By Richard Shaw*
Thirty years ago, frustrated with wild swings of the policy pendulum and the arrogance of successive Labour and National governments, New Zealanders changed the electoral rules.
The old first-past-the-post (FPP) electoral system was replaced with the mixed member proportional system (MMP). At the time, it was thought this would bring the curtain down on an era of executive overreach.
It was hoped multiparty and minority governments would not be able to throw their weight around in the way single-party majority governments can – and often did.
In a nation lacking the constitutional guardrails found elsewhere – including a formally codified constitution, a second parliamentary chamber with powers of legislative oversight, or a top court able to rule on the probity of executive action – electoral law reform looked like a recipe for policy moderation.
Supporters of the new system also anticipated it would encourage a more cooperative style of politics, one that eschewed the combative, winner-takes-all approach practised by successive FPP governments.
Right now, that optimism can look naive. Following three years under a Labour administration that behaved like a minority government despite commanding an outright parliamentary majority, New Zealanders find themselves governed by a three-party coalition more than willing to use its numerical advantage.
Urgency and executive power
The National-led coalition has passed more legislation under parliamentary urgency during its first 100 days in office than any other MMP government.
Some will see the parliamentary process being truncated in this way as an indication of efficiency. But it’s equally fair to say there can be a price to pay for avoiding public scrutiny.
Legislation that is not fully stress-tested in select committees can be flawed. And questions can reasonably be raised about the legitimacy of a process that denies public input in this way.
Other initiatives, too, are tipping the balance of power towards the political executive. The government’s fast-track consenting legislation places significant powers in the hands of just three ministers who will have the discretion to overrule judicial decisions.
In effect, they can personally consent to big developments, potentially including roading, mining or tunnelling projects which critics fear might be fast-tracked regardless of their environmental impact.
Also telling was the response to outrage over inadequately communicated changes to disability funding. Future decisions on operational matters affecting Whaikaha-Ministry of Disabled People will now be signed off directly by cabinet.
Aside from what it says about the political future of disability issues minister Penny Simmonds, this represents an unusual degree of direct ministerial involvement in the activities of a government department.
A diminished public service
There are other signs all is not well between ministers and officials. Most obviously, significant numbers of public service jobs are being lost.
The fast-track consenting legislation was prepared without a comprehensive analysis of the possible impact on fisheries and the conservation estate. And ministers are making selective use of regulatory impact statements.
In short, the capacity of the public service to speak truth to executive power is being diminished.
Beyond these and other instances of executive muscle flexing, the government’s perceived lack of compassion and rhetorical style have also drawn attention.
Examples include the possible cancellation of the school lunch programme, a seemingly cavalier approach to transparency requirements around ministers and the tobacco industry, the apparent celebration of job losses in the public sector, and the suggestion the state might decide whether school pupils are unwell enough to stay home.
Some of this will pass. But there are reasons to be wary of the return of combative executive politics.
Balancing government and the governed
Left to their own devices, ministers do not always make good decisions. Parliamentary democracy is essentially government by amateurs. Ministers are professional politicians but are rarely experts in their portfolios. They learn on the job and need help doing so.
Much of this assistance comes from officials. The point of a professional public service is to provide expert advice to those with the democratic mandate to take decisions.
Ministers are free not to act on official advice. But deciding on a course of action without at least listening to and considering that advice undermines well-informed decision-making.
There is a reason to keep some distance between politics and administration, too. When politicians make decisions about the operations of government departments and ministries, there is the danger that partisanship wins out over considerations of fairness and justice. Removing that gap risks politicising public administration.
Finally, perhaps the biggest threat of the centralisation of executive power is to the integrity of democratic norms and institutions.
In politics there is always a trade-off between decision-making efficiency and democratic effectiveness. New Zealand’s democratic institutions are not the preserve of ministers – they belong to everyone. And they need to endure long after an administration has left the executive stage.
MMP was designed to strike a better equilibrium between government and the governed. Losing that balance would contribute to the kinds of democratic erosion being seen elsewhere in the world.
*Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
60 Comments
Re: tobacco companies, people really do seem to be getting bent out of shape about something that doesn't seem to be a particularly big deal policy impact-wise.
The way some people have been carrying on, you'd think we are going to wake up in a country where you have to pray in the direction of Marlboro HQ every morning, and random checks will be carried out to ensure you've smoked your daily allocation on pain of death. That's before getting into the aspect of the same people typically arguing that prohibition of drugs doesn't work (which I agree with) but somehow prohibition of tobacco does work.
I'd say I'm more uneasy about the extent to which tobacco industry donations/money has influenced policy, than the impacts of the policy itself.
For disclosure, I don't smoke but I used to.
The other points I agree with though (although for my sins I'm not actually opposed to deduction of interest on rental properties but as the business model is clearly predicated on capital gains forming the basis of profit considering how crap rental yields typically are, there needs to be a robust CGT in place and I'd also like to see equity release for property investment taxed as well or otherwise aspirant PIs required to seek business lending for their endeavours)
The issue people have with the repeal of the Tobacco laws is that it demonstrates that the coalition transparently put their political donors before the good of the nation without an election mandate to do so.
The reason why it's important is to do with a thing called salami politics where the fundamental rules and ethics governing what political parties do is sliced away one bit at a time. A little bit here a little bit there and the next thing you know the whole sausage has gone. The Republicans and current UK Tories are experts at this which is how you end up with Trump and Boris/Truss in power. It's slow and sneaky erosion of the principles we expect politicians to adhere to.
"It never happened though did it". Yes, it did : ref Division https://laboursfailures.com/
The BSA chose to wilfully ignore the specific waiting list ethnicity criteria that Hawkesby had referred to.
"The comments were made in June last year in relation to Health New Zealand's Equity Adjustor Score, a system using five categories for placement on the non-urgent surgical waitlist in Auckland.
Categories include clinical priority, time spent waiting, location, deprivation level and ethnicity."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513830/kate-hawkesby-comments-about…
This weeks self serving hypocritical nonsense demonstrating why the BSA have zero credibility
https://www.stuff.co.nz/home-property/350235828/viewers-complaint-over-…
So what you're saying is what National is doing is bad but because Labour did something bad National should be allowed to do bad things too.
That's the whole point I'm making, if you were outraged at the democratic system being eroded by Labour you should also be outraged by the system being eroded by the coalition. But you're not because it's OK when your guys do it.
This is how salami politics works, before you know it Labour will be back in and then going further than the coalition is going because people have accepted the erosion of democracy, until we end up like the US.
That's what I was alluding to (the "how the policy came to be" being worse than the actual impact it will have).
Most media coverage, at least that I've seen, seems to have focused on the health impact aspect ... which is ultimately predicated on this resulting in more people smoking or at least fewer people quitting smoking.
Rolling with policies which were never campaigned on (unless you are responding to some kind of unforeseen emergency) is bad.
I'm all for removing bottlenecks, I'm not for the erosion of democratic checks and balances.
It's doubly concerning as this administration:
- seems to be particularly interested in delivering for their funders over and above the good of country
- Is rejecting evidence based policy in favour of ideologically driven ones.
We'll see if they get the balance right. Judging by the latest poll they are not moving in the right direction at all ...
Govt departments, public servants, and the like are not "democratic checks and balances".
Hilarious that you think that the Leftist ideologically driven policies were "evidence based" and the Coalition govt's policies are "ideologically driven".
Winston Peters is hardly "ideologically driven". He's the most pragmatic politician in Parliament.
“significant numbers of public service jobs are being lost.” Ok, maybe that’s one side, but not mentioned on the other side of that, significant numbers were created over the previous six years and too boot, an extra special recruitment after the last election. The worthiness of that increase should come under scrutiny but at the same time just sweeping across the board with nominated percentages of staff cuts can equally risk babies going out with the bath water.
"significant numbers of public service jobs are being lost"
Hardly.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/planned-cuts-to-the-public-service-…
No they mean NZ First and ACT that have less support combined than the Greens.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2404/S00049/new-po…
I don't disagree with this I'm just pointing out that despite quite a lot of people claiming on here that the Green are fringe/lunatic they have a bigger pectoral mandate than NZ First and ACT combined.
I still think National/Labour or National/Greens would have delivered a more effective coalition.
The Greens (and TPM) needed then to get together with other groups. They did not, or could not.
Underlying that of course is those groups need to get enough votes to combine into a group.
MMP has shifted us away from three year dictatorship with all the tragedy that gave us. (well we still got it with the most recent full majority Labs)
But if you want delivery of all wishes of all voters at all times. You won't get it.
This weeks poll is not last weeks poll.
Timely article thanks Richard. Irrespective of whichever group of parties is in power all I want to see in terms of governance is competency and lack of corruption in those who do make it through to Parliament. I would like to see a register where all financial contributions made to a candidate and/or political party are listed for all to see prior to every election to allow the voting public the chance to decide the level of possible influence or otherwise for that individual/group before voting.
The competency issue is far harder to address as you point out. Taking advice from experts for a politician must require a certain amount of ego parking in order to get the best outcome for the country at large. The degree to which that politically appointed team leader can balance their lack of knowledge of their portfolio, even if they come from that area professionally, with the political agenda of their left/right or centrist leaning governing group will determine their individual competency long and short term.
Good article - My assessment is that portfolio experts are a good thing and we have more now than previously
The leadership of the civil service needs to have a good look at their organisations as its clear that lots of the advice provided has been far from independent or expert and they need to up their game significantly if acting in the best interest of NZ inc.
Agnostium ah no. I have been party to that advice given to all politicians and to often it is found to be wanting regardless of the politics involved. The writers simply failed to do their homework or worse they had a position to protect and then set out to do so.
Hence my comment that up-skilling is required
I think the author is unhappy that Labour did not win the election. So he should have voted for them then. On reflection he probably did.
As for expert advice from the civil service, clearly advice has been inadequate, sometimes sycophantic, and also it's followup delivery has been appalling.
Overall the government has done exactly what it said it would, dictated in that by a hard fought hammered out coalition agreement. Within all the difficult parameters given them by voters. And note I don't agree with all of those decisions.
I think the coalition is working within MMP, and delivering on MMP objectives.
civil service, clearly advice has been inadequate, sometimes sycophantic, and also it's followup delivery has been appalling
Agreed. We have a Govt doing what it actually campaigned on vs the last lot, who started pushing socialist and separatist agenda with no campaigned mandate. Then there is the tax consuming bloat of the civil service for no real productive gains, and the 100b debt left behind for again no real productive output.
No that is not what I said. The govt is doing what was agreed in the coalition agreement, not what was campaigned on. Two different things (e.g. tobacco and foreign buyers).
National were not able to deliver on their campaign promises as they did not manage to convince a majority of voters that they had the right policies. They are governing based on the post election negotiations with ACT and NZF.
"....They are governing based on the post election negotiations with ACT and NZF. ..."
Exactly right agnostium. And what a good thing.
Nats have to respect the votes ACT and NZF got. And vice versa. Congratulate them for being able to agree a coalition. And get on with it.
And "it" was dictated by what the voters said.
I support them, but not everything they do. I bet PM Luxon is the same.
I doubt you could find one MP who exactly agrees with everything. Not one.
It's a wonderful country. Congratulate them for adult behaviour.
I think that the Labor government made a large mistake by allowing government departments lead them by the nose. That is why we suffered 6 years of all talk and no action. Clearly government departments are not very smart and even worse at achieving anything competently or with any accountability. The only time when the Labor government looked competent was when they over rode every one at the start or the Covid out break and bought in the army when the Govt Departments proved hopeless and unaccountable at executing what was required. The present coalition are wise to completely over ride these over paid wallies. They need to completely reform the departments so that they are, competent, outcomes driven and accountable. In the meantime their bleatings should be taken with a grain of salt.
Clearly government departments are not very smart and even worse at achieving anything competently or with any accountability.
This can be said about any department, business, worker or child. Without any repercussions for their actions from being held to account for them, they will continue the same behaviour and to push the boundaries. Have seen this with behaviour of businesses contracting to certain segments of government with some autonomy. The invoicing creeps up and up over time until the heads of said companies have a stern talking to about costs and efficiency, then invoicing drops off a cliff and the cycle continues once more.
The good thing about National's shake up of the public sector. The "untouchable" unelected bureaucracy find out they're not actually that untouchable. May just need some more emphasis on the number of managers.
For example, the reserve bank has 25 Directors, 78 managers, 15 senior advisors, 12 team leaders out of 263 job titles. And this nice little list of "Portfolio" managers/advisers:
- Associate Portfolio Manager
- Manager Portfolio Management
- Manager Portfolio Risk
- Portfolio Manager
- Senior Portfolio Adviser
- Senior Portfolio Analyst/Manager
- Senior Portfolio Manager
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/publications/…
I have to laugh at that list. Working within govt for the last 4-5years, I've seen all the adverts for these sorts of titles pop up everywhere. It makes too much sense to trim the fat of unfit leadership. First they tried to get everyone back to the office when the govt was saying stay home, and no matter how good their intentions to build and grow their staff, they have to contest with other leaders above them who are grinding at them just to make themselves look better to thrust them into their next role. I do however hope that those frontline workers don't get lumped with excessive workloads due to the increasing expectation being set by the current regime. From my perspective there are always malingering staff, but there has been a bloat in the middle far more than at the coalface.
Good grief!
First off, MMP wasn't to deal with multi-party coalitions - such an animal did not exist in NZ prior to the advent of MMP. It was entirely about preventing minority governments being the proverbial tail that wagged the dog.
Secondly, the role of the Public (Civil) Service is not to "speak truth to executive power". The role of the Public Service is to implement the requests and decisions of the government, and to do it in the most effective, most efficient, most cost-effective manner.
If the government of the day wants to abolish entire government departments, then it is the role of the Public Service to thank the govt for the request and to do it promptly, efficiently, and cost-effectively.
Not the role of a public servant to leak information to the media, nor to tell lies nor to pretend something can't be done because they don't want to do it.
Wrong end of the stick there David. the article doesn't state that MMP was to deal with multi-party coalitions. It clearly states it was a response to deal with the consequences of the swings under FPP. But apart from that one You're totally correct.
I also remember Jim Bulger admitting that the pollies deliberately stacked the model of MMP they presented to the public in the hope they would reject it, but they completely and utterly underestimated the degree of disenchantment with the political establishment the public had, and any option that diluted MPs power was seen as a positive move.
The civil service has completely lost the trust of the general public of New Zealand. This was true well before covid came. Their unproductive ways have a very high cost-of-delivery for the country & their political leanings have been clearly shown up in recent times.
Wellington is today, a so-called Green city. This is not very helpful in the bigger scheme of things, sadly. Green cities across the western world all seem to struggling. Look at what's going on in Canberra. Or London. Ottowa. Washington. Brussels. They're all run by the left-headed lunatics.
After having survived 9 years under the Helen Clark govt & now 6 years under the Ardern autocracy, the people currently in power have no confidence in their own departmental institutions either. This is fundamental to what's going on today, whether we like it or nor. No govt is perfect, least of all this lot [as time will tell]. They are politicians for goodness sake. They are hardly experts in anything. But what is happening needs to happen.
If we'd carried on for another 6 years under Labour, New Zealand would cease to exist by the end of the decade. It would have become Aotearoa & look something like Zimbabwe crossed with Samoa.
Wrong again John, 79% of the public have trust in the public service based on their personal experience. This is despite many old AXT codgers trying to tell people they shouldn't. New Zealand is one of the countries where public trust is highest in the public institutions and government (it might even be the highest, I don't have the latest data to hand).
This is the problem with old man reckons, they're generally wrong.
Look forward to your apology for spreading more disinformation.
Latest results as of December 2023
- 79% of New Zealanders trust public services based on their personal experience. This is slightly down from 80% last quarter but is consistent with the range of trust scores over the past 10 years.
- Trust in the Public Service brand is 58%, which is down slightly from the September 2023 quarter and remains above pre-COVID-19 levels.
- A new question was added to the Kiwis Count survey from the September 2023 quarter. This was based on the OECD Trust Framework and the Public Service values. Results show that high proportions of New Zealanders think the Public Service do their best to help New Zealanders (71%), treat people with respect (69%) and are generally honest (70%).
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/research-and-data/trust-in-the-public…
The difference between the public service and innovative mindsets are becoming kind of obvious, and the push of innovation into the public sphere is being resisted, even if we desperately need to change, and quickly.
Is flawed legislation a bad thing if errors can be learned from and changed simply and quickly to get closer to an optimum solution; or is it better to take a great deal of time and come up with something through a much longer process that leaves an issue begging for extended periods? There is also no real guarantee that a good solution is going to get reached by that latter process as so much seems to get done on ideological grounds without adequate modelling of evidence.
Maybe care needs to be take in proportion to the consequences. In most cases consequences aren't great if things are set up so things can fail quickly, cheaply, gracefully - and educatively.
Supply equalling demand, ie a stable market with no monopolistic distortions, is all about supply keeping up as close as possible in real-time with the demand, whatever that is in the cycle.
Not months behind, or in front.
The reality is we are still years behind due to Labours' historical hangover policies.
As fast as the coalition has been criticized by some, they are actually not moving as fast as needed.
The left-wing commenters have taken over this website now. Bleat and misrepresent all you like but the results down the track will tell the true story.
Re. this article; the parties now in coalition government had election policies and, by-and-large, they are pursuing those. That is what governing parties do, or would Richard Shaw prefer this newly elected government simply did nothing at all? They are hardly going to keep doing what the former government did (or failed to do). For the sake of the majority of our citizens, I am glad changes are happening.
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.