Thirty years ago, dissatisfied with the swings of the policy pendulum and the arrogance of successive Labor and central governments, New Zealanders changed their electoral rules.
The old First Last Post (FPP) electoral system has been replaced by the Mixed Member Proportional System (MMP). At the time, it was thought that this would end an era of executive overreach.
It was expected that multiparty and minority governments would not be able to wield their positions as easily as single-party majority governments, and this is often the case.
Election reform is difficult in countries that lack the constitutional guardrails found elsewhere, such as a formally codified constitution, a second parliament with legislative oversight powers, or a Supreme Court that can decide whether or not executive action is right. seemed like a recipe for moderating policy.
Supporters of the new system also expected that it would encourage a more cooperative style of politics, avoiding the bellicose winner-takes-all approach practiced by successive FPP governments.
For now, that optimism may seem naive. After three years under a Labor government that acted like a minority government despite having an absolute majority in parliament, New Zealanders are now convinced that three parties are willing to take advantage of their numerical advantage. I realized that I was being ruled by a coalition government.
AAP
Urgency and execution
The National-led coalition government passed more legislation with parliamentary urgency in its first 100 days in office than any other MMP government.
Some may see this shortened parliamentary process as a sign of efficiency. But it's equally fair that there may be a price to pay to avoid public scrutiny.
Legislation that has not been sufficiently stress tested by some committees may be flawed. And it is natural to question the legitimacy of such a process of rejecting public input.
Read more: The government's first 100 days went largely to plan – now comes the hard part
Other efforts are also shifting the balance of power toward the political-administrative side. The government's fast-track consent bill puts significant powers in the hands of just three ministers, who have the discretion to overturn judicial decisions.
In effect, they can privately consent to large-scale developments, including roads, mines, and other projects that critics fear could proceed rapidly without regard to the environmental impact. This could include projects such as tunneling.
Also striking was the angry reaction to poorly communicated changes to the disability fund. Future decisions on operational matters affecting the Waikaha Disability Ministry will be approved directly by Cabinet.
Apart from its content about the political future of Disability Affairs Minister Penny Symonds, it represents an unusual direct involvement of a minister in the activities of a government department.
Read more: New Zealand in recession – so far there is little sign the government has plans to stimulate and grow the economy
Decline in public services
There are other signs that all is not well between ministers and officials. Most obviously, a significant number of civil service jobs have been lost.
The expedited consent bill was prepared without a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts on fisheries and protected areas. And ministers are making selective use of regulatory impact statements.
In short, the ability of civil servants to speak truth to administrative power is diminishing.
In addition to the poor attitude of the authorities, the government's lack of compassion and style of rhetoric have also attracted attention.
Examples include the potential cancellation of school feeding programmes, the seemingly blunt approach to transparency requirements regarding ministers and the tobacco industry, the seeming celebration of public sector unemployment, and pupils in schools being absent due to poor health. For example, there is a proposal that the state could decide whether or not it is possible to do so. stay at home.
Some of this will pass. However, there are reasons to be wary of the return of militant administrative politics.
balance the government and the governed
If ministers are left alone, they will not necessarily be able to make the right decisions. Parliamentary democracy is essentially rule by laymen. Although a minister is a professional politician, he is rarely an expert in his portfolio. They learn on the job, but they need help to do so.
Much of this aid comes from authorities. The point of a professional public service is to provide professional advice to those tasked with the democratic task of making decisions.
Ministers have the freedom not to act on official recommendations. But deciding on a course of action without at least listening to and considering that advice undermines informed decision-making.
Read more: The return of “consular politics” – cutting civil service jobs to cut costs usually backfires
There are also reasons to maintain a certain distance between politics and administration. When politicians make decisions about the operation of government departments and ministries, there is a danger that partisanship will take precedence over considerations of fairness and justice. Bridging this gap risks politicizing public administration.
Finally, perhaps the greatest threat posed by the centralization of executive power is to the integrity of democratic norms and institutions.
In politics, there is always a trade-off between the efficiency of decision-making and the effectiveness of democracy. New Zealand's democratic institutions belong to everyone, not ministers. And they need to endure for a long time even after the regime leaves the enforcement stage.
MMP was designed to create a better balance between the government and the governed. Losing this balance could lead to the erosion of democracy seen elsewhere in the world.
