A for saying F for doing

Bruce Cotterill writes that the list of government policy flops grows longer by the day:

…I’ve been watching this Government lurch from one challenge to another. There are some things they’ve done quite effectively. There are others that they’ve made a mess of. They are great at talkfests. They are not so good on execution.

At the heart of their weaknesses is that they are a government of designers. They are effective at the stuff they can do with a “stroke of the pen”.

In the future, they will no doubt be heralded for their contribution to raising the minimum wage. Their contribution? A stroke of the pen. Simply put, they legislate and require the masses to fall into line.

With a couple of years gone by, it’s easy to remember that the resolution of Auckland’s traffic issues was going to be funded by the introduction of a regional fuel tax to be paid by those who live in our biggest city. Of course, the tax was introduced promptly with the stroke of a pen. . . 

The tax was introduced but has there been any significant improvement to the city’s traffic issues?

Housing was another priority for which there has been a lot of talking but very little effective doing.

Increasing taxes, eliminating interest deductions and extending the brightline test (or capital gains tax) for property owners are a function of the same activity. Design. A stroke of the pen. A series of proposals that become rules that others will abide by. Design. A stroke of the pen.

And like much design, the outcome will not solve the problem it was invented for. The reality is that, if we have a housing crisis, it will be resolved by a simplified resource management process, more land becoming available and new houses getting built. In other words, engineering and execution. Instead, these new policies will see rents increase and property developers and owners spending their time restructuring their affairs to minimise their now heightened tax obligations and not much more.

When we look for engineering and execution, there seems to be an extensive array of failed promises. These breakdowns are in the initiatives that require more than a stroke of the pen. They require governments and their numerous personnel, having changed the rules, to actually do something. To make it happen.

There are now a number of major policy areas where outstanding public relations campaigns have trumpeted design, planning and vision while the delivery teams have completely failed with the engineering and execution.

The government is very good at announcements, particularly of announcements, but announcing is much, much easier than implementing and achieving positive results.

This Government is often pulled up for the promise to build 100,000 houses. Of course, it didn’t happen. A promise like that requires both design and engineering. It’s one thing to say it. To establish a policy even. It’s quite another to build them. Design yes. Engineering no.

At present, we have a list of policy flops that grows longer by the day. The most recent “train wreck” was the light rail plan for Auckland. I am guessing it was easier to put the decision off and push it out for another six months of debate and discussion with the Greens no longer critical to the make-up of the government.

The list of engineering failures continues to grow. While statistics continue to rise, there has been much discussion about sorting out mental health. Overcoming child poverty was so important that the Prime Minister herself took on the portfolio.

Fixing broken hospitals and redefining the purpose of our DHBs was deemed so important that it required countless consultants and reviews, but no action. All designed. All announced. All promised. All failed to execute. Design yes. Engineering no.

Of course, it’s relatively straight forward to draw a plan of a cycleway on the side of our slowly deteriorating harbour bridge.

It’s quite another to build it and make it safe. But then, it seems that we’ve decided not to do that after all.

There are times when good design alone, is enough. However, in most cases, good design of everything from grand visions to workable solutions needs to be accompanied by good engineering and ability to execute.

As we approach the three-quarter mark on this Government’s current six-year term, it would seem that the designer will ultimately fail due to its inability as an engineer.

 The government has been praised for its response to Covid-19 and there is no doubt that successive lockdowns have achieved less illness, fewer deaths and more freedom of movement that people in many other countries envy.

But as mistakes keep happening, it looks like luck has played a significant part in the success and unless the government gets much better at doing than designing and saying the luck will run out.

The Prime Minister gets high praise for communication but an A for saying means nothing when the government gets an F for doing.

2 Responses to A for saying F for doing

  1. Heather Adam says:

    As a strong National supporter it bothers me that so many see our party, currently, as Labour-lite.


  2. pdm1946 says:

    HA – John Key had a mandate to stop that in 2008 – he did not take it and we have suffered because of his inaction.

    Having said that I wish he was PM today instead of what we have.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: