It is being billed as quite possibly New Zealand’s biggest labour action in more than 40 years.

It is the latest in a growing series of strikes and walkoffs this year, but the sheer size of it today means much of New Zealand will come to a halt.

Several public sector unions say the strike is going ahead in spite of wild weather across the country — though plans for some rallies may change due to conditions.

• READ MORE: RNZ’s live news blog

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In February 2025, Dr Diana Sarfati resigned, not unexpectedly, as Director-General of Health after only two years into her five-year term.

As a medical specialist, and in her role as developing the successful cancer control agency, she had extensive experience in New Zealand’s health system.

However, she did not conform to the privately expressed view of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon: That the problem with the health system is that it is led by health.

Responsibility for the appointment of public service chief executives rests with the Public Service Commissioner.

In carrying out this function, Brian Roche had two choices for the process of selecting Sarfati’s replacement — run a contestable hiring process (the usual method) or appoint someone without this process.

With the required approval of Attorney-General Judith Collins and Health Minister Simeon Brown, Roche opted for the exception rather than the rule.

This suggests a degree of pre-determination to appoint someone without the “hindrance” of health system experience, consistent with Luxon’s view.

An appointment from outside health
Consequently, on April 1, Audrey Sonerson was appointed the new Director-General of Health for a five-year term.

She had been the Ministry of Transport chief executive (including when Brown was transport minister). She also had senior positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in the Police and Treasury.

Though she had been part of the Treasury’s health team and has a master’s in health economics, her only health system experience was in the brief hiatus between Sarfati’s resignation when acting director-general and becoming the confirmed replacement.

‘For a minister with no experience of the complexity of health care delivery to choose a director-general who herself has no health experience is extremely concerning.’

— Dr David Galler, former intensive care specialist

This is unprecedented for the director-general position. Sonerson is the 18th person to hold this position. The first 10 had been medical doctors. In 1992, the first non-doctor holder was appointed (a Canadian with some health management experience).

The subsequent six appointees all had extensive health system experience. Three were medical doctors (two in population health), two had been district health board chief executives, and one had been the director-general in Scotland and a medical geographer.

Dr David Galler is well-placed to comment on the significance of this extraordinary change of direction. He is a retired intensive care specialist and former President of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists.

He held the unique position of principal medical adviser to the health minister, the ‘eyes and ears’ of the health system for three health ministers in the mid to late 2000s. He also worked closely with two director-generals.

Drawing on this experience, Galler observes that: “Director-generals of health must be respected, influential, knowledgeable, connected and trusted, to ensure that good policy goes into practice and good practice informs policy . . .  For a minister with no experience of the complexity of health care delivery to choose a director-general who herself has no health experience is extremely concerning.”

Breadth of the health system
As the director-general heads up the Health Ministry, she is responsible for being the “steward” of our health system. In this context she is the lead adviser to the government on health. In the context of seeking to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders, the organisation Sonerson now leads is responsible for:

• the stewardship and leadership of the health system; and
• advising her minister and government on health and disability matters.

These responsibilities have to be considered in the context of how extensive the health system is beginning with its complexity, highly specialised range of health professional occupational groups, and its breadth.

This breadth ranges from community healthcare (predominantly general practices), local 24/7 acute hospitals, tertiary hospitals (lower volume, high complexity) and quaternary care services (national services for very uncommon or highly complex even lower volume procedures and treatments, including experimental medicine, uncommon surgical procedures, and advanced trauma care).

Another way of looking at this breadth is that it ranges in treatment from medical to surgical to mental health to diagnostic. And then there is population health such as epidemiology.

Population health and the Health Act
However, responsibility extends further to specific obligations under the Health Act 1956, many of which are operational. Although it is nearly 60 years old, this act has been updated by legislative amendments many times and as recently as 2022 with the passing of the Pae Ora Act that disestablished district health boards and established Health New Zealand.

The Health Act gives Sonerson’s health ministry the function of improving, promoting and protecting public health (as distinct from personal diagnostic and treatment health). Public health is legislatively defined as meaning either the health of all New Zealanders or a population group, community, or section of people within New Zealand.

A critical part of this role is the responsibility for ensuring that local government authorities improve, promote, and protect public health within their districts in appointing key positions (such as medical officers of health, environmental health officers and health protection officers); food and water safety; regular inspections for any nuisances, or any conditions likely to be injurious to health or offensive and, where necessary, secure their abatement or removal; make bylaws for the protection of public health; and provide reports on diseases and sanitary conditions within each district.

The population function under the Health Act of improving, promoting, and protecting public health means that how well the health ministry under Sonerson’s leadership performs directly affects the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.

This is an immense responsibility that cannot be minimised.

Understanding universal health systems
Universal health systems such as ours are characterised by being highly complex, adaptive and labour intensive and innovative (innovation primarily comes from its workforce). They provide a public good (rather than commodities) and their breadth is considerable.

But, despite appearances to the contrary, the different parts of this breadth don’t function separately from each other. They are not just interconnected; they are interdependent.

As a result, each part makes up a highly integrated system. Consequently, relationships are critical. The more relational the culture, the better the system will perform; the more contractual the culture, the poorer it will perform.

Galler’s experience-based above-mentioned observation needs to be seen in the context of the challenging nature of universal health systems.

In a wider discussion on health system leadership, Auckland surgeon Dr Erica Whineray Kelly got to the core of the issue very well: “You’d never have a conductor of an orchestra who’d never played an instrument.”

Audrey Sonerson comes into the director-general position with a deficit. It will help her performance if she first recognises that there are many unknowns for her and then proceeds to listen to those within the system who possess the experience of knowing well these unknowns.

It might go some way to alleviating the legitimate concerns of Galler and Whineray Kelly and many others.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes. This article was first published by Newsroom and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

With the sudden departure of New Zealand’s Reserve Bank Governor, one has to ask whether there is a pattern here — of a succession of public sector leaders leaving their posts in uncertain circumstances and a series of decisions being made without much regard for due process.

It brings to mind the current spectacle of federal government politics playing out in the United States. Four years ago, we observed a concerted attempt by a raucous and determined crowd to storm the Capitol.

Now a smaller, more disciplined and just as determined band is entering federal offices in Washington almost unhindered, to close agencies and programmes and to evict and terminate the employment of thousands of staff.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The country’s largest trade union — The Public Service Association — says the ministry has informed staff that it is looking to shed 63 of 156 positions.

Opposition MPs have slammed the decision, which they say will undermine the delivery of services to Pasifika communities in New Zealand.

Labour MP and former deputy prime minister Carmel Sepuloni said it also reduced a Pasifika voice in the public sector.

“Our overriding concern is not only the impact on direct support from the delivery of services to communities, but also the equality of advice that would be offered across government agencies in areas such as health, housing or education,” Sepuloni said.

“We would have a thought that Pacific people should be a priority given the fact that many of the challenges in New Zealand at the moment disproportionately affect Pacific people.”

The slash is the latest proposal by government to cut staff across the public sector. Within the last week alone, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Health proposed cuts amounting to more than 400 positions.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the cuts were needed to “right size” the public service.

Staff cuts had long been promoted by Luxon in order to fund a tax cut package.

“What’s happened here is that we’ve actually hired 14,000 more public servants and then on top of that, we’ve had a blowout of the consultants and contractor budget from $1.2 billion to $1.7 billion, and it’s gone up every year over the last five to six years,” Luxon said.

“And really what it speaks to is look, at the end we’re not getting good outcomes,” he added.

But critics say the cuts will only cause mass unemployment and undermine services needed across New Zealand. Public Sector Association national secretary Duane Leo said the cuts would have far-reaching consequences for the health and well-being of Pasifika families in Aotearoa.

“We know that Pasifika families are more likely to be in overcrowded unhealthy housing situations and challenging environments, and they’re also suffering from the current cost of living,” Leo said.

“The ministry plays an active role in supporting housing development, the creation of employment opportunities, supporting Pasifika languages cultures and identities, developing social enterprises — this all going to suffer.

“The government is after these savings to finance $3 billion worth of tax cuts to support landlords … why are they prioritising that when they could be funding services that New Zealanders rely on.”

The extent of staff cuts will be revealed next month when the New Zealand government is expected to announce its Budget on May 30.

Sepuloni said the massive cut indicated a move to get rid of the ministry, something that has long been promoted by Coalition partner — the ACT Party.

“We have to wonder if these are the first steps towards abolishing the Ministry,” Sepuloni said.

“It’s undermining the funding to an extent that it looks like they’re trying to make the ministry as ineffective as possible, and potentially justify what ACT has wanted from the beginning . . . which is to disestablish the ministry.”

In response to criticism about cuts to the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said all government agencies should be engaging with the Pacific community — not just the Ministry of Pacific Peoples.

Willis said the agency had grown significantly in recent years and a rethink was appropriate.

“It’s our expectation as a government that every agency engaged effectively with the Pacific community not just that ministry,” Willis said.

“We think the growth that has gone on in that ministry was excessive.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fa’anānā Efeso Collins is being remembered as a pillar of the Pacific community with a “big heart of service”, who loved being a husband and father.

The 49-year-old Samoan-Tokelauan leader and Greens MP has been described as someone who embodied the Samoan proverb: “o le ala i le pule o le tautua” — the pathway to leadership is through service.

Prominent leaders say Fa’anānā was “a strong community advocate”, known for serving disadvantaged communities.

A beloved father, husband, brother and friend, Fa’anānā died suddenly in Auckland yesterday afternoon and leaves behind a strong legacy of service as someone whose mission was helping the poor.

Health leader Sir Collin Tukuitonga said his death sent shock waves across the region, especially in the heart of South Auckland, where he grew up and had spent most of his time serving others.

“Shocking is an understatement. He was on the same mission as the rest of us [Pacific leaders]. A good man. Good community values. It’s absolutely devastating for his family, for the Pasifika community, for NZ and beyond.

“Efeso was a rare person. The Pasifika community is not well endowed with community leaders like Efeso – ethical, strong, community-minded.”

‘Stand out community leader’
Tukuitonga noted Fa’anānā’s contribution to students when he became the first Polynesian president of the Auckland University Students’ Association in the late 1990s.

“He did a lot at university for students, for local government. He was a stand-out community leader. A number of us were hopeful he would also have an impact at national Parliament, no doubt his legacy will live on in many of the things he had supported.”

National candidate and longtime friend Fonoti Agnes Loheni said he was “a very special person”.

“I am grateful for our friendship. His faith in God made him strong. He was a very fearless and fierce voice for the poor. He had a big heart of service. He was not only an advocate but also a man of action,” she said.

Loheni acknowledged his family, wife and two girls, saying just last week they had connected during his induction into Parliament and he shared with her just how much he loved his family.

“He was catching me up on his wife and his daughter. That was it for him, being a husband and a father were the main roles for him. The most important.”

Loss felt across region
Former minister for Pacific peoples Aupito William Sio said the loss was being felt across the region.

Tonga’s Princess also paid tribute online.

“It was no mystery to any of us in the islands how loved he was by many of our Pasifika community in New Zealand.”

Shocked to hear of the sudden passing of @efesocollins It was no mystery to any of us in the islands how loved he was by many of our Pasifika community in New Zealand. My heartfelt condolences go out to his family and friends. Toka aa ‘i he nonga moe melino ‘a e ‘Eiki 🙏 pic.twitter.com/XBnJkNhooi

— Frederica (@FredericaTuita) February 21, 2024

Sio said: “His [Fa’anānā’s] profile reached the four corners of the Pacific region. He was getting support from overseas when he ran for mayor. He gave everybody the belief that anybody can achieve the highest office in NZ society. Even though he didn’t win it he got major endorsements from two political parties and made everyone hopeful of the future.”

Sio said Fa’anānā was always speaking truth to power, recalling the night of his swearing-in as an Auckland councillor.

“He confronted racism and discrimination in the council. I think he made everyone uncomfortable and made them reflect on their behaviours. I think he was fearless, he woke everybody up. It enabled the next generation to build some confidence in who they were.”

Friends and colleagues of Fa’anānā have told RNZ Pacific their thoughts were with his family, wife and children.

‘He was always there to help’
Hana Schmidt, a director of Papatoetoe-based, Pasifika-led creative agency Bluwave, counted Fa’anānā as one of her mentors and supporters.

She told RNZ Nights that a lot of young people were able to relate to him and speak to him, because he could relate to their experiences growing up in South Auckland

“He was an awesome person gave a lot of guidance to those in south Auckland who are in the community space, and also the business space and the governance space.”

She said he was always there to help, and wasn’t always wearing his political hat

“He would rather have genuine connections with the youth that he did come into contact with, the conversations were very genuine and close to heart.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In Pyongyang there is a public service which would appeal to our own Public Service Commissioner in Aotearoa New Zealand. It never makes any dissenting or controversial view known.

Rather it readies itself for any potential change in the face of the Kim family leadership. Ever ready to resume the daily grind of boot-licking and box-ticking of a docile public service.

It is, as I like to say, neutered rather than neutral, but from above it can be very hard to tell the difference.

In the ideal world that seems to be preferred in “PyongPoneke”, there is no room for open debate and each word means what the Public Service Commissioner says it means.

It is rather like the world described by Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word”, Humpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all”. Thank you Commissioner Humpty for your work taking the word “impartiality” out of the dictionary and into the public service world.

Imperial and colonial past
I am not against the public service. I am strongly for an excellent, efficient, equitable and effective public service. But you do not get that in a modern and complex society from a model of public service derived from a monocultural, inequitable and dare I say it (yes I do) imperial and colonial past.

In the real world what they like to call our public service is in fact a politically subservient service, far removed from the public it is supposed to serve.

This comment is not directed at the many thousands of public servants working closely with those they serve.

These people, the real public service, are often underpaid and overworked. They spend much time battling with the rules and processes and prejudices imposed on them by those at the top of the tree. Many are scared to speak up, so they leave or stay quiet.

I understand why, they need the job too much to risk being branded difficult. Not a few of them write to me, call me, or stop me in the street. And it is not to say “get back in line”.

They and the mandarins themselves know what the problem is. There is a square mile or so around the Beehive in Wellington, which is like the Vatican in Italy. A different country within a country. The world looks totally different from there.

Those there are mainly there for the same reason, and they are faced inwards, mentally at least, towards what they see as power and away from the people, the public they are supposed to serve.

They cannot understand Ōtara, or Cannons Creek . . .
They cannot see, hear or understand those in Ōtara, in Te Tai Tokerau, in Tairāwhiti, in Cannons Creek, on the West Coast or rural Southland.

Alongside the big consultancy firms that share their buildings, their CVs and their views, senior advisers draw up plans for the rest of us on whiteboards.

These are parsed by the “tier one” people who over coffee, wine, or whisky cosily massage these into an acceptable form for politicians. Just enough choices to create an illusion of political control, but not so much as to upset the system.

Are these people impartial or neutral ? No, they do not need to be. They have strong views which reflect the caste they belong to. Some of them even jokingly refer to this as “Poneketanga”.

They engage rafts of “communications” people to sell the story — often poorly as in Te Whatu Ora, where there are more than 200 such people and where despite that overload PR firms are often called in to sell better.

Back to basics
This is not a way to create an efficient, effective, excellent and equitable public service. To do that we will have to go back to some basics about the purpose of public service today and in the future.

To my mind this would include:

• Opening up jobs to a much wider range of people with real world experience, be that commercial or social, in forms that are not all for a lifetime, but which enable free and ongoing interchange;
• Opening up policy-making to start from the “bottom up”, and which are not based on “top down”, carefully framed, bogus consultations;
• Allowing people to speak their minds and debate difficult issues without having to assume that future political winners are not so prejudiced and narrow-minded as to refuse to work with anyone with a different opinion to theirs; and
• Paying real attention, not playing pretend attention, to the professional bodies and unions which represent staff, who mostly will prefer rightly to get on with their jobs.

None of that seems hard or dangerous to me. After all, it is only changing a public service model which has produced or failed to prevent all of the many crises we can observe around us.

Rob Campbell is former chairperson of Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This article was first published by Stuff and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“I thank Mr Campbell for his contribution since the establishment of Te Whatu Ora last year.”

In a statement, Campbell said the removal from his position was “an inappropriate reaction to statements made in my private capacity”.

“I have spoken to [opposition leader] Christopher Luxon who has accepted my apology for any personal offence my statements may have caused. He accepted my apology.

“I have also apologised to Minister Verrall for any difficulty which my statements may have caused for her and the government.”

Campbell defends actions
Speaking to RNZ Checkpoint, Campbell continued to defend his actions.

“I’ve received a letter from the minister which responded to a letter from my lawyers, indicating that she has removed me from that position as chair of Te Whatu Ora. I think that’s a mistake and an overreaction to the statements I made in a private capacity but nevertheless that’s what she’s done,” he said.

“I think I’m entitled to make comments as a private citizen, which I did in the LinkedIn post.

“And secondly, the suggestion is that I’ve somehow got offside with the opposition, which given that I spoke to Christopher Luxon earlier today, we discussed the issues. I made an apology to him for any personal offence he had taken, he accepted that apology. We had a very nice discussion about it.

“So I don’t believe there’s any issue there. I’ve seen Richard Prebble from the ACT Party saying that he believes I have the right to make statements of this kind.”

He said the comments that he made were on a public forum, but he made them in a private capacity.

“I didn’t make those statements as chair of Te Whatu Ora … I always have to have regard to the interests of Te Whatu Ora and I don’t see anything in the statements I’ve made which was in any way damaging to Te Whatu Ora.”

Strong commitment to kaupapa
“The comments showed my political position, but there is nothing in the code of conduct which suggests you should not do that,” he said.

Campbell said emphasised his strong commitment to the kaupapa of the Pae Ora legislation and the work which Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora were doing to implement that legislation.

“I have devoted huge energy and time and involvement to that end. I am disappointed that I will not be working directly with the thousands of health sector staff, patients and whānau with whom I have been actively engaged. My support for them is undiminished.

“The principle of working in Tiriti partnership to achieve equity in the lives of all New Zealanders is core to my beliefs and I make no apology for that.”

Campbell would not rule out taking legal action over the matter saying it was one possible line of action.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Political Roundup: Public sector bosses must be held accountable for undermining transparency

Public service bosses earn mega-salaries, yet oversee bureaucracies that frequently undermine transparency and frustrate public and media scrutiny. The obvious answer is to start docking the pay of chief executives for the failures of their agencies.

This is the upshot of an investigation by the Chief Ombudsman’s Office into the performance of government departments in releasing public information under the Official Information Act (OIA). The Chief Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, found that although there are some things to celebrate about how agencies are fulfilling their obligations under the OIA, there are also very concerning ways information is being illegally buried or constrained.

How government agencies are undermining transparency

Boshier’s report, titled “Ready or Not”, says public sector bosses are failing to ensure their own agencies follow the law when it comes to allowing the public and media to scrutinise what they are doing. Bureaucracies are essentially abusing the OIA by keeping public information secret, or at least delaying its release, and manipulating the process to suit authorities and politicians.

The report examined the compliance of 12 government agencies and found breaches of the law were common. The Ombudsman said the practices of some agencies had “little or nothing to do with the law itself”.

He was highly critical of the time it takes government agencies to deliver information that should be public. The routine wait of 20 working days for information to be supplied is unnecessarily long, and the processes are overly-complicated. In fact, an earlier report showed that 31 government departments have average response times that exceed the 20 day limit.

Part of the problem identified by Boshier is that agencies have not invested in adequate record keeping and information management. Many don’t have proper OIA training for the relevant staff who deal with the requests.

Here’s a summary from the Ombudsman about the problems: “I am growing increasingly concerned about the experiences journalists are reporting and the apparent dismissal by some agency media teams of the OIA legislation which underpins their work. In fact, the processes adopted by the agencies have little or nothing to do with the law itself and I intend to consider this matter further.”

He says there is now growing mistrust and suspicion amongst journalists and others who need to use the OIA for their jobs.

The Nefarious role of government spin doctors

Government spin doctors get much of the blame for undermining transparency in the new report. Communications staff who work in the Beehive and government agencies are growing in numbers and power. And according to the report they appear to be flouting the law. The Ombudsman says government spin doctors need “a fundamental cultural change” in order to make politics more transparent.

Boshier found that many government media teams didn’t even seem to understand the law that they are charged with fulfilling. For example, Boshier says: “There appears to be a widespread misapprehension that many media information requests don’t fall under the OIA, and that applying the law is difficult and complicated. These perceptions are false.”

For example, his investigation found “multiple examples of media teams” breaching the section of the law which requires a reason to be given when declining OIA requests. Boshier says: “Media teams are failing to give journalists a reason when they refuse to provide information or inform them of their right to complain to me.”

According to the report, Beehive staff are also playing a particularly problematic role in stifling the provision of information that is given by the different government agencies. Reporting on the Ombudsman’s investigation, Herald journalist David Fisher says: “It identified occasions in which ministerial officials tried to limit the scope of information released or tried to change an agency’s decision about what was to be released.”

Furthermore, Boshier is concerned that government departments are delaying the release of information and giving Government ministers three to five days of advance warning that such information is going out. According to Boshier the “no surprises” policy is being abused, and generally ministers should only be given the information at the same time that it is released or, at most, the day before.

The Solution is more accountability for public sector CEOs

Although government communications staff are undermining transparency in the way they deal with OIA requests, there’s an increasing call for bosses of each agency to be held accountable for their operations – or even with the Public Service Commission, which oversees all the agencies. As Boshier points out, in terms of the OIA, “There is a lack of appreciation of leadership of how fundamentally important this act is.”

Political commentator Liam Hehir argued yesterday: “The simple solution is to hold public sector CEOs personally accountable for their agencies in the same way that company directors are. If they aren’t proactively ensuring compliance then they should be personally fined.”

The Chief Ombudsman hasn’t directly put forward such a controversial solution himself, but he is pointing the finger at the public service bosses as the ones that need to be held accountable for the OIA failings. In fact, Boshier has recommended that OIA metrics be included as part of the performance criteria of public service bosses’ annual reviews. Their salaries, bonuses, and continued employment should be predicated on the basis of performance objectives that include how well their agency is delivering information to the public. And Boshier has stressed that public sector bosses need to ensure that their organisations have the systems in place – and the resources – to adequately handle their OIA obligations.

With the average public sector boss earning $485,000 in 2020/21, this could be an effective way to bring about improvements. Docking the pay of those at the top of poorly performing agencies might see OIA requests suddenly get processed faster and with more openness.

Of course, the Public Service Commission is unlikely to be keen on such changes. The head of the PSC, Peter Hughes, has come out to suggest change is already occurring and the expectations for chief executives are already clear enough. And in terms of OIA compliance, he said yesterday: “We want to get it right, but where that is not happening, I want to know about it, and I will make sure it is fixed.” And he is already very positive about how his agencies are delivering in this regard, concluding earlier this month that the public sector is “performing well on its OIA obligations”.

Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission is also refusing to release the current performance objectives and assessments for its agency bosses.

Is Labour the most transparent government ever?

In the wake of this report, which suggests that there are some big problems in terms of core transparency in government agencies, the Public Services Minister Chris Hipkins has reiterated claims that his administration is better than any previous ones: “I think we’re more transparent than previous governments have been.”

The Prime Minister has also been questioned about the performance of OIA requests under her administration, and claims there is not such a problem, explaining that some requests for information from the media just get “lost in the post”.

Perhaps it’s time for the Prime Minister to take those transparency lapses a bit more seriously. She could start by insisting that government department bosses lift their game or face financial penalty.

Further reading on Official Information Act abuse

David Fisher (Herald): Chief Ombudsman’s OIA inquiry finds ‘significant gaps’ and law flouted by government spin doctors
Nikki Macdonald (Stuff): Government media response teams breaching OIA and need ‘fundamental cultural change’ – Ombudsman’s report
RNZ: Government OIA response processes fuelling growing mistrust – Ombudsman
Rachel Sadler (Newshub): Chief Ombudsman finds ‘significant gaps’ during probe into Official Information Act
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Ombudsman slams responses to media questions by govt agencies (paywalled)
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Chief Ombudsman ‘troubled’ by time Government took to release list of meetings
Brent Edwards (NBR): Chief Ombudsman: Public service must do better on OIA requests (paywalled)
Herald: Vodafone boss defends rebranding to One NZ after claims of white supremacist connotations
No Right Turn: If we can’t trust the Ombudsman, who can we trust?

Other items of interest and importance today

KELVIN DAVIS ATTACK ON KAREN CHHOUR
Jamie Ensor and Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Deputy Labour leader Kelvin Davis rings Māori ACT MP Karen Chhour to apologise for ‘Pākehā world’ comment
Imogen Wells (Newshub): Deputy Labour leader Kelvin Davis tells Māori ACT MP Karen Chhour she needs to leave ‘her Pākehā world’
Audrey Young (Herald): Willie Jackson draws howls of derision in Question Time (paywalled)
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Oranga Tamariki minister challenges ACT MP to enter Māori world
Molly Swift (Newshub): Oriini Kaipara says Labour’s Kelvin Davis owes ACT’s Karen Chhour an apology after ‘degrading’ comments
Kate Hawkesby (Newstalk): Kelvin Davis’ ‘how Māori are you’ routine yesterday was a disturbing trip backwards
David Farrar: NZ Labour has lower standards than UK Labour

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
1News: Poll: Approval ratings of Jacinda Ardern, Christopher Luxon revealed
1News: ‘Like living in a gulag’ – Kiwis divided as next election approaches
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Kelvin Davis, the ‘bulldozer’ of Oranga Tamariki, on why he won’t close the children’s ministry
1News: MP Kiri Allan and RNZ presenter Māni Dunlop engaged
RNZ: RNZ’s Māni Dunlop announces engagement to Justice Minister Kiri Allan
Stuff: Justice Minister Kiri Allan engaged with ‘very on brand’ airport proposal to radio presenter Māni Dunlop
Herald: Justice Minister Kiri Allan engaged to radio presenter Māni Dunlop
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Beehive papers say there must be room for a view (paywalled)
Andy Fyers (BusinessDesk): PollTracker: advantage right, but it’s still tight (paywalled)
BusinessDesk: BusinessDesk and IPANZ launch survey of public servants

INTEGRITY IN POLITICS
Waatea News: Tamihere responds to NZ Herald allegations
Herald: John Tamihere calls for Electoral Law changes amid funding investigation (paywalled)
Jonty Dine (RNZ): Te Pāti Māori president claims party ‘demonised’ by political donations investigation
Glenn McConnell and Denise Piper (Stuff): John Tamihere defends his charities’ payments and loans to his political campaigns
Ben Thomas (Stuff): Nanaia Mahuta has been scrupulous. She deserves better than a whitewash

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): They call it “democracy” – but they’re lying
Katie Todd (RNZ): ‘Abysmal’ early voter turnout raises questions around approach to local elections
Newshub: Local Government Minister hasn’t received voting papers, Newshub understands
Justin Wong (Stuff): What do mana whenua want from the next councils in the Wellington region?
Hamish McNeilly (Stuff): Big tick energy: Mayoral aspirant’s push for ticks could render votes invalid
Debbie Jamieson (Stuff): ‘Dirty politics’ in Queenstown mayoral campaign, candidate looks to sue
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Lower Hutt mayor Campbell Barry signed Labour Party pledge

AUCKLAND MAYORAL ELECTION
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): Wayne Brown and the cantankerous track to the mayoralty
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Wayne Brown opens up a storm in a port
Tim Murphy and Matthew Scott (Newsroom): The people Wayne or Efeso must really win over
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Enemy’s enemy is my friend

HEALTH
Rowan Quinn (RNZ): Nurses warned plan to turn down extra shifts next week likely illegal
Gill Bonnett (RNZ): Health ministers queried why nurses not on fast track residence list, papers show
RNZ: High demand at Christchurch Hospital sees surgeries rescheduled
Mihingarangi Forbes (Newshub): Poll reveals just 54 percent of Māori babies immunised on time
David Farrar: The shameful fall in immunisation rates
Carmen Hall (Herald): ‘Despicable’ Govt should axe GST off quality of life meds (paywalled)
Isaac Davison (Herald): Banning booze in sports: Can Green MP Chloe Swarbrick get support for her alcohol reforms? (paywalled)
1News: Pharmac announce consultation on potentially life-saving drug
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Cancer drug crusader Malcolm Mulholland diagnosed with cancer
Jase Te Patu (Herald): The state of mental health in Aotearoa is sickening and needs immediate injection of love and care
Hinemoa Elder (Herald): The power of karakia in mental health
Alwyn Poole (Kiwiblog): I don’t know much about politics – so please explain to me …

EDUCATION
Peter Dunne: Youth crisis looming
Michael Johnston (Herald): Is the Ministry of Education fit for purpose? (paywalled)
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Some schools discourage enrolments of children with disabilities – Education Review Office
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): The school looking worst-hit by equity funding changes – and why they’re not complaining
Jamie Morton (Herald): ‘World class’ observatory to close amid AUT cuts

MEDIA
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson cites ‘no trust’ in defence of public media entity
Antony Young (Stuff): The TVNZ-RNZ merger: a solution looking for a problem
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): Media merger another example of failed ideology
Isobel Ewing (Newshub): RNZ-TVNZ merger: Veteran Kiwi producer says draining NZ On Air’s funding will ‘wipe out local production companies.’
David Farrar: Labour spending $368 million to merge two companies worth $366 million!

VODAFONE ACCUSED OF RACISM FOR NEW NAME
Herald: Vodafone boss defends rebranding to One NZ after claims of white supremacist connotations
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): Vodafone chief executive defends ‘racist’ name change on Twitter
Esther Taunton (Stuff): Far right group One New Zealand Foundation happy to share name with rebranded Vodafone
Esther Taunton (Stuff): Could Vodafone’s rebrand to One New Zealand backfire?

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT
The Country: Setting the record straight on emissions pricing
Adrian Macey and Dave Frame (BusinessDesk): ‘Inaccurate’ methane measure drives NZ climate policy (paywalled)
Adrian Macey and Dave Frame (BusinessDesk): Is it just hot air? Methane meets politics in NZ’s climate policy (paywalled)

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): New migrant exploitation regime promises tougher approach
Caitlin Rawling (Newshub): Government introduces Worker Protection Bill to ‘stamp out’ migrant exploitation in Aotearoa
Shane Te Pou (Herald): Blues in the boardroom? Give me a break (paywalled)
William Hewett (Newshub): Cost of living crisis: Green Party calling for universal $110 weekly payment for families with toddlers
Simon Bridges (NBR): Recession or not, New Zealand should back itself (paywalled)
Brent Edwards (NBR): How many central bankers should really lose their jobs? (paywalled)

HOUSING
Reweti Kohere (Spinoff): New Zealand’s poor housing ‘a failure of our democracy’
Eva Corlett (Guardian): New Zealand: average stay in emergency housing rises seven-fold in five years
Greg Presland (The Standard): Comrade Chris wants to solve Aotearoa’s housing crisis

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY
Graeme Edgeler (Democracy Project): The Periodic Review of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Our man in London: Phil Goff set to be confirmed as UK high commissioner
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): The case for and against expelling Russian Ambassador from NZ
RNZ: New Zealand imposes further sanctions against Putin-linked individuals

JUSTICE
Peter Davis (Herald): The perception of ram raids and violent crime and the reality (paywalled)
Chelsea Daniels (Herald): Study finds link between young ram-raiders and family harm events
Herald Editorial: Long arm of the law overreaching by faking stolen car reports (paywalled)
Alice Snedden (Spinoff): What if we scrapped prisons altogether?

PLAYCENTRE CO-GOVERNANCE
David Farrar: Welcome to our future
Nick Brook (ODT): Playcentre vote overturned

OTHER
Karanama Ruru (Stuff): Only four out of ten young Kiwis are happy, Stuff NowNext survey finds
Michael Webster (Stuff): Kiwis must know their rights, and organisations their obligations, on privacy
Jamie Ensor (Stuff): Kauri Lounge: The secret airport lounge for VIPs there are no official photos of
Hanna McCallum (Stuff): Colonisation impacts ‘far from over’, human rights commissioner says
Rebecca Wadey (Stuff): Ex-National Party deputy leader Nikki Kaye: ‘My health isn’t perfect’
John Williamson (Herald): We need a new system for funding roads in Northland and NZ (paywalled)
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Prepare to slow: Drastic speed cuts across NZ needed on the ‘road to zero’

Full many a gem of purest ray serene The dark unfathom’d caves of ocean bear Full many a floww’r is born to blush unseen And waste its sweetness on the desert air

— Thomas Gray , “Elegy”, 1751

Jai Ram Reddy, former Fiji statesman, judge and international jurist, has died in Auckland aged 85.

In his passing, Fiji has lost one of its most distinguished sons of the 20th century.

We mourn his passing but, in truth, we mourn for ourselves, for he has left the silken bonds of this earth to find rest and respite in the company of Fiji’s immortals. He is now one for the ages.

This gifted man will continue to shine as a beacon for those who fight for fairness and justice and a higher purpose in life, and for a decent country to live in.

The words of Urdu Laureate Allama Iqbal are apposite: Bade Mushkil se Hote Hain Chaman men Deedawar paya.

Men of great clarity of vision are born rarely on this earth. Jai Ram Reddy exemplified the finest traits and traditions of his people.

He was born on May 12, 1937, the eldest child in a humble, hardworking family in the heart of Fiji’s cane country.

Transcended the limits
But he transcended the limits and limitations of his time and place and circumstance to reach the highest pinnacles of his profession in law and in international jurisprudence, with a distinguished record of public service in his native country.

Reddy graduated in law from Victoria University of Wellington in 1961. After several years at the law firm of the legendary lawyer AD Patel, he joined the Crown Law Office.

Declining the offer of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution from Chief Justice Sir John Nimmo while still in his early 30s, he joined the law firm of Stuart and Company where he remained for the rest of his legal career.

Law was his passion, he used to say, and what made all the difference was that he was so good at it.

He was the finest criminal barrister of his generation. After a short, ill-fated stint as Fiji’s Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in 1987, he accepted appointment as President of Fiji’s Court of Appeal, to the great delight of Sir Timoci Tuivaga, the Chief Justice, and Qoriniasi Bale, the Attorney-General, who counted Reddy as one of his two heroes in the law, the other being the judicial titan Justice Ghana Mishra.

Reddy’s judicial career reached its pinnacle as a Permanent Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTAR, in Arusha, Tanzania, where his judicial acumen and integrity won him accolades as a “consummate judge” respected for his “wisdom, fairness and sense of justice”.

‘A sheer privilege’
The president of ICTAR, Justice Eric Morse of Norway, wrote that it was “a sheer privilege to sit with judge Reddy on the bench”.

From law into politics which he entered in 1972 as a senator and the House of Representatives in April 1977. In Parliament he remained a commanding performer, never bested in debate, quick on his feet, withering in response, one of the best he had seen, said Dr Apenisa Kurusiqila, the Speaker.

“The Parliament will not be the same without you, Jai,” he said when Reddy left after his electoral defeat in 1999. His early years in politics were unproductive ones for him and for the people he represented, caught in the quagmire of communal wrangling, hobbled by division and disunity, and drifting.

But to his everlasting credit, he transcended that in the second phase of his career to become an honoured elder statesman, respected across the communities for his vision and essential, transparent fairness and “sincerity of purpose”.

The political reconciliation he achieved with his once arch political nemesis Sitiveni Rabuka in the teeth of rancorous opposition and deep skepticism on all sides, will remain one of the shining moments of 20th century Fijian history.

And Reddy’s evolution from a communal politician to a venerable statesman is a story for the pages of history books, too. Jai Ram Reddy was a “reluctant politician”, his critics charged. And they were right although for the wrong reason.

A vehicle for social service
Jai Ram was not in the thrall of politics, making small talk, trimming the truth, mixing easily with the crowds, glad handling. He readily acknowledged his essential shyness in public spaces. Politics for Jai Ram Reddy was a vehicle for social service, not a path to personal enrichment and accumulation.

Swami Rudananda’s influence on him was profound. Reserved and shy in public, Jai could be great fun in private. His laughter was infectious. He loved music and was a social singer in his early years.

We could talk endlessly about the Hindi movies of the 1950s, the songs and the actors he remembered. He was fond of horses and once owned one he impishly named Shabana Azmi, after the great Indian actress.

But all these private passions gave way as public duties increasingly came to consume his time. Jai Ram was an intellectual who believed in the power of ideas to change society and to enable sustainable social reform.

His enlarging vision saw a unity of purpose and common space for all the people of Fiji. “We are fellow human beings travelling in the same canoe,” he used to say.

“This country is big enough for all of us,” he said to a soldier who told him menacingly in Nadi in September 1987: “In this country, Mr Reddy, you take what we give you, no more.”

That Jai Ram refused to allow such taunts and provocations to derail or define him spoke volumes about the man. In one of the defining speeches of Fiji’s 20th century history, Jai Ram shared the deepest fears of his people with the Great Council of Chiefs in 1997: He spoke movingly of history and the making of history, of truth and destiny, words the chiefs collectively had heard for the first time from an Fijian of Indian descent leader.

“Indians of Fiji brought to these shores as labourers did not come to conquer or colonise.

“We, their descendants, do not seek to usurp your ancient rights and responsibilities. We never have. We have no wish, no desire, to separate ourselves from you.

“Fiji is our home. We have no other. We want no other.”

It was a majestic moment of truth and reconciliation, none better.

At his finest, eloquent
It was Jai Ram Reddy, the statesman, at his finest, eloquent and truthful in his thoughts. We all basked in the glory of his great achievement. But it was not to last long. He was gone soon afterwards. And we can only ponder what might have been had his vision succeeded.

“What might have been” must be among the saddest words in the English language. Jai Ram Reddy was a complex man. He had a very short fuse as some of us close to him knew well. He suffered fools badly. But no-one minded. We knew he was a person of complete, unimpeachable integrity.

He said in private what you heard from him in public. Often, he spoke from the heart.

“I have said what I felt,” he often said. Transparency of purpose defined him. He had a fine mind. He could cut through clutter in a canter. He readily won respect; he was a man who could be trusted to keep his word, as Sitiveni Rabuka has often said.

That, I think, lay at the heart of his life in politics and in public. Trust and integrity will be two words most closely associated with Reddy in the long years to come. In one of my last extended conversations with him in Auckland before his ailment claimed him.

He asked me how things looked in the country to which he had given the best years of life. I replied with the words of Firaq Gorakhpuri: Suraj ke nikalne men zara der lagegi. (The sun will take a little while longer to come out.) Is raat ko dhalne men zara der lagegi. (The night will take a little longer to fade away.)

Jai looked at me wordless for a while as if to say he understood.

We are grateful
And now he is gone. We are grateful and give thanks for the gift of his life which enriched us all. Jai Ram Reddy will not be forgotten.

His words and deeds will not die, nor allowed to perish on the silent shores of Fiji’s public memory.

We bow our heads in silence and respect as Mr Reddy embarks on his final journey.

May the angels light his way to Amar Lok, that sacred place of eternal rest for humanity’s immortals. Goodbye Jai, Goodbye Mr Reddy, goodbye sir.

The late Professor Brij Lal is the author of In the Eye of the Storm. Jai Ram Reddy and the politics of postcolonial Fiji (ANU Press, 2009) and most recently of Girmitiyas: Making of their Memory Keepers (New Delhi, 2021). He and his wife Padma were banned from Fiji for life. Professor Lal wrote this tribute before he died in exile on Christmas Day in 2021. Republished with permission from The Fiji Times.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

My last article, announcing that I intend to make a submission to the National Executive Council (NEC) to amend the Public Service regulation to no longer require the Commissioner of Police to hold a tertiary degree, prompted a number of readers to suggest this would be an act nepotism, corruption and self-interest.

While I found these claims rather amusing, they are also disturbing as it shows some people are either genuinely ignorant of the issues, or just plain stupid.

What is the regulation that stipulates a person must obtain a tertiary degree to qualify for the appointment of Departmental Head (Secretary of Department)?

In 2003, the NEC approved a regulation called the Public Service (Management) Minimum Person Specification and Competence & Regulations for Selection and Appointment of Departmental Heads and Provincial Administrators.

This regulation provided that any person applying for a position of Departmental Head or Provincial Administrator must meet a number of minimum requirements to be considered for the appointment. These requirements number more than 18 and include everything from minimim tertiary education, over age of 35, management experience and skills to health and fitness.

So there is no confusion, this regulation was proposed by the Department of Personnel Management as the agency responsible for Public Service through the Minister of Public Service for NEC’s approval.

While Acts of Parliament (laws) are subject to approval by Parliament, regulations are approved by NEC.

Regulations like bylaws
Regulations are like bylaws to an Act of Parliament and are intended to provide more detailed processes and procedures when implementing provisions or sections of an Act (law).

When NEC introduced the regulation specifying the minimum requirements for persons to be appointed to be Departmental Head and Provincial Administrators, did it intend the regulation to apply to the Commissioner of Police?

Short answer, in my respectful view, is No.

My evidence to support this view is that NEC appoints the Commissioner of Police and, if it intended the Commissioner of Police to be subject to the regulation, then it would have applied it to every Commissioner of Police appointed since 2003.

The same can be said about the Department of Personnel Management which proposed the regulation in the first place and would have otherwise applied it in the shortlisting of candidates for the position.

Since the introduction of the regulation, how many Commissioners of Police have had a tertiary qualification?

Short answer is none.

Six post-regulation appointments
Since the introduction of the regulation by NEC there have been six appointments to Commissioner of Police. Not one has possessed a tertiary degree.

In fact, since 1945 more than 23 people have served as Commissioner of Police and only one of them possessed a tertiary education – Peter Aigolo, 1997-1999.

It is the role of Members of Parliament to pass legislation, NEC to pass regulation and the court to interpret and uphold law consistent with its intended meaning, purpose and Constitutional law.

The Supreme Court has held in numerous of its judgements over the years that, when interpreting laws passed by Parliament, it is important to understand and consider the intent of the legislature when they introduced the law.

In this case, the question is did the NEC intend the regulation to be applied to the appointment of Commissioner of Police?

Based on the above evidence, my respectful view is No.

I don’t believe this evidence or argument was raised before the National Court to assist the Court in arriving at its decision. Perhaps it was the case of those drafting the regulation failing to make it clear.

The decision of the National Court is not final, as the Commissioner of Police may exercise his right to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for a three-man bench to review the decision.

NEC may also exercise its Constitutional powers to correct any confusion in the application of the regulation to make it consistent with its intended purpose.

The decision to introduce regulation, rescind, amend or correct it, including in the appointment of the Commissioner of Police, lies with NEC.

Republished from Police Minister Bryan Kramer’s personal blog. The original headline on this article was: “Where did minimum requirements for Chief of Police come from?” Asia Pacific Report often republishes Minister Kramer’s articles.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Johnny Blades of RNZ Pacific

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape has embarked on a state visit to New Zealand. It is the first visit to New Zealand by a sitting PNG prime minister since Marape’s predecessor Peter O’Neill’s trip in 2013.

Marape, who rolled O’Neill last May in what could yet be an era-defining upheaval, is here for a four-day stay.

He is looking to discuss “shared regional interests” and ways in which New Zealand can assist his government’s planned reforms.

READ MORE: PNG – Human Rights Watch report

In Auckland, Marape is to meet for talks with his New Zealand counterpart Jacinda Ardern.

It is another chance for New Zealand’s government to make good on its “Pacific Re-set” pledge to listen more to, and act as equals with, regional countries.

Marape is a leader who places much emphasis on human relationships. He says he wants to thank New Zealand for being a genuine friend, and for helping evacuate PNG students from China’s coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan earlier this month.

Big brother
New Zealand and PNG are like two friends who are close but could be closer. They have a mutual friend with whom the relationship takes up more of their focus.

We are talking about Australia – big brother and all that. A big brother to both New Zealand and PNG. But it is worth noting, as many New Zealanders are often surprised to learn, that by dint of its population and land mass PNG is bigger than New Zealand.

With a population that recently passed eight million, PNG is the Pacific Islands region’s burgeoning colossus. It is a nation with a staggering diversity of cultures running the whole gamut of human development, where the reach of government barely touches the vast majority of citizens, making the prime minister’s job unenviable.

Marape’s new look government faces a difficult set of challenges, including turning around an ailing economy, addressing widespread poverty, as well as confronting violence, law and order crises and endemic corruption.

PNG has great natural resources wealth but for too long foreign interests have been able to extract the country’s mineral, oil, gas, forestry and fisheries riches without bringing genuine benefits for its people.

Marape says he wants PNG to be the “richest, black Christian nation” within a decade, yet at present PNG’s public services in health and education are non-existent in many parts of the country.

The new prime minister is looking to New Zealand for some modelling as it embarks on its reforms. This is part of the reason he is bringing along Gary Juffa, the Parliamentary Committee chairman on Public Service Reform.

Model NZ public service
Juffa would establish a link to study and model New Zealand’s public service, the prime minister said.

“New Zealand’s public service is the most effective and efficient that I’ve known of,” Marape revealed.

According to him, PNG also sought to emulate New Zealand’s economic success through its agriculture, fisheries and tourism sectors.

PNG and New Zealand get on well. But getting past the Australia dynamic, and the weight that the neighbouring country can throw around, is not always easy for these two countries.

In recent years, New Zealand offered to take refugees who had been stuck on PNG’s Manus Island. The two governments wanted this offer to materialise, but Canberra would not allow it, warning it could create an incentive for future asylum seekers to get in to Australia through a back door.

Yet the relationship between PNG and New Zealand is otherwise relatively free of baggage. New Zealand is highly valued for its role in facilitating the peace process in the autonomous PNG region of Bougainville which recently voted overwhelmingly to become independent.

In his talks with New Zealand’s government, Marape is expected to touch on how PNG is preparing to implement the result of Bougainville’s non-binding referendum, and to discuss New Zealand’s annual NZ$27 million aid programme to PNG.

Room for expansion
Two-way trade is around NZ$300m a year, although heavily weighed in New Zealand’s favour. PNG wants to address that balance. Business and cultural connections are steady yet there’s plenty of room for expansion.

PNG is even ranked in the top 20 nations in limited-overs cricket formats by the International Cricket Council. What are the chances of the Black Caps taking on the Barramundis in a T20 one of these days?

Marape wants PNG and New Zealand to grow links in all these areas, to “elevate and consolidate” the bilateral relationship.

There is much the two countries can learn from each other. And New Zealand could well find in coming years that its own core interests are served better by a more active engagement with that country to the immediate north of Australia.

Placed right on the juncture of Asia and the Pacific, PNG is strategically important to the peace and stability of our wider region.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

I made the case yesterday in my column, The Budget ‘hack’ scandal reveals big accountability problems, that there are some vitally important issues at stake involving the integrity of the political system. These boil down to the idea that we need a properly functioning democracy in which manipulation and deception are kept to a minimum, and government departments don’t become the politicised attack weapons of the Beehive used to undermine dissent or opposition.

Others feel the “Budget hack” saga is more of a distraction from the bread and butter issues that voters really care about. As John Key used to say in the storm of controversies about the GCSB misusing their powers, the Saudi Sheep scandal, or even Nicky Hager’s revelations about dirty politics, he was “relaxed” about these problems because his government focused instead on the “issues that matter” to ordinary people.

Some media and Government-partisans are now making the same sort of arguments about the difficulties that the Government is in over their handling of the so-called “Budget hack”. After all, the issues are rather abstract, high-level, and murky, in contrast to more “substantial” policy issues that have a more direct impact on peoples’ lives.

For the best argument in favour of ignoring the “Budget hack” story, see Bernard Hickey’s Newsroom column, in which he argues that “the ‘scandal’ is symptomatic of an accelerating and more extremist form of politics in a social media-driven age of snap judgments and tribal barracking” – see: Our political metabolic rate is way, way too fast.

Hickey’s column is a plea for people – including his own colleagues in the media – to focus less on the latest controversial “drama of ‘he said, he said’ and who was right and wrong, and who should resign” and instead concentrate on the substantial issues that are of immediate interest to voters. In this case, he wants less attention on the “Budget hack” and more on the details of housing, transport, and incomes in Grant Robertson’s Budget.

He makes the case that “news and commentary have ramped up into a blur of headlines, memes, click-bait, extreme views, abuse and a desperate game of trying to grab the attention of a distracted media and whip their own social media bubbles into a frenzy”.

This has been bad for democracy: “The end result is a disengaged public, policy paralysis, a lot of noise and not much light. I understand how it happened and I’ve been living in it now for a decade. A political firmament driven by social media, sound bites, cheap shots and one-day-wonder stories is not going to solve the problems of South Auckland or Tamaki. Everyone should take a chill pill, stop jumping to conclusions for a quick political hit and instead think beyond the beltway to the real world and long term concerns of citizens.”

Hickey’s column has identified valid concerns. There’s certainly an argument to be made that an “increased metabolic rate of politics has warped the public debate”. This point was also made by the new Sunday Star Times editor Tracy Watkins in her feature story, Madness on Molesworth Street – has politics reached peak crazy?

Watkins, who has just stepped down as Stuff’s political editor, describes the increased pace that she has observed working from Parliament: “Chaos is the new normal. Politics has turned into a crazy, churning roller coaster that no one seems to know how to stop. When press gallery journalists and others try to trace back the start of the madness, there is disagreement on the exact turning point. Was it the Kim Dotcom showdown, the teapot tapes election? Or was it when former prime minister John Key up-ended convention and everything we thought we knew about politics when he suddenly announced his intention to retire, while still at the height of his powers?”

I’m also referred to in her story, in terms of the difficulties the rapid churn of political news poses in putting together this Political Roundup column, the fact that the sheer volume of information makes it harder for the public to engage deeply with stories, and the danger of the “Budget hack” scandal appearing as just another example of deception, manipulation and game playing on both sides that will drive voters to be further alienated from the political process.

Similarly, Massey University political commentator Claire Robinson says: “It’s that gotcha politics that amuses people in Wellington but it doesn’t necessarily go beyond that.”

In a blog post, former Cabinet Minister Wyatt Creech declared that “The debate over Budgets in Wellington is the ultimate in beltway-ness” and the leak/hack story would get “little cut through to sentient beings outside the political realm” – see: Treasury troubles, strike money & growing grains of salt for polls. He says “The beltway game is of little importance to Joe or Jane Citizen waiting for an operation.”

Reportage of the scandal is also critiqued by RNZ’s Mediawatch specialist Colin Peacock who complains that “political reporters were making hyped-up claims of their own” to match those of the intensity of the politicians involved – see: Budget leak draws media away from our wellbeing.

For the must-read rejoinder to all of this – and particularly to Bernard Hickey’s piece – see Liam Hehir’s argument for taking the Budget “hack” and other such “beltway” scandals seriously: Sometimes with politics, you should sweat the small stuff.

Hehir begins by acknowledging the merits of the idea that Government scandals don’t necessarily make a big difference, and that some of the same points could have been made during the last National Government’s term: “For years during the Key era, I wrote about the way the dozens of little contretemps touted as ‘game changers’ were anything but since they didn’t really touch on people’s overall confidence in the government’s economic management. Those pieces were never heralded for their wisdom, quite naturally, since they argued against the always prophesied Watergating of John Key.”

But Hehir is careful to point out that just because something might seem “beltway” and not directly important to the average voter doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be covered. He draws a parallel with much of the opposition to Donald Trump’s integrity and governance in the US, and suggests that the likes of the Washington Post shouldn’t just “call off scrutinising the potential administrative sins of the Trump administration” because many in wider America aren’t interested in “Attorney-General William Barr’s refusal to release the full, unredacted Mueller report to Congress”.

Instead, Hehir argues, we need the media to focus on the minutiae of governance in order to keep the system clean: “Those who engage with political minutiae are a bit like the timberwolves of the political eco-system. Few people in the town think about what happens in the wooded hills on a day-to-day basis and when they do pay attention, pack-hunting might not be the prettiest thing to watch. Take the wolves out the food-chain, however, and the cascading effects will be felt soon enough. It won’t be long before you have deer stripping the bark from the trees in your backyard. If the smaller fiascos and debacles (over which reporters and commentators actually have some influence) are set to one side to allow more focus on the big, substantive issues (over which they really have none) then an invitation to vice into the country will occur.”

Similarly, for Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan this issue is an important one in determining whether Jacinda Ardern’s Government really is “the most open and transparent government in the history of New Zealand” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s Govt as brutal as any (paywalled).

Today’s Dominion Post editorial also makes the case for the importance of the issue, pointing out that the whole scandal involved Finance Minister Grant Robertson issuing “one of the most remarkable statements in recent New Zealand politics” when he backed up Treasury’s statement about “deliberately and systematically hacked” and linked his to National – see: Time for truth in the ‘hacking’ saga.

Most of the above debate is about how the Government and Treasury have handled the “Budget hack”. However, there are still questions about whether National should have even released the Budget information that it obtained in the first place.

For one of the best challenges to National’s decision, see Mark Longley’s Budget leak shows how shamefully out of touch modern politicians are. Here’s his main point: “While the Budget leak saga played out like a schoolyard argument over who kicked the ball through the window, did any of the taxpayer-paid politicians involved wonder what was best for New Zealand? Did Simon Bridges, who had details on Labour’s landmark Wellbeing Budget in his excited little hands, wonder if leaking those details was best for the voters who elected him? Or did he just spot the opportunity to land one on the opposition and screw the consequences?”

Not surprisingly, Government-aligned blog, The Standard also disapproved, saying “We see arguably the most important day of the year for the Government and thus for the public being hijacked and overshadowed by slanderous accusation and wild speculation, a Government in apparent disarray, and overall chaos that turns off most people from showing any interest in politics whatsoever. What is worse, the turmoil most likely will cause people to distrust politicians even more than before. A sad day for democracy in New Zealand and thank you again, National” – see: Same old dirty National.

For a similar critique, see Oscar Kightley’s Urban Dictionary’s apt noun to sum up National’s actions. He says “I can’t see what National really gained from it. They would have had a bigger hit, and held the moral high ground, if they’d just exposed the weakness in the Treasury security systems, but not released the information they had.”

But such “pontifications” don’t carry much weight with political journalist Stacey Kirk, who says: “The Treasury website is a public website. It exists for transparency’s sake, so to claim as the Government has, that National’s information on it was ‘unauthorised’ is grasping at straws. Whether it was a good move politically is a valid question and will likely be decided by a voter’s personal politics, but a few points bear considering. Budget day is notoriously difficult for any Opposition to be heard, and whether coverage of National in the days leading up to it was negative or positive, their strategy served them extremely well on the day” – see: Smartest men in the room? Pffft! Treasury stands alone on Budget bungle.

Finally, there are still some experts who maintain that National taking Budget secrets from the Treasury website was indeed still a “hack”, and for the best of these accounts, see Keith Ng’s Treasury hacking: The time I hacked WINZ, Lyndon Hood’s J’Hackuse, and Alexander Stronach’s The 2019 NZ Budget Leak: what actually happened.

New Zealanders will be right to feel extremely suspicious that they were deceived last week by authorities. The whole scandal is a big deal, and the announcement last night of an independent investigation is welcome. The issues at stake go to the heart of integrity in public life.

The main problem is that Treasury boss Gabriel Makhlouf, followed by Minister of Finance Grant Robertson, informed the public there had been a “deliberate and systematic hack” of Treasury’s website, when we now know that this account was untrue.

The second problem is that Government politicians then used this claim to suggest the Opposition were somehow involved in criminal activity.

A lot of this is well explained today in Tim Watkin’s blog post, Gabriel Makhlouf’s already had three strikes. Can he really avoid being ‘out’? According to Watkin, “Makhlouf is in serious trouble. A new inquiry will have to uncover something yet unknown to excuse the three strikes he committed last week”. He says that Grant Robertson also has some big questions to answer, as there is a chance that “Makhlouf is covering for Robertson”, in which case “both are toast”.

For more details on how the whole scandal could have so easily been avoided, see Richard Harman’s How the Treasury leak could have been contained. He reports that “From what we now know, it is clear that the whole question of the Budget ‘leak’ could have been resolved last Tuesday afternoon. This is it when it appears the GCSB, National Cyber Security team concluded that Treasury had not been hacked by the National Party.”

According to Harman, the story about the “hack” could have been clarified early on: “The GCSB could have cleared that up on Tuesday, and either the Prime Minister or Robertson should have insisted they made a public statement and at the same time”.

For more on how the whole episode unfolded, see Stacey Kirk’s article, Smartest men in the room? Pffft! Treasury stands alone on Budget bungle. Her conclusion is this: “How Gabriel Makhlouf is still in a job is beyond me.” She says the actions of Treasury over the “hack” were “a total waste of police resources and an example of extreme arse-covering.” She argues “All signs suggest Makhlouf knew what had happened, and went ahead with his own version anyway.”

On the political right, there’s been outrage over the “hack” scaremongering. David Farrar, for example, says: “If these reports from within Treasury are true, we should expect resignations or sackings. Making false accusations of criminal activity to police to deflect from one’s organisation’s own basic incompetence is not acceptable” – see: No Dorothy, using a search engine is not a hack.

Farrar suggests the Government is essential guilty of incompetence at best or of dirty politics at worst: “Both Grant Robertson and Winston Peters have smeared National. Jacinda Ardern claims to lead a Government of kindness. Does smearing your political opponents as criminals because they used a search engine, fit with that? Robertson may claim he acted on Treasury advice, but he didn’t. He explicitly linked National’s material to an illegal hack, which goes beyond what Treasury said. But regardless a competent Minister should push back when an agency says ‘hey boss, we were hacked, it wasn’t incompetence’ and ask for at least some basic details of what is alleged.”

In contrast, the political left have mostly been inclined to respond to the scandal with silence or defend the Government. According to one leftwing blogger, this isn’t good enough. Martyn Bradbury challenges his own side to take the issue more seriously: “Comrades of the Left. If Treasury had just pulled a hacking manipulation this audacious while National was in power, we would be screaming for heads to roll, yet the majority of the Left are ignoring what Treasury did out of a misplaced loyalty to Jacinda & Grant. It’s infantile” – see: I think almost everyone on the Left who are trying to underplay what Treasury did hasn’t read this….

Bradbury concludes: “Shouldn’t we be incandescent with rage at such a manufactured deception by one of the most powerful Government Departments? If Grant doesn’t sack him, Grant should be sacked. It’s as simple as that.”

However some on the left have strongly condemned what has occurred. The best example is No Right Turn, who says: “I’m surprised they didn’t charge Treasury with wasting police time. Meanwhile, Treasury secretary Gabriel Makhlouf has presided over incompetence and smeared the opposition. We pay public sector CEOs the big bucks supposedly to take responsibility. We pay Makhlouf over $600,000 a year on that basis. So how about we get what we paid for? By running a muppet show, Makhlouf has f**ked up his agency’s biggest event of the year” – see: What a muppet show.

Other political commentators have taken a hard-line stance on the issue. For example, veteran political journalist John Armstrong makes the case that Makhlouf has now spoilt Treasury’s important neutral image, and should resign – see: Grant Robertson and Treasury boss should resign over Budget data leak.

Armstrong also makes the case for the Minister of Finance to go, but concedes that simply won’t happen: “Robertson is exempt from having to fall on his sword. That exemption is by Labour Party decree. He is just too darned valuable. Both he and the Prime Minister have made it very clear that they will move mountains to ensure Robertson emerges from this episode as untarnished as possible by placing responsibility for the breach fairly and squarely in the Treasury’s lap.”

The focus is increasingly on Robertson now. Many suspect he was likely to have been fully aware that he and Treasury were unfairly smearing his National Party opponents with criminal allegations, or at least allowing such insinuations to continue. Therefore, questions will be asked about what he knew about the so-called “hack”.

Richard Harman explains that the public needs to know what happened in the Minister’s office: “This whole affair now centres on one critical meeting or conversation; between Makhlouf, Robertson and Ardern’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief Press Secretary around 7.00pm last Tuesday night. After that meeting, Makhlouf issued a statement saying that Treasury had been subject to a systematic and deliberate hack and then 17 minutes later, Robertson went one step further and linked the National Party to the hack” – see: What did Makhlouf say to Robertson.

David Farrar asks some difficult questions: “What was said in this meeting. Did Robertson and the PMO really ask no questions about the basis for the claim of being hacked? And when did Ministers learn there was no hack? It almost certainly was well before 5 am Thursday. It may have even been Tuesday evening. Yet they said nothing” – see: SSC launches investigation of Treasury Secretary.

He also asks why the Government or the GCSB didn’t make any sort of statement to correct the incorrect perception last week that a “hacking” had occurred: “We now know that the GCSB did not regard Treasury as having been hacked. When Treasury then put out a release saying they had been hacked, surely GCSB informed one or more Ministers (or at least DPMC) that this information was incorrect. Could you imagine the GCSB saying nothing for 48 hours while stories around the world were proclaiming the NZ Treasury had been hacked? Treasury did not correct the record until 5 am Thursday. But when did Ministers get informed the statement was incorrect, and why did they allow the misinformation to persist?”

There are obviously some major issues of public accountability at issue. Some are wondering why the Treasury boss has neither resigned nor been fired. Economist Eric Crampton suggests the whole episode “extends the stench of Wellington unaccountability” and asks: “Just how bad does a public sector Chief Executive’s performance have to be before accountability kicks in?” – see: Protecting the privileged (paywalled).

Crampton argues that “when a resignation is not offered for performance this far off the norm, and the appointee continues in the position, something is manifestly wrong – either employment law as it relates to senior executives, or the government’s willingness to put up with exceptionally poor performance.”

But it could be, Crampton argues, that the Government is worried about a legal challenge from Makhlouf, especially if the State Services Commission review results in the departing Treasury Secretary also losing his new position at the Central Bank of Ireland.

Problems of accountability are also examined by former Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell who sums up the hack debate as being “an extraordinary couple of days, and an extraordinary display of poor judgement by one of our most senior public servants” – see: On Makhlouf and standards in public office.

Reddell is trenchant in his criticism of the Treasury boss: “of things that have come to public view, it is hard to think of any (departmental chief executive) episodes that plumb the low standards on display by Makhlouf in the last week (not just a single choice, word, or act) but the accumulation of words, actions, choices over several days, each compounding the other, with no sign or act of any contrition). He should go, and if he won’t resign, he should have been dismissed (yesterday’s Cabinet would have been the opportunity).”

But Reddell isn’t convinced the State Services Commission inquiry will be adequate: “I have little confidence in this inquiry. For one, the inquiry is supposed to look into Makhlouf’s handling of last week’s events, but recall that the SSC made themselves an active player in those events when they agreed to a coordinated statement with Treasury on Thursday morning. They are, at least in part, inquiring into themselves.”

He then concludes with a picture of a cosy situation: “the State Services Commissioner is fully part of that same self-protecting establishment –  appointed by them, from among them, and now supposedly reporting independently on actions of another member that he himself was part of as recently as last Thursday morning. This must not be the standard we settle for.”

And, so should the public have confidence that everything is under control? Not according to technology writer, David Court, who can’t believe that politicians and officials have misunderstood and mishandled so much – see: Politicians and technology are a bad mix.

Here’s his main point: “The Treasury and Peters’ should be deeply embarrassed and apologetic. The rest of us should be worried. Having politicians with Luddite qualities is sometimes amusing and bemusing. It’s also dangerous. We have a Government that thought it was hacked. By Google. And reported it to the police. Give me strength. These are the same politicians that will be making decisions on important technology-related matters. Do you have confidence that these ministers will make the right decision on 5G and/or cyber security? Or is it more likely they’ll make an ill-informed, but politically motivated, decision? This week’s embarrassing display suggests the latter.”

Finally, for humour on the hack, see Steve Braunias’ Secret diary of Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf, and Andrew Gunn’s Budget leak more than a train-wreck.

After nearly a year of political deadlock resulting from a minority government, and a divisive political campaign, Timor-Leste is set to have a stable government after an early election, held last Saturday.

The forthcoming government will face an uneasy task in delivering on the promises made during the campaign.

The result of the election brought four parties to be represented in the Parliament. The Aliança de Mudança para o Progresso (AMP), led by resistance leader Xanana Gusmão, won an absolute majority in the latest polls, securing 34 seats out of 65 seats in the Parliament.

This will be sufficient to pass the programme and budget in the Parliament, both of which the previous minority government failed to do. Frente Revolucionáriu de Timor-Leste Independente (Fretilin) came in second, maintaining its 23 seats despite a significant increase in the number of votes.

The Democratic Party and Frenti Dezenvolvimentu Demokrátiku (FDD) – a new political force – secured five and three seats, respectively.

The result sets Timor-Leste up to end nearly a year of political impasse resulting from the previous minority government. The country can now expect have a stable government for five years to come.

Having a stable government is one thing, but delivering on political promises is another. The latter is not easy, given the context in Timor-Leste.

Strong opposition
At the macro political level, the government is expected to face strong opposition from the opposition bench in the National Parliament.

Outside of parliament, the government will face enormous pressure from the public to deliver the promises made during the campaign. This includes delivering good quality infrastructure, high quality public services — mainly education and health — and building an economy that can employ a significant number of the young population.

The last point is critical for Timor-Leste’s long-term peace and stability.

The biggest task is economic: striking a balance between current domestic consumption and long-term investment, in a context where the current government reserve is depleting.

In general, public and private consumption in Timor-Leste have been growing during the last 10 years, becoming the engine for non-oil economic growth. One could view the growing domestic consumption level as an increase in purchasing power and wellbeing.

However, this growth is primarily fueled by public spending, using petroleum revenue.

Increased consumption also incentivises the emergence of small private sector activities, primarily the wholesale and retailer industry in Dili. This sector provides a large proportion of jobs in the private sector, particularly in Dili, according to the Business Activities Survey.

Poverty line
Growing domestic consumption has also contributed to the reduction of the poverty level. Nonetheless, 41 percent of Timorese still live below the national poverty line, and many households still depend on the government’s cash transfer programmes.

Therefore, maintaining the current consumption level is important for short-term growth and maintaining the well-being of individual households.

Meanwhile, the public sector is the biggest contributor of investment in Timor-Leste.

Currently private sector investment is still less than 10 percent of the total non-oil GDP. Therefore, the government’s investment has been critical for economic growth during the last 10 years, and job creation in the construction sector.

In the last decade, the government focused its attention on physical infrastructure, primarily electricity and roads. There are political as well as economic reasons for this.

The public demand for infrastructure resonates throughout the country, and the existing infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly due to poor maintenance. The economic rationale is that public investment in infrastructure is necessary to enable an environment for the private sector to grow.

But Timor-Leste needs to give more attention to long-term investment in its people. Education and health services, particularly, serve this purpose.

Health, education challenges
In the last decade, as the government prioritised physical infrastructure, public investment in health and education has been relatively low by regional standards.

While there have been significant improvements in many indicators, the issues of malnutrition and education quality are still big challenges.

In education in particular, there is an immediate need to improve the basic supporting infrastructure. Teacher training is widely regarded as a critical issue, but it requires long-term approach.

The country will pay a high economic and social cost in the future if there is no significant improvement in these sectors.

Finally, the country also needs to work on its institutional framework to support long-term development. Various organisations, laws and regulations, and policy frameworks, both formally and informally guide the way actors behave by creating economic incentives.

The roles of different institutions are critical, including the parliament, judiciary, ombudsman office, and anti-corruption commission. The government also needs to strengthen internal control mechanisms to strengthen accountability and efficient use of existing resources.

Extra-parliamentary oversight mechanisms, such as investigative journalism, critical voices from NGOs and academics, and space for public participation, will contribute here.

Striking a balance
In order to strike this balance between short-term and long-term goals, the government needs to be realistic, pragmatic, and strategic in choosing instruments and setting targets. A significant proportion of domestic consumption is public consumption.

The government’s intervention could focus on unnecessary public consumption, where spending cuts can be made in order to improve efficiency in public spending.

As for physical infrastructure, it is necessary for the government to focus much of its attention on basic infrastructure, such as roads, water and sanitation, and the infrastructure to support public service delivery.

There is a need to revisit all investment projects, particularly big projects that do not have clear investment returns, which could become “white elephant” projects for the country in the future if the economy does not have sufficient capacity to operate and to maintain such assets in the long run.

In the last 10 years, thanks to petroleum revenues, the government was able to adopt a “frontloading fiscal policy” to boost domestic consumption and finance largescale public investment. Nonetheless, having disproportionate public spending creates loopholes for misappropriation of public resources, particularly when coupled with less efficient public administration.

Consequently, certain groups of people profit disproportionately from the contracts. Unnecessary spending discourages productive activities and inflates the prices of goods and services, thus affecting resource distribution within the economy. This adversely impacts the government’s intention to develop Timor-Leste’s non-oil economy.

Since petroleum revenues have declined steeply, there is a need to impose certain fiscal disciplinary measures to constrain the temptation posed by available cash in the Petroleum Fund.

Not appropriate
Budget cuts do not sound appropriate in a context where poverty is still significantly high, and public spending is the engine to keep the economy moving.

But without fiscal discipline, Timor-Leste would be more likely to repeat the same policy that has been ineffective in responding to the country’s needs.

The new government needs to be more pragmatic and realistic in deciding how much to spend, setting the sectoral priorities, and acknowledging the tradeoffs involved.

These tasks are not easy, but they are not impossible. It requires decision makers to be realistic in spending and setting targets, strategic in choosing their policy instruments, and courageous enough to bear the tradeoffs resulted from policy options.

Guteriano Neves is a Dili-based policy analyst. This article was first published by The Diplomat and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz