The Second Major Offensive of Neoliberalism in New Zealand Since the 80s

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, February 2nd, 2025 - 28 comments
Categories: class war, liberalism, overseas investment, science, tertiary education, thinktank - Tags: , , , , , , ,

The stars and planets aligned, the night sky was busy with bright lights from meteors, satellite trains, and burning rockets. The Zeitgeist was ripe and ready like a horny teenager over-eager for their first sexual experience (on- or off-line).

Since the 80s, neoliberals have been brooding, plotting & planning, chipping away at the state and its public good provisions, and re-directing wealth into the hands and pockets of the ruling class. After the pandemic precipitated the global financial crisis and the cost-of-living crisis in NZ, they made their move and seized control of the reins of power in Government.

This included placing/replacing public servants in influential positions, and Minsters alike, based on ideological leanings rather than on objective and impartial professional merit. CVs were tweaked and polished to show ideological convictions and credentials over and above genuine skills. Ironically, perhaps, but not surprising, people on pay-rolls of RW think-tanks were now also receiving generous salaries funded by taxpayers to continue and expand their pursuits of the neoliberal take-over in and of NZ.

The Managing Director of NZ is fully on-board with current events enacted by his Senior Leadership Team and their middle managers on the NZ proletariat. One neoliberal strategy is to stun the proletariat with an information overload that confuses even the clearest minds. Another strategy to ensure heightened levels of bewilderment is to marginalise or silence any counter-resistance coming from critical and independent thinkers. Metaphorically, this extends to killing their intellectual off-spring in the education system, particularly in NZ universities.

Historically, defenders and allies of the proletariat have come from academic and public intellectuals. However, NZ universities, like everywhere else, are increasingly run as corporations with upper- and middle-management stooped in neoliberal ideology. This is exacerbated by central government. Similarly, mainstream media are under corporate control with inevitable influence on content and ‘editorial’ decisions. Lastly, social media are owned by oligarchs and controlled by algorithms that are aimed at maximising revenue and the most effective ways to achieve this are seeding controversy, division, and outrage – working class consuming online believe they have power & control and an outlet for their plight but the exact opposite is true and they’re being conned, manipulated and sold-out.

Lately, there have been a number of calls for increased entrepreneurship in NZ and indeed for more focus on teaching tertiary students entrepreneurial skills. Anne Salmond’s research of neoliberalism offered an insightful perspective; entrepreneurs are heroes of neoliberalism. Therefore, those bright minds will be champions and defenders of status quo rather than critics.

Another strategy deployed by neoliberal crusaders is to defund any endeavours of human thought that might, and perhaps should, lead to questioning & challenging of neoliberal status quo. The neo-authoritarian Coalition is indeed controlling the funders who, in turn, have a major influence over what kind of research is taking place at NZ universities.

To ensure that even crank libertarian and neoliberal thoughts & beliefs are disseminated and discussed at NZ universities, the Coalition is riding roughshod over academic autonomy and independence. Unsurprisingly, this was preceded by a pre-emptive strike from one of the RW think-tank insiders in government.

A surprise neoliberal attack recently came from an unlikely corner and has flown under the radar so far, but the ambush is ready to be sprung. It is hidden in the Science System Advisory (SSAG) Report. [the second prong will be [in] the final report of the University Advisory Group (UAG) that’s due this month]

But New Zealand must get beyond its somewhat xenophobic attitude to attracting companies, entrepreneurs and scientists with its current restrictive immigration and house/land ownership policies and the impediments created by the Foreign Investment Funds (FIF) tax regime for migrating tech entrepreneurs if we are to be fully engaged in the intense competition for talent, foreign direct investment (FDI) and ideas. [pg. 22]

To press the point, this is repeated again:

There are many potential barriers to MNCs [Multi-National Corporations] undertaking research in New Zealand, but no innovation system in the world meets its promise without their presence. Our relatively xenophobic attitude to FDI and what must accompany it to attract staff is a cultural and political barrier. Thus, MNC attraction becomes key – other practical /political barriers would need to be addressed by other parts of the policy sector (immigration, land ownership, FIF taxation regime, etc). [pg. 43]

And because there’s no hat-trick without a third strike, here again:

The practical barriers to MNC attraction include our xenophobic attitude, immigration settings, FIF taxation regime and land ownership rules. [pg. 62]

Let that sink in for a moment.

What is the evidence for these assertions and where did they come from? It seems that they came straight from the Atlas playbook. How did they end up in this report without any apparent questioning and justification? Did they come from the semi-professional rent-a-submitter crowd or fully-professional and well-resourced […] Atlas-associated RW think-tanks?

As expected, the Coalition warmly welcomed the SSAG Report as an instruction to roll out the welcome mat for overseas investors and an imperative to focus only on economic outcomes and returns [for said investors]. This was repeated by the Prime Manager. To cap it off, a special thank you to the chair of the SSAG (and of the UAG) in the PM’s State of the Nation Speech.

In contrast, not a single word or hint even of increased public funding for NZ universities or the science system even though this was stressed in the SSAG Report; Judith Collins, while she was still wearing that as Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology, accused Callaghan Innovation of “over-reliance on Crown funding” and a reason for its demise.

It is blatantly obvious that (tertiary) education and science are only there to serve and support the free-market economy without asking pesky questions or throwing little tantrums. And the Coalition is on a crusade to make this reality – and hardly a murmur from the Opposition.

28 comments on “The Second Major Offensive of Neoliberalism in New Zealand Since the 80s ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gsays 1
    2 February 2025 at 8:29 am

    Thanks Incognito great post.

    Resisting seems all a bit of a lost cause at an individual level. I'm old enough to remember award rates, overtime and (whispering) double time.

    Voting in this democracy, you are up against lobbyists, donors, stenographers useless MSM, shady polling companies and logarithms.

    Then the choices on the ballot paper are underwhelming. The other main party is still a hand maiden to neoliberalism.

    Then even with them in power, their advisors are Chicago School devotees, Treasury makes Roger Douglas look like a timid socialist, and the Public Service, as you point out, has been thinned down to just the most ardent worshippers at the altar of 'the market'.

    Unions are the only bright point I can think of.

    • tc 1.1
      2 February 2025 at 9:32 am

      Depressingly accurate.

      Up to the millennials and others to form an alternative party before rules may get changed as this is their future.

      Still very achievable under MMP to get a seat or 2 IMO off a changing demographic with a focused campaign.

    • Incognito 1.2
      3 February 2025 at 6:26 pm

      Then the choices on the ballot paper are underwhelming. The other main party is still a hand maiden to neoliberalism.

      My sincere hope is that a genuine coalition of Labour, the Greens, and TPM with a meaningful integration of their respective values and philosophies (ways of seeing and doing things) will provide an alternative to status quo (I hesitate to put an old label on it, such as ‘progressive’).

      • gsays 1.2.1
        4 February 2025 at 6:32 am

        I love yr optimism. Both Ardern and Peters said (I'm paraphrasing here) that 'Neo-liberalism has failed New Zealanders'. But when they had their time in power… crickets…

        There are ways for them to travel. Privatisation for example. There are a lot of examples how that hasn't worked. A pithy sentence highlighting that needs to be used early and often.

        A strong state in terms of infrastructure building – MOW 2.0.

        In short, amongst a lot of downsides to neo-liberalism, it serves companies before people. Immigration to replace worker training and shit wages, power and other utilities to make a return to shareholders despite citizen's energy poverty.

  2. francesca 2
    2 February 2025 at 9:17 am

    Fantastic post

    Thanks

    !0 years ago this would have been seen as a conspiracy theory, shady cabal, smoke filled rooms etc

    This is real

    How do we combat it?

    • Incognito 2.1
      3 February 2025 at 6:30 pm

      How do we combat it?

      See my reply above @ 1.2.

      Additionally, pay attention to what independent critics tell us and strengthen our defence lines: truly independent and well-resourced (tertiary) education and truly well-funded independent/public media.

  3. Subliminal 3
    2 February 2025 at 10:24 am

    Great post. The gloves are off and it shows how fast a determined government can move.

    The same determination will be needed to re implement some form of independence and then entrench this into the future.

    It is important to remember that if it weren't for Te Tiriti and the way it has been embedded into our legislation, the neoliberal agenda would have progressed a lot quicker.

    A first point of resistence is retaining Te Tiriti and reclaiming the Waitangi Tribunal

    • Incognito 3.1
      3 February 2025 at 6:35 pm

      A first point of resistence is retaining Te Tiriti and reclaiming the Waitangi Tribunal

      ToW won’t disappear but the Coalition is trying to redefine its meaning beyond contemporary relevance. The WT is being stacked with RW shills.

  4. SPC 4
    2 February 2025 at 11:26 am

    When those who seek permanent control of the order of society arrive and say what they want – believe them.

    A former head of Treasury (Murray Horn) wrote about this in 1998 – a generational change that could not be undone. That was of the first round.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/02/01/hell-is-truth-seen-too-late/

    The last few pages of this are worth looking at.

    https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/assets/Evidence-library/Part-7/Scott-G-Public-management-in-New-Zealand-Lessons-and-challenges-New-Zealand-Business-Roundtable-New-Zealand-2001.pdf

  5. Ad 5
    2 February 2025 at 11:28 am

    The existing CRIs get merged into 3. The 3 new ones are pretty intuitive groupings.

    There's a new one focused on high tech. Ideally this should have a limited lifespan of public money and launches itself off.

    This structural reform is way, way overdue and should have happened under Clark-Cullen's Growth and Innovation Framework or similar under Joyce.

    My only question is why the universities didn't put up their hands and buy them.

    We're a small low-innovation low-R&D country in which the state still does most of the investment. So it should have happened and it's good it has.

    I hope this set of moves starts to form new agglomeration and scale that pulls our medium-sized companies up to co-invest.

    • SPC 5.1
      2 February 2025 at 11:42 am

      I think the change is penny pinching window dressing – their funding cuts and loss of staff meant they could not sustain the range nor specialisation. There is still no interface with graduate research and university (as in building up capability from a low remaining base).

      Nor any incentives to invest in the real future economy.

      • Ad 5.1.1
        2 February 2025 at 4:12 pm

        The NIWA one is always going to need lots of public subsidy to make it. Too much public good climate and weather and seismic reporting is concentrated there.

        The others are excellent as consultancies already.

        Yes I'd like to see a clear incentive structure too. Ak Uni has improved its incentives to academic staff with commercialisation.

        National are trying to re-start things from a very very low base. Ideally CRIs and Unis should power new spinoffs regularly to help kick us out of our dreadful recession.

        All power to the staff who remain here.

    • Muttonbird 5.2
      2 February 2025 at 11:51 am

      Nope, even Joyce thinks it's a rubbish idea.

      https://archive.is/FK60X

      • Ad 5.2.1
        2 February 2025 at 4:14 pm

        Because he didn't think of it.

        Crown Infrastructure Partners and Broadband and MBIE will be his governance triumphs.

    • Incognito 5.3
      3 February 2025 at 6:21 pm

      My only question is why the universities didn't put up their hands and buy them.

      Like a corporate take-over and Merger & Acquisition? Is that even a question?

      We're a small low-innovation low-R&D country in which the state still does most of the investment. So it should have happened and it's good it has.

      What are you saying? You, just like the Coalition, ignore the need for public investment.

      Some relevant examples from the SSAG Report:

      While much talk is made of the private sector needing to invest, public investments must also significantly increase. The base capacity in the public sector and the low levels of public investment limit ideas flow and innovation that evidence shows drives private sector responses. The global evidence is overwhelming in terms of the critical need for greater public investment to ensure stronger private sector investment. [pg. 12]

      Business itself is increasingly investing in R&D, but international experience demonstrates that without greater strategic consideration, system integration and aligned meaningful public investment giving the business sector the confidence to invest further in R&D, we will be unable to compete effectively in a technology-focused world. [pg. 26; my italics]

      Studies of OECD countries show the clear complementarity between public sector R&D and business sector R&D. A study (see figure 5) of the investment by SAE governments in R&D and that by the private sector done in SAEs [small advanced economies] shows that as a fraction of GDP, the relationship is about 1:1 at low levels of public investment, but once a critical point is reached – a level significantly higher than New Zealand spends from the public purse – private sector investment rises faster in an exponential fashion […] While private sector investment in New Zealand has risen as the angel, and the entrepreneurial and venture capital community has matured in recent years, it is unrealistic to imagine growth of the level desired and comparable to other countries without considering the central role of the State as the anchor investor. [pg. 29; my italics]

      There’s more in the SSAG Report on the “crippling” underfunding of R&D in NZ, in absolute terms and in international comparison, and how this is necessary [but not sufficient] to lift productivity.

      You neatly sidestep addressing the issue raised in the OP that the SSAG Report acts like a neoliberal stalking horse for the Coalition to accelerate their neo-authoritarian destructive transformation of the political and cultural landscape of NZ – your comment could be read as an unconditional defence from a Coalition shill. BTW, and FWIW, there’s heaps of good analysis in the Report and its recommendations seem sound – unfortunately, the Coalition chose to look at only one side of the coin [pun intended].

  6. georgecom 6
    2 February 2025 at 12:24 pm

    the next centre-left govt will need to do 3 things if this piece of rubbish gets enacted.

    1. repeal the legislation, or if not

    2. amend the tor to include social issues (for example housing, equality, employment, labour etc), environment issues and particularly stemming rampant climate change, TOW matter

    3. sack any BRT, taxpayers lobby etc type dicks and replace them with some commonsense people with a range of skills and backgrounds

    • Mountain Tui 6.1
      2 February 2025 at 12:31 pm

      The issue is that legislation like the Regulatory Standards Bill and Fast-Track will make NZ pay a heavy, almost inexorbitant cost – reputationally, legally, financially – if and when future governments try to upheave it.

      The only smarts this government has are cunning and devious smarts – and they use it to full effect.

      • SPC 6.1.1
        2 February 2025 at 1:01 pm

        Thus the importance of them being a one term government.

        We cannot afford another 1993 and 1996.

      • Incognito 6.1.2
        2 February 2025 at 1:03 pm

        Not to mention the efforts required to change public perception and general opinion (aka ‘common sense’) after the Coalition’s transformative (and destructive) changes have embedded in the nation’s psyche and become the new ‘normalcy’. Bar a revolution, there’s always an intrinsic resistance of the populace to changing status quo that goes beyond general (political) apathy and disengagement. This is already the case with neoliberalism to a point of TINA and a fatalistic acceptance of capitalism as we have come to know it. [NB, a similar argument applies to democracy, as we know it – bold imaginative thinking is the only way to break this stalemate, which circles back to tertiary education and the vital role of intellectuals as independent & autonomous critics & conscience of society]

    • Ad 6.2
      2 February 2025 at 4:17 pm

      The status quo wasn't doing more than an adequate job.

      A new government should do none of 1 ,2, or 3 and just let the new structure bed in to see if it does better than previous.

  7. Patricia Bremner 7
    2 February 2025 at 3:17 pm

    This is a reminder of how the Left has to agree a common purpose with long vision. We should be always working towards our goals, instead we are distracted by the side shows.

    "barriers to MNCs" and

    "land ownership rules"

    These are the roadblocks to the billionaires club buying up NZ Inc. Hence the attack on all things Maori to remove "the land ownership rules " through the RSB Bill and the barriers to MNCs as well.

    This rodent is weakening the rules and laws and distracting with the mean lunch issues.
    Further his talking politics to 13 and 14 year olds on an app which deletes????

    There has been attacks from every side leaving citizens feeling unsafe insecure and unsure of which direction pain will arrive next. (Te Triti work rates insurance health education.)

    David Seymore is like a dangerous trained saboteur, destroying from within the system to create conditions for his Atlas ilk. He is like a cuckoo who shoves out the good eggs, and takes all the public money for his friends, and tries to say that is normal that's how it should be.

    By underfunding and changing rules they have and are playing wedge politics.

    The Left need to articulate their common goals and work together.

  8. adam 8
    2 February 2025 at 3:26 pm

    Wage slave right back to serf.

    Be a happy little Peon.

  9. Incognito 9
    3 February 2025 at 9:31 pm

    Anne Salmond is not backing down and continues challenging the NZ Initiative.

    In totalitarian societies, he [Hayek] adds, ‘public criticism, or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support….It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who retain an inclination to criticise must also be silenced.’ [my italics]

    If the staff of such an organisation [the NZ Initiative] produce a podcast involving three of them, an article written by one of them, and an email that speaks about defamation in response to an article written by a scholar [Anne Salmond] who happens to think differently, this looks very like an attempt to shut down independent thought.

    The irony of the same organisation producing a series of articles admonishing universities to preserve the freedom of speech is obvious.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/01/31/hayeks-real-bastards/ [Comment by Anne Salmond, 02/02/2025 at 10:21 pm]

    Unsurprisingly, she echoes and articulates with a finer point some of the issues raised in the OP.

    She also wrote this gem:

    As I read Hayek, his arguments are incompatible with the very existence of ‘think tanks’.

    In ‘The Road to Serfdom,’ for instance, Hayek states that freedom of thought ‘does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe.’

    This reminds me of the book by Simone Weil entitled “On the Abolition of All Political Parties” in which she made compelling arguments against political parties for similar reasons as Hayek, it seems – I highly recommend reading it (it’s not too long and as heavy as one might think).