No Bolger in the Room: Mega strike looms
The death of Jim Bolger highlights what Luxon's cabinet lacks - experience, pragmatism and a willingness to respect the chosen representatives of workers.
While political obituaries can centre on an arc of redemption, the twin ghosts of the 1991 ‘Mother of All Budgets’ and the ‘Employment Contracts Act’ deservedly cast long shadows over the career of former New Zealand Prime Minister Jim Bolger.1
Bolger died on Thursday 15 October 2025, aged 90 years.
In a revealing interview for RNZ’s ‘9th Floor’ series in 2017, Bolger stated that neoliberal policies had absolutely failed. He also suggested that unions should have greater influence than they do now2.
Does Bolger’s later-life repudiation of neoliberalism and advocacy for the role of unions excuse his actions in 1991? In short, no. That said, I appreciate and welcome Bolger’s thoughtful comments in his interview with RNZ. I hope in time they might help New Zealand navigate towards a more constructive and fairer approach to industrial relations - one not subject to a three-year electoral veto.
As Prime Minister, Bolger acted as the ‘great helmsman’ for neoliberalism, who:
[O]versaw what many describe as brutal neoliberal reforms: the infamous 1991 “Mother of All Budgets” with deep welfare cuts, the Employment Contracts Act that smashed union power, and a rush of privatisation and deregulation. This is the Bolger whose government’s policies left lasting scars on the left and on the welfare state he had promised to protect under the banner of a “Decent Society.” As TVNZ’s John Campbell recalled in a heartfelt tribute, “There were times when some of the policies of that National government of 1990–1993 felt almost wilfully cruel.” - Bryce Edwards
Five days before Christmas 1990, benefits were cut by an average of $25 a week. Adjusting for inflation, that is equivalent to cutting benefits by $57 a week in 20253.
Like Luxon is doing now, Bolger let the free marketeers run rampant in 1991. Given that each member of the cabinet serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, it is reasonable to assume Bolger could have reined in some of the excesses of Ruth Richardson and her acolytes much earlier if he had chosen to do so.
