A look at policy making in New Zealand

New Zealand is a policy-taker not policy-maker,

Source


Note to the reader: For the sake of this article I am going to simplify the norms/process of policy making into three stages. Stage one Norm emergence/Norm Entrepreneurship , Norm Cascade/Norm Diffusion and Internalisation/Socialisation. In layman terms somebody or a group of people come up with a new idea to meet (enter the issue here) , the matter is debated and lastly the concept is implemented. (Source , P15 .)


I hope Political Science graduates will forgive my oversimplification. My goal is to bring the subject matter of this article into the public arena. I am not out to earn a degree in Political Science.
Also I want to explain to the next generation why they bore the brunt of the mistakes that are being made today.


I have to thank a twitter conversation with @SarahRoseNZ for the idea to write this article. It is fair to say that I don't always agree with Sarah on current events and issues. What I can say is that she has a good gauguage on the dairy farming sector in New Zealand.

Tim Groser has let the cat out of the bag by stating New Zealand is a policy taker and not a policy maker. Groser was talking in relation to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The readers feelings towards New Zealand joining the TPP, will play a role in how they feel about taking and not making policy. My perspective is the New Zealand government would jump into a lake if all its friends (fellow members of the TPP) were doing so.

Those who in favour of New Zealand joining the TPP argue , not signing on the dotted line will see has excluded from the projected economic benefits the deal will bring in the long term. Surrendering ground on Medical Patient laws to US drug companies is the trade off we make for the claimed benefits. I have a few beefs with this argument to put it in mild and polite terms.

There are two underlying issues for me that I will touch upon. Firstly the supporters of the TPP act under the assumption no other routes exist for New Zealand to booster access (lower trade tariffs or removal tariffs) to overseas markets. I believe this is a false hood because of the availability of forums like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC ) and the Cairns Group.


New Zealand's political leaders and policy makers have become lazy. In there laziness they have neglected the opportunities to present our case for unimpeded access to overseas markets. The New Zealand economy effectively liberalised in the 80's and 90's. So New Zealand should have gone to the negotiating table/ existing forums without having to make any concessions. I don't know if this is can be called policy making or just good sense.

My other objection to the TPP is how the agreement throws away New Zealand's sovereignty and national ID. Certainly I believe the TPP is a step towards a Asian style European Union. As such New Zealand runs of risk of becoming the next Greece , after becoming locked into a eventual single currency Union. Space constraints prevent me from going into the matter of a Asian style EU any further.

In the past when New Zealand governments have overseen the implementation of policy they made two mistakes that have gone unrecognised. The first mistake was the Fourth Labour Government failing to explain the Free Market reforms (known as Rogernomics in New Zealand) to the public. Rogernomics was the right policy medicine for the economic ills of the time. The public who was a recipient of the medicine felt they were bystanders who hadn't been consulted.

Political instability plagued the Labour Party/New Zealand government during this time and was a contributor to its flaws. The legacy of the Fourth Labour Government has been tarnished by its failure to bring the public along with them in difficult social and economic times. New Zealand never fully embraced Rogernomics until the people born in the 1980's and 1990's grew into adulthood. Today the majority of Kiwis wouldn't go back to the interventionist school of economics.

The Fourth National Government would go onto to repeat the mistakes of its Labour predecessor. The full impact of the Fourth Labour and National Government's on the public's minds is reflected in New Zealand's electoral system. At the 1992 Referendum on New Zealand's electoral system , Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) was the winner. The majority of the public's support for MMP was reaffirmed by a comfortable margin in the 2011 Referendum.

Critics of MMP have sighted the fact the nature of proportional representation/minority governments prevent the implementation of reform or even just maintaining good policy. According to the critics minor political parties (who National and Labour need to form a government) can block legislative changes. Evidence for this claim can be said to go both ways.

In the 90's New Zealand and the ACT Party and New Zealand First opposed the RNZN obtaining a third frigate , the effects of which are only now just being felt. So this may be said to be an example of how MMP directly had a negative effect on defence policy. The introduction of Charter Schools a ACT Party policy is an example of how MMP has had a positive effect on policy making.


Now I wish to move onto the second mistake successive governments have made. No instruments were put in place to measure the projected outcome or the actual outcome after a policy has been implemented. How the Resource Management Act (RMA) caused a nation wide shortage housing shortage/unaffordable housing illustrates this failure perfectly. No thought was given to reforming or scraping RMA until the cost of housing became a national crises.

What bothers me is that things didn't have to be this way at all. In 1983 Bob Hawke became the Prime Minster of Australia. Hawke's great strengths were everything his Kiwi counterparts in this era would never even strive to. Hawke enjoyed a great affinity with voters. Hawke's had a great talent for explaining the nature and need for economic reform to the Australian people.

A lot can be said of Paul Keating during time as Treasure under Hawke and his subsequent time as Prime Minster. Certainly the Hawke government never shoved reforms down the throats of the electorate overnight , like Finance Minster Roger Douglas (he bears his name to Rogernomics) did in New Zealand. I believe Hawke understand the pre-set conditions that were required for the implementation of a successful reform agenda while carrying public support with them.

Firstly the need for reform had to be around and secondly a comprehensive policies that can solve the issues at hand. Thirdly the public had to understand how the reforms package would work , lend their support to the package and fundamentally perceive it as being fair. Hawke left a template for future Australian political leaders (including current Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull) to follow in times of major reform. New Zealand's current and future political leaders have no such template to follow.


At the time of writing Local Government New Zealand is advocating for the RMA to be replaced or rebooted. The RMA must be one of the worst bits of legislation that was ever enacted in New Zealand. Current or future governments will have to tackle RMA reform. The question in my mind is can they avoid the terrible mistakes of the of their predecessors?

Elements of the socialist left in New Zealand have never accepted Rogernomics and would like New Zealand to return to the Muldoon era. National is still scarred by the electoral unpopularity of their government in the 1990's. How will the current and future governments overcome these obstacles? Watch this space.