About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

September 7, 2015 3:00pm by David Farrar

Frost and Kirk

NZ on Screen has the 1973 interview of Norman Kirk by David Frost.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment11

NZ Politics
David Frost
Norman Kirk

Related Stories

Link Love
The new Norman Kirk?
13 bizarre statements in 24 hours

Comments (11)

Login to comment or vote

David Garrett

I watched this the other day…I had forgotten the quiet dignity Kirk had developed by the time he became PM in 1972…And doesn’t his intellect show through? Without doubt he was the last of the true “worker” Labour PM’s…Anyone who still thinks he was an “ignorant train driver” should watch this…

I can still remember feeling a great sense of pride when he dispatched the frigate to Mururoa…effectively sticking up two fingers (in the days when it was still the “two fingered salute”) to the arrogant frogs…There is absolutely no doubt that that was a major factor in the bastards taking the tests underground from the mid 70’s…

Whether he could have handled the economic chaos created by the second oil shock and rampant unionism is a question which can never be answered…He certainly could not have abrogated power any more to the unions than his successors in the Nats’ did…or perhaps we would have ended up in the same union caused shambles as Britain in the mid 70’s….Who knows?

Whatever, his death was a sad loss to New Zealand…
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 3:39pm
tvb

His quiet dignity cuts a very powerful charismatic image. The sending of the Frigate to Mururoa was a defining moment in NZs nationhood. BUT his economic literacy was lacking and his archillies heal.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 3:44pm
gravedodger

Kirks background gave him limited ability to delegate and he badly needed to delegate Finance but who to?

His early death resulted in large part from his insular personality and distrust of all, enemies and so called allies alike.

You are correct in his being the last Labour leader to have any comprehension of what working people valued, Mike Moore came closest.

Where would such a personality have sat with Lange, Clark and the rabble of headless chooks who have delusions of leadership since.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 4:05pm
Kimbo

@ tvb

BUT his economic literacy was lacking and his archillies heal.

Umm, in some ways that is the wisdom of hindsight.

Kirk himself was allegedly unhappy with Bill Rowling’s performance as Minister of Finance, but I’m not so sure he could or would have done anything radically different from him, or Muldoon if he had taken over the economic management.

Also in hindsight people laud the compulsory contributory scheme teh 3rd Labour government introduced (fore-runner to Kiwisaver – with differences), but that ignores the opportunity costs we would have incurred – plus we were in serious deficit from 1973-93, so it is doubtful we could afford it.

Both he and Muldoon – they were peas in a pod in many ways, although Kirk had more personal scope for a gesture such as the frigate to Mururoa, whereas for Muldoon everything was measured in terms of practical effect – were operating within the command economy set up by the first Labour government.

They both believed in it, and thought and operated in those terms…rather than considering Roger Douglas’ questions, “does this really work for the national good?” and, “is there a better system?”, or being contemplate the nation undergoing the requisite pain of radical restructuring.

So their governments both had to ride the rough waves of change from 1973 onwards. Both initially thought they were in the middle of a cyclical down-turn so applied the various Keynesian tools…culminating in Muldoon’s extended wage, price and rent freeze in 1982. Whereas in reality they were in the middle of a major “correction” that exerted considerable structural strain on NZ Inc.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 4:07pm
David Garrett

Kimbo: Your knowledge of the third Labour government is a little shaky…Kirk allowed Roger Douglas – then in his first term in parliament – to design and implement a system of National Superannuation that, had it not been unilaterally cancelled by Muldoon in 1975 – would have made New Zealand as wealthy as Switzerland by now…That Kirk was willing to delegate that to a first term back bench MP is surely a pretty powerful delegation?

But you and others are right: Rowling, Warren Freer and Bob Tizard were certainly not economic gurus…whether, when things really turned to custard after the second oil shock, he would have made Roger Finance Minister, who can now say? If he had, we would have had the vital reforms of the mid 80’s ten years earlier…

Sorry…I see since I began this comment you have added considerably to yours…
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 4:15pm
Kimbo

@ David Garrett

Your knowledge of the third Labour government is a little shaky…Kirk allowed Roger Douglas – then in his first term in parliament – to design and implement a system of National Superannuation that, had it not been unilaterally cancelled by Muldoon in 1975 – would have made New Zealand as wealthy as Switzerland by now

We disagree – and I’d suggest Don Brash would agree with me. He too accounts for, or at least considers the lost opportunity costs of piling lots of cash into a big centralised pot. Why would you expect the government to invest well for our retirement? You were an ACT politician!

Plus as Bob Jones pointed out, they were going to use it for “projects and developments that would otherwise not receive funding”. Yep, there was a reason for that – they were pork barrel rubbish. You of all people should know that if private enterprise ain’t gonna fund a commercial venture or infrastructure, then there is usually a good reason. Hence the (valid) criticism via the dancing cossacks…

As Jones concluded, if any director spent his conmpany’s funds as was being proposed with the 3rd Labour Government’s super scheme, they would have ended up in prison.

No need to apologise – I sometimes add and expand my comments after initial posting. Unnerving for those reading…in such circumstances is it good posting etiquette to write “EDIT” at the end?
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 4:33pm
tvb

There was no sign the Kirk Government was facing economic reality. Inflation was roaring and yet Kirk promised they would hold Government charges. Clearly it was unsustainable. There was evidence he was looking for economic solutions that were quite unauthordox. Gerald O’Brien and his weird clique comes to mind. In any event the Kirk Rowling Government lost their way economically and let in Muldoon who was no better. It was a sorry period in our history. Kirk may have held off Muldoon for one election and the National Party would have sacked him probably. But to be replaced by who??
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 6:39pm
Kimbo

@ tvb

Kirk may have held off Muldoon for one election and the National Party would have sacked him probably. But to be replaced by who??

Brian Talboys

George Gair – there was a post about his sad recent death.

Put it this way – while Muldoon’s cabinets had some duffers (McLachlan, Couch, Gill), it was nothing compared to the deadwood in that 1972-75 Labour Government. You get past Kirk, Rowling, Tizard…(Douglas was ranked no. 20 and was given relatively minor portfolios like Broadcasting)…and who did you have?

Watt
Freer
Finlay (capable but his liberal views in Justice were appalling)
Fraser
Amos
Rata
Tirikatene-Sullivan
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 7:21pm
Fentex

so applied the various Keynesian tools…culminating in Muldoon’s extended wage, price and rent freeze in 1982

Kirk allowed Roger Douglas – then in his first term in parliament – to design and implement a system of National Superannuation … would have made New Zealand as wealthy as Switzerland by now

I don’t know that it would’ve been that successful but it certainly would have improved our nett position and future public liabilities. It was, as it happens, a Keynesian plan and the same one he suggested to Britain – which also ignored him (earlier,WW2 vintage) and also resorted to price controls which are not, as Kimbo seemed to but may not have meant to, imply, Keynesian.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 9:50pm
Kimbo

@ Fentex

and also resorted to price controls which are not, as Kimbo seemed to but may not have meant to, imply, Keynesian.

I was meaning wage and price and rent controls and SMPs and Think Big and all the tools that had been developed after 50 years of the “command-economy” that were wielded by Muldoon especially in his final years to keep the ship afloat, and assumed the catch-all phrase “Keynesian” would cover it. I understood them as attempts to smooth out the fluctuations in “the market” attributable to “supply and demand” that Keynes had sought to soften.

However, as a result of your post I looked and found

“…even liberal economists like John Maynard Keynes have opposed wage and price controls. As he wrote in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, “The preservation of a spurious value for the currency, by the force of law expressed in the regulation of prices, contains in itself … the seeds of final economic decay, and soon dries up the sources of ultimate supply.”

Even during World War II Keynes opposed price controls, believing that a freely fluctuating price system is critical to the operation of a capitalist system. He favored using forced saving to soak up excess purchasing power and keep prices in check. In effect, a sort of tax would be imposed on everyone, but the money would go into a private account and earn interest…

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/14/venezuela-inflation-price-controls-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Fascinating.

Thanks, Fentex – I learned something today. Mind you, “He favored using forced saving…” probably indicates “interventionism” was a better term to use. I’ll be more precise in future.

It seems to me, looking back on that period 1935-84 that the entire era was a case of juggling a whole bunch of balls. Once you picked up one (say, minimum pay-outs to farmers), then soon a whole lot more affecting fiscal, employment, tax, manufacturing, trade…etc were soon going to be in the air too. And the politics of the time was not so much, was it right? (the system said it was), but, seeing you are intervening

1. who is going to benefit…and at whose expense?
2. which politician do you reckon can best predict the future? so that
3. they use the right options from the bag of tricks at the right time to keep all the balls in the air?

Honestly, as National and Labour were almost identical during that era time (and I gave the example of Kirk and Muldoon, who, other than in the matter of Foreign Affairs, were almost inter-changeable), other than one favoured farmers/employers and the other workers. But that was just a matter of flavour.

What the hell was there of real substance to debate and electioneer over? Which district would get a new road?!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 10:47pm
Inandout

I was never a fan of Labour’s super scheme because of the awesome power that members of the Superannuation Board would have wielded. Board members would be appointed by the government of the day, as set out in the Act:

‘4. Board of management-(l) For the purposes of this Act
there shall be a Board of Management to be known as the
New Zealand Superannuation Board.
(2) The Board shall consist of the following members:
(a) Four members to be appointed by the GovernorGeneral
on the advice of the Minister, of which
members one shall be so appointed as Chairman
of the Board:

(b) One member to be appointed by the GovernorGeneral
on the advice of the Minister given after
consultation with the President of the New Zealand
Federation of Labour:
( c) One member to be appointed by the GovernorGeneral
on the advice of the Minister given after
consultation with the President of the New Zealand
Employers’ Federation:
( d) The Secretary to the Treasury:
( e) The Director-General of Social Welfare:
(f) The Commissioner of Inland Revenue’.

The chances that allies of the Minister would be appointed is a given, and the billions of dollars at their disposal would have eventually bought into every public company in NZ. Had Helen Clark been PM at the time do you think she would have resisted attempts to use the super funds to keep her government in perpetual power (remembering her EFA)?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 7, 2015 11:17pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« A solution to Epsom school zoning

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 27 June 2026
The secret code of conduct complaint
Guest Post: Giovani is Unhappy
Good Faith Yarns
I'm a non-gestating parent!
General Debate 26 June 2026
So much for balance
The need for LNG
A press release is not a policy!
Maybe the GREATEST author few know of in 2026.

Recent Posts

Guest Post: Giovani is Unhappy 27 June 2026
The secret code of conduct complaint 27 June 2026
General Debate 27 June 2026 27 June 2026
Good Faith Yarns 27 June 2026
I’m a non-gestating parent! 26 June 2026
So much for balance 26 June 2026
General Debate 26 June 2026 26 June 2026
The need for LNG 26 June 2026
Just give former PMs an Uber account 25 June 2026
A press release is not a policy! 25 June 2026
General Debate 25 June 2026 25 June 2026
France says US is surrendering too quickly! 25 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 27 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 27 June 2026
Gin and Sonic
Guest Post: Giovani is Unhappy
Inandout
Guest Post: Giovani is Unhappy
Pope Punctilious II
Guest Post: Giovani is Unhappy
Quail
France says US is surrendering too quickly!
DistantObserver
General Debate 27 June 2026
Hugh Jarse
France says US is surrendering too quickly!
DistantObserver
General Debate 27 June 2026
Quail
General Debate 27 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 27 June 2026
G the giant from Dunedin
General Debate 27 June 2026
G the giant from Dunedin
General Debate 27 June 2026
G the giant from Dunedin
General Debate 27 June 2026
Ghost
Guest Post: Giovani is Unhappy
Nigel

Links

Anglo Saxon: More racism from Health New Zealand - where's the memo Minister?
Breaking Views
GUEST POST: The Finite Planet Fallacy
Not PC
The Hollowing of the Political Centre
Utopia
Word of the day
Hompaddock
A Perspective On The Opportunity Party You Will Not See In The Media.
No Minister
With friends like NZ First …
The Standard
So much for balance
Point of Order
Waatea’s Weekend Political Podcast Te Kaupapa – with Dale Husband, Teanau Tuiono, Mananui Ramsden and Bomber Bradbury
The Daily Blog
This seems awfully familiar...
No Right Turn
Far Out! Far-Right Kids In Class
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
NRL Predictions for Round 17
Stats Chat
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on Systemic Change.
Kiwipolitico
People Power
NZCPR
Levies as end-runs around the Generic Tax Policy Process
Offsetting Behaviour
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d