By Chris Trotter*
Simeon Brown is promising to let me put my foot down again. A National Government, he says, will get rid of all those irritating 80kph maximum speed zones (providing it can be done safely) and let us all go 20kph faster on the highways. “Everything has become more difficult under Labour”, says National’s transport spokesman, “and National is going to get New Zealand moving”.
It’s a shrewd move by the indefatigable Brown – not least because it can be implemented relatively swiftly and at very little cost. If the new Transport Minister was feeling particularly brazen, bathing in the glow of a substantial National-Act-NZ First victory, then he might even invite his fellow Kiwis to ignore Labour’s signs. Drivers and the new government would thus be drawn into a subversive little pact: transforming every act of (costless) defiance on the open road into a conscious act of solidarity with the new regime.
National, Act and NZ First will need to seal many such pacts with the voters, if they are not, themselves, to fall foul of the same anger and resentment that propelled them into office. Very few such changes, however, will be as easy and cheap as restoring the speed limits to the status-quo-ante Julie Anne Genter and her visionary “Road-to-Zero” campaign. (Yes, that’s right, RtZ was originally a Green initiative.) National, Act and NZ First will soon discover that the Ship of State, even of a nation as small as New Zealand, rivals the largest super-tanker in terms of the time and energy required to change its course.
Indeed, the last time a newly elected government made a comprehensive effort to change New Zealand’s course was in the mid-1980s. The difference between then and now, of course, was that David Lange’s new Labour Government could rely upon the support of both the Reserve Bank and the Treasury to overawe any bureaucratic opposition to the Finance Minister, Roger Douglas’, new course. What’s more, Labour could, for once, rely upon the enthusiastic support of the elites. Even more helpfully, the global powers upon whose good opinion New Zealand depended – the UK and the USA – were already far advanced down the path Labour was treading. In short, Labour was pushing on an open door.
Forty years later, that is far from being the case. All those New Zealanders hoping that National, Act and NZ First will move with similar brutal speed and effectiveness to reverse the policies associated with decolonisation and indigenisation, should probably anticipate a slightly longer time-line. Rogernomics was a one-off.
Much of the public service will stoutly resist what its members and many other New Zealanders will doubtless characterise as a racist effort to undermine te Tiriti o Waitangi by making white supremacy great again. Certainly, it would require a truly villainous display of cynicism from the same media organisations that signed-up to the conditions of the Public Interest Journalism Fund to execute the 180-degree turn required to back the new, right-wing coalition government’s policies.
How likely is it that the National’s communications staff possess the cojones to drive through such a “reactionary” programme – especially in the face of their professional colleagues’ loudly-expressed outrage? Rather than face the firestorm of criticism unleashed against them on social media – and within their own social circles – wouldn’t the Nat’s comms team urge the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, to hold firm against the racist demands of his far-right coalition partners? Would Luxon have the cojones to refuse them?
This will be the moment when Luxon’s political persona is put to the test. Since becoming Leader of the Opposition in November 2021, he has made much of his career as a successful business leader – one who specialises in taking control of failing organisations and “turning them around”. Throughout the 2023 election campaign he has not shied away from comparing New Zealand to a failing firm: one in urgent need of being turned around.
Certainly, if Luxon puts his money where his mouth is, he will not face anything like the resistance encountered by Lange from within his own party, and from the trade union movement which had, until 1984, been Labour’s most loyal ally. The National Party’s rank-and-file are no less staunch in their opposition to decolonisation and indigenisation than the members of Act and NZ First.
With the supporters of the three coalition partners constituting a majority of the electorate (how else could they have formed a government?) opposition from the public service (including the universities) and the news media not only can – but should – be faced down. The number of voters backing the new government is unlikely to shrink on account of Luxon, David Seymour and Winston Peters having a crack at bureaucrats, academics and journalists!
Luxon’s advisers would also be wise to take a look at the YouTube video of the most recent (19/9/23) Taxpayers Union/Daily Blog election debate, in which the NZ Herald’s “progressive” columnist, Simon Wilson, is not only taken to task by the indomitably libertarian, Damien Grant, but also – and with lethal effect – by his NZME colleague, Fran O’Sullivan. Both of them roundly condemn Wilson for equating political opposition to co-governance with racism. To the evident dismay of both Wilson, and The Daily Blog’s left-populist editor, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, the audience rewarded Grant’s and O’Sullivan’s critiques with loud applause. Outside of its snug ideological cocoon, the legacy media’s dwindling audiences show every sign of having had enough.
The American “muck-raking” journalist and socialist, Upton Sinclair (1878-1968) famously quipped: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” But, isn’t it equally true to say that those whose salary depends upon them coming to terms with the fact that the beliefs of the paymasters have changed tend to get with the programme pretty smartly?
Even without the passing of bills, or the promulgation of new regulations, it is quite remarkable how a change of government produces, unbidden, a host of sympathetic economic, social and cultural changes. Most of those in possession of institutional authority make it their business to ensure that their little section of society is moving in the direction of the government. Taking a stand against a new regime requires a degree of fortitude that only very few stalwart souls possess.
Even more than Simeon Brown’s shrewd invitation to put our feet down, and the ensuing quiet collusion between his invitation, our right foot, and the accelerator, it is these private, quasi-official pacts to move departments, agencies, SOEs, and whole ministries in “the direction of the government”, that are going to turn New Zealand around after 14 October. Not overnight, the Ship of State does not execute U-turns that quickly, but turn around it will.
Rock diva Stevie Nicks observes in her song “Dreams” that “players only love you when they’re playing”. Well, the Left’s top-down revolutionaries are much the same: they only have the power to move you – if they’re staying.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
86 Comments
There are still plenty in the public service who don't agree with the direction Labour has forced them on these last 6 years, and they will easily turn. Also because they have to make their Karori mortgage and Tesla payments. And for those that don't, there's the door. That's how the public service works in a democracy.
It would actually be a clean and defensible way for Luxon and Seymour to cull the public service down.
Firstly, good article (credit to the author).
Secondly, you are right in your comment. Outside of a hardened cadre of 'True Believers' (who are possibly over-represented in the upper echelons of management, which is where we all know the least valuable work gets done anyway) how many public servants actually believe in some of the ideological stuff that's been pushed more aggressively under the current government?
I'm not convinced that many do. It's more that toeing the line has been important for being able to keep your job and/or having the opportunity to get a promotion.
This is doubly so when you are potentially facing a government that wants to cut down on the number of civil servants anyway - if you have to pay the bills, do you really want to paint a target on your back?
Pretty much agree. But I would add that while Luxon is talking about getting rid of civil servants, unless he specifies where this is to occur it could easily backfire on him. Nurses and doctors are essentially civil servants and are hired by hospitals who are funded by the MoH/Te Whatu Ora, Teachers by the MoE, Corrections officers and Probation staff by Corrections and so on. Just cutting a budget won't do it. Government departments are notorious for packing head offices with drones, while they starve frontlines of resources (noticed teachers or nurses striking lately?). Those frontline jobs are essential services, and most if not all are undervalued and under paid, but they are still civil servants.
A new National led government will very early on come head to head with three considerably powerful forces. Firstly the trade unions. Secondly the bureaucracy. Thirdly the Maori movement. All of these have been pandered to by this Labour government. None of them are going to accept the tap to their respective troughs being turned down, if not off. It is highly likely that there is turbulence in the offing and there is a fairly big question mark over National’s capacity to manage it. Civil disruption is a potent weapon, PM Muldoon knew all about that.
Look at the demographics of Wellington - the least religious region of the country, and the most highly educated. The are plenty who were in the public service who have left for similar reasons that it's hard to find right-leaning academics in most universities. The ones who disagree keep their mouths shut - as you said, why paint a target on your back?
It is a very good article indeed. But to me this sentence is the gem. “Out of this snug ideological cocoon, the legacy media’s dwindling audiences show every sign of having had enough.” Amen! More than enough, I would say. It is times like these that good and fair journalism is worth its weight in gold. Amongst that, would suggest that some certain media, fervent disciples of this Labour government, are already having a re-think apropos their future status and comfort.
I'm not convinced that many do. It's more that toeing the line has been important for being able to keep your job and/or having the opportunity to get a promotion.
Sure, but I think that's a bit of a cynical way to put it. We have (by design) a politically neutral civil service, unlike say the US, where loads of public servants get fired and loads hired when there is a change in government. So most people who work in the public service understand that it is part of their job to carry out the will of the politicians regardless of how they may feel about it personally. So I guess you can call it 'toeing the line,' but another way to put it would be 'not bringing your personal ideology into the workplace, given that it's not your job to make the ideological calls.''
It's more that toeing the line has been important for being able to keep your job and/or having the opportunity to get a promotion.
Can verify this. With the level of job movement across the public sector 2020-2022 due to the large pay rises on offer for all levels of staff, to get a promotion or better role you could practically just wait and eventually be one of the best for the job on offer due to lack of other competent staff. Happened to many many people I know and not all flourished in their roles. Everyone knows the saying “promoted to incompetence” and hey presto, here we are with low productivity and a bloated govt.
heard a good question and answer yesterday, to willis how are DOC going to build a new great walk if you are cutting their budget by 6.5% answer they will find a way by cutting communications staff and backroom office staff so she has no idea how departments work. they put some daft rules in place to make sure DOC are bogged down in the back office submitting budgets and plans to look after anything (thanks ruth) so they came up with a creative solution which now has them giving grants to outside charity organizations to do that work as they are not hampered
as an aside the great walk they have proposed is not a good one the one they should have selected is te paki track to help tourism in the far north, but as usual they don't show any care for northland and they wonder why every few years they lose that seat
https://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/managing-conservation/recreat…
don't worry about all the other tracks or huts just look after the great walks because they bring in revenue seems to be nationals attitude to the out doors
Willis is correct but it will have to be a change forced by the minister in charge -and probably require a new CEO. Years ago DOC was directed to spend more of its budget in the regions rather than Wellington HO. One of the responses was to set up a Wellington regional office and having shifted resources there could then tell the minister that the directive had been complied with.
The speed limit talks fascinate me. i have noted that none of the relevant agencies who report on road crashes and fatalities ever report on the estimated speeds involved. But of the few that I am aware of, those speeds have been well over the posted speed limits, making WK's efforts in dropping speed limits a joke if not a farce. The other point that is not discussed often is the overall state of the roads. Basically they are just crap! From an economics perspective upgrading all main roads in NZ to improve transport efficiency would be worthwhile. I don't understand why it hasn't happened?
I think that the road safety speed warning sign "It's not a target" is very apt. I miss the old Limited Speed Zones (LSZ) which encouraged driver discretion & acknowledged their common sense.
If you treat children as adults and adults as children that's how they will behave.
Unfortunately, common sense is in short supply. We live on a road with a high crash rate, ona holiday weekend the siren goesoff hourly . When I have been involved with animals in the road/hurt, it's almost impossible to get cars to slow down or stop.short of police lights.
Look at maramarua area since they dropped it to 90 km/h, very rare to see a crash now. But it used to be called death Highway.
SH2 from the Pokeno turnoff to the thames turnoff was dropped to 90 km/hr. Maramarua has always been 70 km , but their fire brigade had to clean up the mess in the surrounding area. not so often now. This might have happened back in the previous National Govt , ironically.
Auckland Transport published their road safety stats and compared roads and streets that had speed limit changes vs roads and speeds that didn't. Crashes and DSI were up on the status quo streets and down on the ones where speed limits had been dropped.
It's a well established and proven way to get deaths and serious injuries down but sure Nu Zilind is different.
Overall, the difference between the control sites and the Phase 1 sites showed:
• 38.8% reduction in fatalities compared to what would have been expected if no changes to speed limits was made;
• 11.8% reduction in DSI;
• 19.8% reduction in Minor injuries; and
• 18.4% reduction in all injuries.
https://at.govt.nz/media/1990901/aukland-transport-report-24-month-safe…
Whilst these reductions are generally encouraging ... the overall influence of COVID-related changes on injury crashes in both the before and after period is still not
currently quantifiable.
The report is we got some good numbers that we know were reduced by effected by COVID but we are reluctant or unsure of how to look at the result more closely.
And calling the unadjusted roads the "control" raises questions about competence about the author.
> but we are reluctant or unsure of how to look at the result more closely.
Hardly
It is important to appreciate that this analysis is an interim evaluation of Phase 1 of the Safe Speeds Programme. It is the first stage of a multistage evaluation process, which will continue to be updated as the ‘after’ period increases.
I fail to see how a 30% reduction in deaths compared to a 9% increase in deaths on unchanged roads can be so casually disregarded. Given the treatment was often given neighbourhood wide, do you really think that scale of change can be explained by traffic rerouting? That the deaths were merely 'moved' to roads that didn't have lower speeds?
AT is certainly not shying away from finding out more
To continue the success of the Safe Speeds Programme, AT is trialing new technology solutions that will streamline the data collection process.
https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/vision-zero-for-the-greater-good/…
The statistical "method" used in this paper is terrible. I assume its a Civil Eng grad with no relevant stats qualification, who looked up what they should be doing online. There are some results that wont be statically significant. Few of the number produced are anything more than centres of confidence intervals.
Your ~30% reduction in deaths is just 1.9 less deaths (maybe per year, normalized somehow, I am sure its somewhere in the report) from table A2 and "Control" deaths are a 3.9 more. These confidence intervals are very wide and most results wont be significant. They might be away if you knew what you were doing with the raw data but this is not it. 30% is not the actual number, its the centre of a massive confidence interval. Supposedly, extra deaths but lower injuries is COVID phenomenon. There is only a 9% difference in serious injuries but again a much larger 20% difference in minor injuries. I would think there are many statistical significance problems here.
Lastly the "Focus" and "Control" groups (this labeling give the impression they have no stats background) were not randomly chosen and are of different "sizes". There could easily be a difference in behaviors between suburbs of 10-15%. It seems like lower speeds was safer but do it properly because the data is very noisy.
Trouble is that there are too plenty of dawdlers who steadfastly motor along at a steady 10kph below the limit, regardless of what it is. That in itself is a fuel to impatience for other drivers and Impatience is one of the deadliest contributors to road smashes particularly in a country with more than its fair share of impatient, selfish and careless drivers.
Nothing wrong with 10kmph below speed limits? Maybe you don't understand the definition of limit? I suppose you are one of those drivers that demand everyone always goes within 5% of the limit and rage at everyone that does not?
The problem is the rage/impatient attitude, not the other drivers.
I have been driving near to 70 years. I have never had or caused a serious accident. During that time, some years much on the open road, I have observed foolhardy & dangerous driving and manoeuvring and the glaring one repeatedly, is during overtaking. Speed limits are not there to restrict traffic flow and drivers are pulled up too for slow driving and that is for good reason. You will never eliminate the fools and/or those under some sort of influence but it is worthwhile too, not to unnecessarily risk irritated drivers becoming irrational drivers.
From the road code:
Slow drivers
If you are travelling slower than the speed limit and there are vehicles following you, you must:
- keep as close to the left side of the road as possible
- pull over as soon as it is safe to let following vehicles pass.
Don’t speed up on straight stretches of road to prevent following vehicles from passing you. LINK
The speed limit is a target you should be able to reach on the open road. All modern passenger vehicles can reach the speed limit safely under normal conditions.
If you don't want to spend your trip hugging the left side of the road and stopping to let people pass it becomes a "target" you might want to maintain where possible. If you are impeding the car behind you by knowing not going the speed limit you need to go out of your way to let them pass. It's much tougher on your cornering speed than I remember, if your slower than the limit though a corner and the car behind keeps up you need to let them pass.
I'm not sure of the exact legal status of the each section of the rode code but it's much stronger than a suggestion and I would consider knowing not following it makes you a belligerent unsafe driver. (Are you happy for me to ignore the unenforced parts I don't like?) If everyone followed it we would see a reduction in injuries, its a very good document.
You are simply displaying a car centric viewpoint.
Its not a strong suggestion that drivers target the speed limit anywhere in the road code, nor is it in any road laws. Because laws and guides are designed for all road users. Horses, heavy vehicles, bicycles are all considered legal road users and none are expected to target the speed limit, quite the opposite. Road/weather conditions, capabilities of the driver, capabilities of the vehicle all dictate appropriate travelling speed. There is NO TARGET speed, there is a LIMIT to the speed however.
Again, anger at people who aren't driving at your desired "target" is the problem, not other legal road users travelling safely at a speed they feel keeps them safe.
Most of those road users are already obligated to stick to the left hand side of the road almost all of the time anyway and are narrow enough to easily pass when it's safe. Car's travelling at whatever speed their driver decides to operate them at need additional rules to allow them to safely passed. Heavy transport is generally capable of reaching their speed limit and finds it more difficult to find a safe place to pull over.
If you don't feel safe travelling at the speed limit regardless of conditions you need to let others behind you pass. You don't decide their safe limit, that's on them and police. You do get to decide where it safe you to pull over though (and this changes with conditions). If you have a modern car with a reasonable load and tyres its your lack of skill and confidence that prevents you getting to the limit not reasonable safety under normal conditions.
Road safety ad campaign do not override the road code and if their is no one behind you there is no requirement to reach the limit.
NZ drivers lack courtesy & commonsense. We have holidayed in the Coromandel but I am unfamiliar with the roads and drive conservatively. This holds up following traffic, locals who obviously are capable of driving faster. I signal and pullover to the left asap. I see no reason why I should impose my restrictions on fellow road users. But you will see far too often, slow cars with long queues behind them and completely uncaring about it. That in itself is a hazard, an invitation to impatience and risk taking.
The road code is not a law, it is not codified as such, it is a guide produced by the same roading authorities who create Road safety campaigns. They have the same legal standing.
Good to see you have realised that the speed limit is NOT a target. Please tell everyone else that is also under this delusion.
The road code is about Aotearoa New Zealand’s traffic law and safe driving practices.
---
Waka Kotahi aims to ensure the material in this document is technically and legally accurate. However, this road code is a plain language summary of the legislation and doesn’t override it.
We don’t accept liability for any consequences arising from the use of this document. If you’re unsure the material in this document is correct, refer to the relevant legislation.
I think you will find there is legislation to back most of it up or in the very least not following it puts you at risk of being legally unsafe. Feel free to find the exact wording in the legislation if you want. It's a set of convections for us to effectively use our roads not something you just pick and choose from to suit yourself and arrogantly call it suggestions. It's part of an official test.
Waka Kotahi aims to ensure the material in this document is technically and legally accurate. However, this road code is a plain language summary of the legislation and doesn’t override it.
Good to see you have realised the road code is not the law. Please disabuse others who are also under this delusion.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/97961065/no-the-road-is-not-your-oyster
But being ignorant of the Road Code and its regulations is no defence according to lawyer Alistair Haskett who specialises in traffic law.
If it's in the code I would think you should assume it's in the legislation. It's a best effort plain language summary of the law. There will be legislation on this topic but I see no need to find it as the code pretty much has legal status. Why would you assume there is no law on this? or are you just going with its not illegal if it's not enforced. You are normally a reasonably statist technocrat this is an extreme double standard.
Remember the person who got pulled over for using the fast lane while not overtaking or going the speed limit.
Edit: guess where this is from
2.1 Keeping left
If a driver’s speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass.
2.2 Slow vehicle bays
(2)A driver who is driving at a slow speed that would impede the normal and reasonable movement of any other vehicle must—
(a)move into the slow vehicle bay as soon as the movement may be made with safety; and
(b)continue there until the driver reaches the end of the slow vehicle bay or is able to proceed without impeding the normal and reasonable movement of vehicles using the road.
Do you know how best to interpret this? There might be a doc somewhere. Are you willing to arrogantly assume there is no more that might be consistent with the slow driver section of the code.
That’s the point isn’t it, quite clearly. Road users are entitled to be able to travel at the optimum speed as designated, conditions permitting. Other road users are not entitled to wilfully impede that ability. Instead, as soon as it is practicable and safe, drivers travelling slower for whatever reason, are required to allow following traffic to pass and resume the higher speed that they are permitted to travel at.
Well my thoughts are on this as we have dangerous and congested roads we should common, predictable and utilitarian approach to driving that's adequately safe. We should realise as a sociality that everyone doing their own thing is inefficient and less safe. Thus, we have the road code and make learning it to pass a test a requirement for (unfortunately just new) drivers. It's a pretty good document that if we all mostly followed it would make our roads safer. People following it do sensible, safe and predictable things.
People who are arrogant or insecure about their driving preventing people from passing is generally going to be extremely unsafe. Most people accept that we should to able to overtake so we have some rules about what everyone's obligations are, everyone understands what's happening and it's now able to be done far more quickly and safely. If your not even going to argue the road code is bad refusing to be as as consistent as reasonably possible is just being an arrogant asshole.
As far as pulling over to let traffic pass when it's safe: It will only slow you down by maybe 30s per hour (most who openly drive slow think this fine to do to others). That's about 3-4 min an hour travelling 10-35km slower than you would have. It's in the code, your in the minority of road users and you're blocking others by making it more risky for them to pass. Have some humility and realise you don't get enough practice driving (addressing bobbles here). Everyone who does this is appreciated.
The important thing to note about the legal side is it talks about what is reasonable. What is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to others, based on the conditions, their mode of transport and perception of safety. A person who is on a learners/restricted license driving an older car, a person on a bicycle, a tourist in a new country driving new vehicles, an older person who is slightly short sighted, a motorcyclist on a lower powered motorbike, a person towing a trailer etc etc all have a far different sense of safety and therefore max speed travelling than everyone else. But the road is a public good, they are all entitled to use the road in the same way as an experienced and confident driver in a modern vehicle.
Yes, these vehicles should pull over when suitable (NZ roads often make this difficult), but there are videos all over the internet of impatient drivers doing unnecessarily crazy passes around all these vehicle types because they arrogantly assume their time saving trumps everyone elses safety. As you have pointed out, driving slower doesn't affect times much, so there is no reason for drivers to be impatient around drivers doing slightly less than the speed limit, they are only harming themselves from mental stress and putting others and risk of injury or death. These same drivers often have the mistaken belief that the speed limit is a target, a made up story without any legal standing, which you clearly have in your own thinking as have repeated on this page. NZTA have had road safety advertising campaigns stating that the limit is not a target. These is the same organisation that creates the road code you are referencing.
Clearly challenging your belief that the speed limit is a target has upset you to the point where you create straw man arguments and are now resorting to personal attacks.
The hoops you will jump though to defend your moral but not legal right to knowing "to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic" (nothing to do with what the driver's perception of reasonable or safe). Go back and read and understand everything I wrote, your missing details that I have checked seem reasonably clear.
If your are driving car you have your own rules. Being able to drive within 5km of the speed limit is a requirement to get your licence and the road code is part of getting your learners. If your just going to argue its not illegal if its not enforced or the majority don't know the rule then you could have gone with that from the beginning.
Travelling at 10km/h slower loses >6min every hour and 20km/h is >15min. Its only an "availability bias" when you catch up to someone who was further impeded by slow traffic at the next town. that creates the impression there is little benefit to trying to overtake.
I recently drove the section of State Highway Two that they were talking about. It was quite a head scratcher as, it was basically a straight, wide stretch of road in decent condition. However, the biggest head scratcher of all was that, shortly before the Remutaka Hill, the speed limit returned to a 100 km/h limit and remained that way over the entirety of the hill.
i can not wait until next week so i can vote and forget about this election, it would have to be one of the worst for how do you vote for in a long long time and in the past i have voted for the bill and ben party and the McGillicuddy Serious Party because the options at that time were just as bad
I was in government for the change from Shipley to Clark. My impression was that the NZ public service was always very much in the conservative, free-market camp (ideology reigned, whether it worked or not operationally/in practice) - and there was a palpable fear from the top echelon that its more progressive thinking underlings would find great favour with the newly elected Labour Ministers.
I was one of those more progressive thinking underlings and quick-smart I was no longer advising the new Minister in my area of responsibility :-). Within a year my management position was disestablished as well - as they shifted the policy side of my Vote into a 'safer' free-market, conservative area.
What I found really funny is that I was the only one amongst my reporting managers that had come from a career in the private sector. What I found is that folks in the private sector just focus on getting stuff done and addressing the needs of your clients (the people that use your services) in a manner that makes it easier for them to do business with you. That's not what I found public service was about - it was about following an ideology no matter what actually works for the people you are serving and the public more generally.
No idea what it is like now.
Free-market in the sense of neoliberalism hangover - the trickle-down crap as you say. That was the predominent mindset in my time.
I recall post-Clark's win, Jim Anderton came to address the entire ministry (which had been called the Ministry of Commerce) to explain why the name was being changed to Ministry of Economic Development. The previous mindset was 'hands off' governance and HC and JA wanted government to participate in partnership with industry, and to regulate industry where necessary, hence the name change. And I recall him saying, full employment was the goal of economic development, no matter what the econ textbooks say about the 'need for' a certain level of unemployment to have a functioning labour market.
It was an interesting 'crowd' to be amongst at the time. Generally, they weren't buying it.
It's the opposite now. Flooded with numbers of Gen Z who have drunk the Kool Ade of the current government, while the people you speak of are all contracting (And thus for the chop). You'd be frightened to learn how many analysts now don't understand the concepts of public, private and club goods, and how few robust debates occur. Conservatives keep their heads down. Some ministries even have former left-leaning MPs working in policy.
ABSURD.
If roading was run under the same regulations as Health and Safety for workplaces then everyone would be required to drive at safe and appropriate speeds on every road.
Instead we have Simeon Brown effectively allowing additional deaths and serious injuries on the road just so he can get somewhere faster.
90%+ of crashes are caused by human error. Humans simply aren’t capable of driving, and it’s not just the drunks and drugged who cause the crashes although that’s what Simeon would like you to believe.
If National get in and the speed limits are raised then the next road death is on his head.
Restricting freedoms to “save lives”. Where have we heard that before? I regularly drive my Toyota Yaris at 180 km/h. That’s as fast as it goes, and I love driving fast. I’ve never crashed because I’m careful, and the autobahn is well designed. Why should some sanctimonious idiot bureaucrat tell me how to live my life, and what medical products myself and my family should have. What if I don’t want to ingest fluoride, and what if I don’t want my family injected with aluminium oxide because I’m more concerned about neurological damage and autoimmune disease than I am about cavities or Hepatitis B for example. Who’s to tell me I’m wrong! We’re not even allowed to have these discussions in public spaces. We need a revival of challenging dialogue, personal freedom, and personal responsibility.
CT is a brave soldier in his advancing years. To speak up as a post-war leftie is to stand apart from this new 21st Century woke version. I've even noticed a difference between the Clark govt & the Ardern/Hipkins govt which are technically both 21st Century NZ govts. This lot are far worse by a factor of 10. Clark had some good people beside her - good in the leftie sense - while the calibre of this lot are unbelievably awful. No real smarts to be seen & worse, no decent ideas at all. And this from the so-called educated ones.
If they are the standard of what comes out from today's tertiary sector then close all the universities. They are wasting our money. They are failing. They get a U.
What is it, About a 6 billion cost of interest on government debt. About a bit 0ver 13 billion on superannuation and close to 40 billion on welfare benefits.
Best leave the pensioners alone. 20% of the average wage is not large and it is affordable.
Pay off debt asap and stop labour borrowing as it has ever again.
And as national say get workers working - but I guess that much of the huge cost is paid as subsidies to working families. There must be options here to make cuts
Best Party Vote NZ First to keep them honest.
Irrespective of what Hipkins, who has never told a lie in his life, says, The Labour/greens/NZ First government work quiet well for the 3 years. NZ First holding Labour in check. Remember it came about as the country wanted the then National government out at all costs.
I'm just praying that whoever gets in to power gets driven by data not magical thinking rooted in manichean ideology that says: if you're not part of our solution, you are part of the problem.
Of course the Greens want to try and make private cars less attractive as it's part of their ideology, even if using the Road to Zero feels clandestine as no-one can protest "safety" - however that may be construed. On the other side of that coin there's been no meaningful progress in developing better-coordinated or effective public and goods transport to reduce the necessity of private cars, so the RtZ just comes across as punitive and grounds for grievance, not constructive.
In a discussion of any treaty there will of course be an attempt to dominate the discourse by those with the most to gain but, in a democracy, to deny the validity of anyone else's arguments on constructions of their character without reference to their reasoning strikes at the heart of what constitutes a democracy.
Whether it be from incompetence or the deliberate tactics, what democracy we have is under threat.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.