A lot has happened in the New Zealand political scene since the election earlier this month and whilst it is very early days, to John Key’s credit he has provided us with the first real evidence that not only can MMP work, but that an incoming Government can embrace it rather than feel bereaved by it.
It is interesting that despite the gloomy economic outlook, I know I am not alone when I say I ‘feel’ more confident about New Zealand’s future today than I have for a long time. Not because National has regained the right to govern, but because an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders evidently believe we could and should be doing better. The idea of voting for change was not in my opinion a vote for the sake of change but rather a vote for something new, something more and something greater than what we are currently experiencing. Possibly best summed up by a comment John Key made during the campaign when he said ‘This is not as good as it gets’.
It is no surprise to me that we are already seeing the vastly different styles of leadership between John Key and Helen Clark - the prime minister-elect’s approach towards inclusion and collaboration, versus Clark’s of division and control. In fact, I would not be surprised if over time we see an increasing number of former labour loyalists wondering whether they have been duped. Not maliciously necessarily but inadvertently nevertheless. The reason I say this is because ‘we’ have been told for so long that a National-led government cannot be trusted and yet very few who have taken this argument literally have experienced increasing prosperity or well-being.
I was also delighted the Maori party demonstrated the courage to extend their hand to a ‘non-traditional’ ally. I am confident their willingness to engage with National will greatly improve their ability to deliver on their promise of improving outcomes for Maori - not at the expense of others as some would suggest, but for the benefit of us all.
Needless to say, the results, consistent with the polls, suggested the tide was turning long before Helen Clark was forced to make her announcement on election night that ‘it wasn’t our night’. And whilst one might feel for Helen, I find it concerning that even though the world has recently ended the greatest financial period in history, we as a nation have fallen further behind in virtually every aspect that matters to modern societies. Why is this? Why have we as a nation been unable to agree that our overall performance has been lacklustre at best when most modern nations of a similar standing have experienced considerably greater advancements? Why, when we have been falling compared to other nations, has the Labour Party managed to convince so many people that any National-led criticism of our performance is nothing more than the politicising of issues?
The argument that it is selfish or self-centred to ‘want’ more goes against the very nature of our being - an argument Labour often touted in response to suggestions that we should be doing better. It is after all our inherent longing or desire for improvement, something we share with all species, that remains the one constant driver behind improved prosperity and standards of living. To dismiss it as outdated right-wing rhetoric is bewildering.
A debate I believe worth considering is ‘Has the Labour Party deliberately set about creating a sense of mistrust rather than providing us with truthful evidence that their policies are helping people advance?’ Could it be that despite what Labour has said, they need those at the ‘bottom of the heap’ to stay there in order to maintain power? To say they are the only major political party that genuinely ‘cares’ about those less fortunate than most is questionable. To say they ‘need’ them more than their counterpart is perhaps more accurate.
We all know it is only through genuine ‘win-win’ policies, initiatives and efforts that a nation can improve the conditions and quality of life we all long for. For this reason, I find it intriguing that Labour has continued to advocate a ‘you can’t trust them’ approach when it has become increasingly evident their position has done little more than foster mistrust and disharmony.
It is important as I make such comments you understand I am not trying to put Labour down. I am a believer in democracy, and as such I believe the strength and competence of an opposition party is as important as the strength and effectiveness of a governing party. My comments are not intended to compromise Labour, but rather to encourage them to understand how to get it right. To say ‘we know what New Zealanders want’ when they obviously didn’t shows they were ‘out of touch’.
One of the other reasons Labour lost is because over time we tend to witness governments moving ever more closely towards their true ideological position. This is because each time a party is reelected it tends to assume their reelection is indicative of the nations’ support of their position and thus conveniently translated into a premise that they have the mandate to do want they ideally ‘want’ to do rather than choosing to engage ever more deeply with society in order to understand what is ‘required’.
The election results will require Labour to regroup, rebuild and refocus. All involved will be well aware that November the 8th signalled the end of an era and therefore the start of some much-needed reflection. Hopefully, they will reemerge with a new enlightened proposition in order to once again honour their purpose in the house. Trying to tear down the opposition, as they have been tempted, will do nothing more than delay their wish to re-govern.
Repositioning the party will require wise and mature leadership. The success of Phil Goff as the newly elected leader is not only important for Labour but for the entire country. Many have touted Goff as the best person to lead Labour going forward simply because he has been a deeply loyal member and a very hard-working MP. However since polling began, his weaknesses have become increasingly obvious - evident by a few snarky remarks and criticisms of those to the right. It is this stance which I believe will cause many to question whether he is in fact ‘ready’ to lead. Disappointingly, I believe Goff did himself and his party considerable disservice following the election when he implied that New Zealanders had been misled i.e. ‘led to believe’ they will get a centrist government by voting National. Did he make such comments because he genuinely thought New Zealanders don’t really want anything different than what we’ve got, in which case it would suggest Labour was more out of touch than they imagined, or is it because he genuinely believes National will in fact disregard their commitments to their constituencies and thus do what they want regardless? If this is the case, it provides an interesting insight into the conclusions Goff has formed about the new National Party. Conversely, could it be that he and his colleagues were simply trying to create a view that any National-led government, irrespective of the makeup of the caucus, would always be the same? For this reason, I would suggest his comments should be forgiven as being nothing more sinister than the ‘leader in waiting’ coming to the realisation his dream of running the country was quietly disappearing.
One comment I would make about Labour’s prospects going forward is regarding David Cunliffe. As the impending result became clear, Cunliffe positioned himself as a future statesman by saying that Labour had been beaten and that ‘we’ will have to listen to the electorate in order to understand where we went wrong. He didn’t criticise National, nor was he critical of the Labour Party. He simply stated that Labour had lost its appeal and that restoring it would require work.
Legacies
Even though I know many would strongly disagree, I would sum up Clark’s legacy as ‘do what it takes to stay in power’. Why do I say this? To assess Clark’s contribution or any leader’s contribution for that matter, we need to understand the purpose of leadership. And whilst I do not consider myself to be a political pundit in any way, I would suggest the role of a Prime Minister may not be entirely dissimilar to that of a business leader.
I believe the role of a leader is to:
a) Create a vision that encourages people to engage and excel
b) Set standards that instill accountability, confidence and commitment
c) Develop greater performance Capability so people, companies and a nation at large can succeed
d) Introduce policies and initiatives that build/strengthen an appropriate ‘performance-based’ culture
If one was to agree in principle with the above, we would be able to assess the effectiveness or success of a leader i.e. it may be appropriate to assess Clark’s performance, and all future leaders’ performance, against an agreed criteria. Below I have given my summary of Clark’s performance against my suggested criteria.
1. Vision: I do not believe Clark was effective or influential in any way in imparting a meaningful vision for New Zealand. I would never say Labour ‘had no vision’ but the vision we as a nation observed was ‘to stay in power’. As such, I would rate her performance in this particular area at 3/10
2. Standards: In my opinion, this is one of the most contentious aspects of Clark’s leadership. There is no question she had high standards, and expected people to perform to that standard, however, because of the challenges she faced in trying to maintain control, her standards were often compromised. Performance 6/10
3. Performance Capability: In my opinion, Clark understood the importance of strengthening the nation’s overall performance capability in order to compete internationally. However again I would suggest many of the initiatives she could have introduced, or did introduce, were less successful than they may have otherwise been. Performance 5/10
4. Culture: This in my opinion is Clark’s greatest failure. New Zealand has seen an increasing exodus of notable proportions. Why are so many New Zealanders leaving? Whilst Labour tried to say ‘we always have’, their comments appeared to be a deliberate attempt to shift the focus so they didn’t have to explain the stark reality. The reality is of course that an increasing number of our whanau have lost so much confidence in New Zealand’s ability to advance as a country they have opted to leave. Yes, there will always be youngsters heading overseas for their OE, which over time can bring about wonderful gains and yes, there will always be people taking up more lucrative offers from international companies, but to try and mitigate such a worrying scenario is in my opinion unacceptable. The truth is there are more and more people of differing ages turning their back on New Zealand because they have come to believe that no matter how hard they try, they won’t get ahead at home. Let it be said, there is no greater way to demonstrate one’s disapproval of a governing party’s performance than to leave. For this reason, I rate Clark’s Performance in this area at 2/10
Another point of contention regarding ‘Culture’ is to do with crime. We have continually heard the Labour Party say ‘Because of their efforts, crime is coming down’. However, despite such assurances, I have not heard a single New Zealander in the past ten or so years say they feel safer today than they did before. Now, it is possible that I have simply not had the privilege of meeting such people; however, I strongly suspect these ‘privileged’ people are few and far between.
One final comment regarding ‘Culture’ is that of race relations: the idea that we are ‘one people’ trying to advance in a modern world and therefore we need to work together. I believe Clark’s intentions were on the whole sound however I believe her approach caused more harm than would have otherwise been achieved had the subject been off the agenda. I believe her desire to stay in control, seemingly at any cost, created a new level of tension that must now be overcome. However, there are two positives we can take moving forward:
- The Maori Party has distanced itself sufficiently to initiate a new era in efforts to overcome historical grievances without creating unnecessary rifts and
- Michael Cullen has done a commendable job continuing treaty negotiations during their three terms in office.
The one additional element we must add to the equation is that of international affairs. This in my opinion was where Clark performed best. There is no doubt she was a very competent and subsequently respected ambassador for New Zealand and for this reason, I would give her an 8.5/10. She was, and still is, held in high regard internationally hence the reason I believe she could still add considerable value to New Zealand if an appropriate appointment became available. The reason I would not rate her performance in this particular area more highly is simply that I do not believe ‘we’ as a nation have realised any gains of significant magnitude to justify a higher rating. However that said, the Clark government has in my opinion strengthened our reputation in the world as a respectful, responsible and honourable international member and for this reason, her efforts should be acknowledged.
Where to from here?
If I were John Key, I would introduce a ‘National Scorecard’, not as an attempt to secure relationships in order to preserve power but to provide a transparent measurement of the Key Performance Indicators that matter to New Zealanders.
Initially, this scorecard could be positioned as a ‘National’ party initiative to keep the public informed regarding our performance however over time, assuming they got the KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) right, it could transcend politics and thus become the ‘nations’ yardstick to inform ‘us’ as to how well ‘we’ as a nation are doing in the areas ‘we’ value most.
This scorecard could include such things as fiscal indicators at both a macro and micro level. Health statistics and service delivery, crime statistics and of course education. If the public of New Zealand were offered true measures of how well we are performing against set criteria, we as a nation would be better informed as to how to advance. The question of course is whether the National Party are mature enough to understand the wisdom of such an initiative to consider it appropriate.
Summary
I believe our success is governed by what we contribute, not by what we gain. If we are to ride out the economic challenges we face, we will need strong, focused and committed leaders. If you are serious about performance and would like to help your leadership or management team step-up to a more advanced level of performance, call us. We will take you further.
©1995-Present day. All rights reserved – Steel Performance Solutions
