HEALTH AWAKENS FROM ITS LENGTHY COMA

Such a central political issue for so many years, health was very much a second tier issue last term and last election. Yes, the tax issue kind of overwhelmed most others. Yet, education, in particular, more than held its share of the political and media limelight the likes of NCEA and the various tertiary funding scandals made sure of that. Not so, health.

Annette King was no flashy Minister, nor did she leave any enduring legacy, but she must warrant substantial credit for somehow burying the waiting lists for three years and generally keeping herself and her portfolio off the radar.

King did have some help. Perhaps most significantly, there has for some time now been a lack of policy distinction between the two major parties. Ever since the public backlash that followed the Upton/Richardson user charge experiment of the early 90s, National has been terrified of getting involved in any real health policy debate. It will of course rant and rave about waste and bureaucracy, but it has been wafer thin on solutions. In fact, in the lead up to the election, its health manifesto seemed to be slipped out in the dead of night purely out of a reluctant sense of obligation.

"Ever since the public backlash that followed the Upton/Richardson user charge experiment of the early 90s, National has been terrified of getting involved in any real health policy debate."

Indeed, ACT's Heather Roy has for some time been the only politician to the right of Labour offering any substantive policy alternatives. Unfortunately for her, ACT's general irrelevance has provided very little platform.

No surprise in Nationals Tony Ryall getting stuck into the Government in this weeks kerfuffle over patients being turfed off their surgical waiting list. This kind of stuff is a gift for any opposition spokesperson fed to them on a media plate. Ryall's challenge is to sustain the presence of waiting lists in the media and the public consciousness. That will over time undermine confidence in the health system and raise questions about how much value Labour has extracted for the additional billions it has poured into the public health system.

The Plunketline position taken by National is such a classic piece of political opportunism you have to be at least a touch amused. Network Politics certainly was. By positioning Don Brash directly behind Plunketline and directly opposite the Prime Minister's endorsement of the termination of Plunketline's service contract, National's PR team is clearly trying to paint a picture of the cold, rationale, childless Prime Minister juxtaposed with the compassionate, child and family friendly Dr Brash. PR poetry.

"Nationals PR team is clearly trying to paint a picture of the cold, rationale, childless Prime Minister juxtaposed with the compassionate, child and family friendly Dr Brash. PR poetry."

It is the health select committees obesity inquiry, however, that could provoke the most interesting contest of ideas The inquiry itself is just the start. The issue is a very public one and will undoubtedly receive saturation media coverage. Whilst politicians of most flavour generally accept that both obesity and diabetes are problems, opinions vary enormously as to solutions. All the fundamental political disagreements over the likes of state intervention versus personal responsibility are going to get a thrashing. It all makes for healthy debate.

ARMAGEDDON AVERTED MONETARY POLICY MACHINATIONS

"Once upon a time the exchange rate, interest rates and the property market were all wildly out of control and Armageddon was nigh."

Indeed, the collective sense of frustration and impotence had reached such a point that the Dr and the Governor seemed to be having second thoughts about the fundamental bedrock of New Zealand monetary policy for the past twenty years keep your single-minded focus on inflation, do so via the OCR and leave it to the Reserve Bank.

No matter how previously committed to those simple principles, three years of having your effigy burnt by exporters and homeowners would probably be enough to bend anybody's faith. Indeed, the Governor well and truly lost a PR battle in which he probably did not realise he was even engaged. Nobody cared for nor understood the rationale behind his pursuit of inflation targets. They simply saw him driving up interest rates which neither exporters nor homeowners were particularly impressed about and both of which happen to be notable constituencies in this country if you hadn't noticed. The Governor also probably felt rather impotent in the face of increasingly uncontrollable international capital flows unwilling to comply with his best laid plans.

Meanwhile, Dr Cullen, no doubt glad he did not have to front the monetary policy decisions of the Reserve Bank himself, nevertheless sensed that a disgruntled public and plunging economy would inevitably stain his own record of economic stewardship. He needed to be seen to, at the very least, be proactively considering options. So, between the two great economic marshals, they set their officials the most blasphemous task of considering measures for taming the property market, which they saw as fuelling the insatiable and over-heated economy and inhibiting the Governor's ability to ensure inflationary order. Whatever way you look at it, rightly or wrongly, this review was about making it more difficult or less rewarding to buy property and not surprisingly, greeted with trepidation by the mortgage and property industry.

The joint Reserve Bank/Treasury report was released earlier this month http://www.treasury.govt.nz/ssip - but to very little fanfare and with very minimal reaction from vested interests. There is some interesting discussion without a lot in terms of firm proposals. Treasury and the Reserve Bank have rightfully issued cautionary warnings about the potentially perverse and unpredictable effects of playing around with the likes of equity to loan ratios. Perhaps the one substantive policy recommendation is for the IRD to start honing in on investment property owners.

"Our policy boffins might postulate as to . . .  whether the circumstances recently experienced were unique, whether Dr Bollard's monetary policy timing was awry or whether his single lever is now fundamentally weakened by the globalisation of financial markets."

The fact is the world changed an awful lot in the four months since the review kicked off. The property market is finally flattening, the dollar is down to 60 US cents and pressure seems to be coming off interest rates (although inflation was yesterday reported at 3.4 per cent for the year). There simply is not the same sense of economic or political urgency to tinker with the property market, let alone more fundamental aspects of monetary policy.

Of course, the world will chance again one day. The housing market will boom once more (as will other asset markets). So during the downtime, our policy boffins might postulate as to whether it really matters in the longrun, whether the circumstances recently experienced were unique, whether Dr Bollard's monetary policy timing was awry or whether his single lever is now fundamentally weakened by the globalisation of financial markets.