It has been a while since New Zealand taxpayers were presented with the "There Is No Alternative" proposition by politicians dangling carrots.
The notable carrot in recent years has been an aspiration to match Australia's living standards by 2025, no doubt a worthy aim in the eyes of some economists but somewhat theoretical to most households.
The problem with this particular carrot is that the politicians who have responsibility for effecting perceived radical change are bound by electoral reality to modify it: the exception proves this rule.
The Roger Douglas era was one such revolution but it foundered on politics, in this case internal party politics, and at best the public appetite for reform proved to be short-lived.
The next attempt, in 1991-93, foundered on electoral reality: Jim Bolger was not prepared to risk defeat on the economic policies espoused by Ruth Richardson.
Yet the Douglas and Richardson prescriptions proved to be beneficial to the overall economy, though at much individual cost.
The Clark government's run of political luck was built on the success of it; indeed, the parlous state of the economy today is in part due to that administration's excessive government spend-up with the proceeds.
So when the centre-right Key Government accepted an Act New Zealand proposal to establish a task force to produce a blueprint to meet the aspirational goal, and then chose Don Brash to lead it, could anyone really be surprised that its first report would offer the kind of right-wing revolutionary remedy that had been a proven success?
Or that the cautious pragmatist John Key would react coolly to its proposals, and his financial lieutenant, Bill English, think some too radical?
How politically unpopular, after all, would be the recommended measures to limit some universal benefits including interest-free student loans and the huge subsidies for early childhood care education; use the NZ Superannuation Fund to pay back borrowing; change the age of entitlement to national superannuation; impose congestion charges to pay for roads?
National anticipated the answer by ensuring its election promises last year included commitments to not raise the age of entitlement or reimpose interest on student loans.
The intoxicating aroma of short-termism is never far from economic policy in this country and the Key Government is no different to any other of recent times.
The failure to meet growth targets, the overall steady decline in economic performance, and the prospect of a very long tail to this recession ought to be engendering bold decision-making in the Beehive, but there is little sign of it.
If politicians are serious about catching up with Australia's standard of living by the due date, then unpopular decisions will have to be made now: after all, GDP per capita across the Tasman is already 35% higher than ours.
Who knows what it will be by 2025 given the continuation of present policies? The goal cannot begin to come within reach unless Messrs Key and English can convince the people that sacrifice is needed and will prove worthwhile.
The Clark government soon stopped mentioning its early goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD and almost as soon began fostering the consumer debt-funded economy and wastefully expanding welfarism to middle-income earners.
National has done little yet to dismantle these burdens.
The Brash task force wants to replace the top tax rate of 38 cents in the dollar and the business rate of 30 cents in the dollar with rates of between 20% and 25% and reduce the minimum wage - measures predicted to stimulate the moribund economy and foster jobs growth, but which carry an untenable quid pro quo.
New Zealanders have been very chary of accepting reduced government spending, which means less for welfare and public health, among other costly services, in the past.
Opening schools to competition by giving private operators the same subsidy for pupils as state schools, and selling state assets, are measures which similarly would be politically impossible without popular acceptance.
Mr Key admires what he has described as Australia's "incremental approach" to radical economic reform, but it is already too late for "incremental" changes here to achieve the goal of matching Australia by 2025.
Instead, he should use some of his substantial political capital to match fine words with deeds.
The task force's job was to float ideas; Mr Key's is either to produce some original ideas of his own or "cherry-pick" the most practical task force propositions for reducing state spending - and get on with it.
Next year's Budget might be his Government's last realistic opportunity.
