Was Sir Robert Muldoon the Best Prime Minister New Zealand Ever Had?

The question of whether Sir Robert Muldoon was the best prime minister New Zealand has ever had is a contentious one. While Muldoon is often remembered for his authoritarian style and the economic policies he implemented, a more nuanced comparison with subsequent leaders reveals some interesting insights.

Robert Muldoon: A Leader of Controversy

Muldoon's term as prime minister from 1975 to 1984 is often associated with criticism. Despite his controversial methods and policies, it is important to evaluate whether subsequent leaders have been objectively better. Muldoon's approach to economic management and his policies can be seen as both a mixed bag and a reflection of the challenges faced by New Zealand during his tenure.

Comparing Muldoon to Subsequent Leaders

Muldoon vs. Lange-MacKay-Moore

After Muldoon, the Lange-MacKay-Moore government (1984-1990) implemented significant reforms, including “cargo cult capitalism” where the government dismantled many state assets and infrastructure, deregulated large sectors, and sold off assets. While this led to some economic growth, it also caused social and economic inequalities, such as shrinking unions, high student loan debts, and a negative wealth gap. Rodger Douglas, the ideologue behind these reforms, was instrumental in changing the economic landscape, yet the outcomes have had long-lasting negative effects.

Muldoon vs. Bolger-Shipton (1990-1999)

Under Bolger-Shipton, negative policies such as extortionate student loans, destruction of unions, and the Employment Contracts Act were enacted. These policies, meant to control wages and prevent economic mobility, have had enduring negative impacts. Furthermore, the reported GDP growth in 1998 was actually negative, masking the true economic state of the nation.

Muldoon vs. Clark (1999-2008)

Clark's term (1999-2008) saw a promise to repeal the Employment Contracts Act, but did little to change it. Her policies included increasing immigration and national debt, as well as selling off more state assets. Critics argue that her actions did not make a significant difference in the long term.

Muldoon vs. Brash (2000-2008)

Brash, a former Reserve Bank governor, had a mixed legacy. His term saw a complete independence of the Reserve Bank from government control, making it less accountable. His personal and political actions were often criticized, including his loyalty to no one and his opportunistic nature.

Muldoon vs. Key (2008-2017)

Key's tenure (2008-2017) was marked by a surge in immigration and a tripling of the national debt. He also sold off more state assets, leading to increased private debt and economic instability.

Muldoon vs. Ardern (2017-present)

Ardern, while bringing some changes in policy and addressing certain social issues, has also faced criticism for authoritarian measures such as increased immigration restrictions, rising inflation, and housing crises. Her policies have been accused of fostering a cult of personality and censorship, turning New Zealand into what some perceive as a more authoritarian state.

Conclusion

While Muldoon's tenure was fraught with policies and practices that were not without their faults, it is hard to argue that subsequent leaders have been consistently better. New Zealand has not had a universally good leader since Muldoon, and current challenges are a testament to the complex nature of governance and economic management.

Multoone's policies, particularly his focus on steady state economy and his handling of population growth, can be seen as prescient given the current challenges in housing, poverty, and immigration.

As such, while Muldoon's legacy is complex, it is worth considering the continued relevance of his economic and social policies in the context of modern New Zealand.