockery to the supposed principles of the WTO - 'non-discrimination, transparency, rules-based'. It should not be allowed to happen again."

The decision by National to use Moore as their next ambassador to the United States is not surprising and neither is the Labour Party's endorsement of the appointment.

We are told Moore's biggest task will be to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the US, which in turn will welcome him as a negotiator prepared to concede anything without needing guarantees in return.

We should remember the outcome of the Australian free-trade agreement with the US, which was pilloried by Aussie commentators as being hugely in America's favour - and that was with their close ally John Howard, who followed George Bush into Iraq. Along with the Mike Moore version of striptease we'll be on a hiding to nothing in these negotiations.

Follow NZStuffBlogs on Twitter and get fast updates on all Stuff's blogs.

Picture: Reuters

38 comments
Post a comment
Doc   #1   10:11 am Jan 21 2010

More biased crap. NZ has done very well from better access for farm products to a heap of countries - much of this attributable to Mike's work and the removal of tariffs.

Jon   #2   10:13 am Jan 21 2010

And now NZ has a clear understanding of what we do best and need to do more of, and the things we suck at and needed to ditch. That's a good thing to know, surely? Competitive advantage can remain obscure when everything is ring-fenced. We have a far stronger economy now than we had back then, when we were bluffing ourselves.

Brett Dale   #3   10:38 am Jan 21 2010

Speaking of America, isnt great all the good work they are doing in Haiti.

A big hats off also to Israel, they have blood on their hands, because their doctors have been operating on the victims and saving lives.

Random   #4   11:05 am Jan 21 2010

Cutting the tariffs and import quotas was one of the best things A Labour government has ever done. For all your posturing on the Economy, John, you don't seem to even have a grasp of high school level economics. Please do us all a favour and enrol in an economics course, even if you will make the lecturers life hell by disagreeing with him all the time.

Alfie   #5   11:16 am Jan 21 2010

@ Brett Dale #3- Any criticism that John Minto may have of the US and Israel is for their politicians and military, and not of the ordinary citizens who are engaged in humanitarian efforts. Therefore, your sarcastic response is a little empty and it seems you're trying to find fault in his blog without even addressing the issues raised- did you see it as your chance to take a cheap shot at another leftie?. Relevancy is key.

Whilst so many have their blinkers on regarding the 'prosperity' of the 80s, what I recall from that time wasn't a time of excess and wealth for all. My labourer father suffered a drop in wages, lost his overtime and then eventually was made redundant leaving our family in financial dire straits. That Labour government betrayed it's core constituents and Moore was key to the harm inflicted on working people. Further, his appointment to the various positions he has held since reeks of an outdated old boys club.

Des   #6   12:37 pm Jan 21 2010

@ Alfie, come on now! Personally I am getting real tired of you demeaning someone eles's opinions and thoughts, all the while expressing yours!

Be smart Alfie, let others express their views as you are entitled to yours.

@ Brett, loved your comment! Witty, to the point and MORE relevant than both John's and Alfie's.

:)

Ben   #7   12:48 pm Jan 21 2010

I happen to agree with JM on this one. I just regard Moore as yet another political time server who in spite of his self promotion has achieved nothing that benefits this country or the people who work here. I am equally sceptical about the value to NZ of a FTA with the USA, especially if Moore is its architect.

If I were a career diplomat with MFAT it would infuriate me the way these political hacks get moved into the plum diplomatic postings. If the government wanted to reward Moore, why not open an embassy in Kabul for him?

Richard   #8   12:48 pm Jan 21 2010

Hard to disagree with all you say here this time John. The Govt reforms of the eighties stripped most average Kiwis of any accumulated wealth. Whether from losing the value of there investments, or using all there savings to pay for no or little income. This then went on to send a whole generation into a fairly miserable financial retirement. We have never recovered from the social costs. The percieved right to a benefit, by many, is an overflow, from this period where for them it was the only income there now not required, skill level would allow them to collect. As is the spend up on chattels in the last few years, a delayed reaction, it has taken 20 years before the average Kiwi had the confidence falsely or otherwise to replace all there aging decrepid furniture. We all recall Fay Ritchwite and co sitting on boards, sanctioning in some cases bullying the sale of assets to themselves. Collecting a fee to boot for doing so. All sanctioned by the politicions of the time. Why does Govt think a large majority of the population are only interested in today and tommorow, we have been conditioned, to the fact that through the stroke of a pen, it will be taken off us. Not just Mike Moore, but all the politicions of his era were failures for the average New Zealander. Unfortunately, the remnants of his era and there current clones are aimlessly following old dogma. With no idea let alone a plan to make NZ a better place. As you say John, on the day, Mike Moore puts up what seems to be a plausible case, but reality still hasn't matched his rhetoric, all these years later.

343   #9   01:10 pm Jan 21 2010

There are three reasons that free-trade is a bad idea

1/ A country that exports computers will be richer than a country that exports bananas.

2/ Shipping raw materials to be processed in another country is environmentally costly.

3/ Free trade rules subvert democracy.

free trade is imperialism by stealth. It needs to be rejected out of hand

Mike   #10   01:22 pm Jan 21 2010

New Zealand was a basket case in 1984 - nearly bankrupt - do you remember that too? What bankrupt means for a country is that it cannot get any credit - it has to pay cash for everything, and it pretty much has to accept what prices might be offered - it cannot trade on the normal markets at all. Anyone with a smidgen of common sense must realise that this would be infinitely worse than anything Labour did in the 80's - note that it was also in the 80's that "normal" New Zealanders were borrowing flat out from stock brokers to "buy" shares on spec, that SMP's meant a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to farmers, and tarrifs meant a similar transfer from "normal" New Zealanders to those industries that were protected - many of which were overseas owned...... Retaining tariffs would mean that New Zealnders' "real" wages would have decreased by a lot more than the 25% John was bemoaning just a few days ago - think 50-60 or even 75%. farmers are now able to compete on the international market without having to suck money from the taxpayer's teat, and the rest of the country is able to work at what we do well too. One day John will wake up and see how badly the planned economies have done in the last 80 years.....hopefully the shock of being so obviously wrong for so long won't damage him too much.


Show 11-38 of 38 comments

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content