Slogans may win funding, even elections, but they don't help doing things which are not realistic. The incoming government should take a breath, and start with a massive, eyes open, burden-sharing social response to the climate crisis.
Opinion: Tai Hoa. I don’t know about anyone else but I rather enjoy the current intermission in parliamentary activity. Every other part of life goes on.
For me, there is no aspect of any of the potential combinations of governing parties that offers anything likely to improve the conditions of that life for most. It may frustrate some that our vote counting process is so unaccountably slow.
But, frankly, what real difference does that make? Not everything has to be done quickly, as the old joke about turkeys voting for an early Christmas reminds us. I am an advocate for more effective and efficient public services but when it comes to the electoral process I am much more concerned about the deficiencies of access on voting days than about the counting afterwards.
READ MORE:
* Christopher Luxon promises a new day – well, he’s got 100 of them
* Luxon: ‘Our children can grow up to live the lives they dream of’
* Luxon’s mistake hands Peters the power
The less the new government is able to decisively and quickly implement its currently known programme, the better I like it. From what we know it is more likely to be disruptive, clumsy and ill-considered than a deliverance or transformation.
Even if you are a card-carrying member of the Taxavoiders' Union, a Tiriti denier, or a billionaire wondering when you get paid out on the wager you put on blue, there is no virtue in hurry. There will be compromises. There will be reconsiderations of more speculative promises made in the heat of the electoral moment. There will even be scrutiny and opposition inside and outside of Parliament and the public service.
The enthusiasts for a new Government may even, with luck, be as disappointed with what they actually get as initial supporters of the outgoing Government were in theirs.
Now this is not to be simply negative about the new Government. It is important to recognise and to be appropriately respectful to the election outcome. For my own part being just as constructively supportive of this Government brand as I was to the last should not be too difficult.
So in the event that Christopher Luxon were to care about my advice more than his predecessor did (a very low bar indeed) here is what I would start by telling him:
* The climate crisis is real, we face huge social and private costs to avoid its worst impacts and to mitigate its inevitable ones. These costs are not avoidable. The issue is how effectively, not whether, we deal with them. Business is part cause, part solution to this as you are well aware. We need a massive, eyes open, burden-sharing social response to this. Good leadership will be inclusive of environmental and tangata whenua groups including those whose ideas may seem radical to many of your team and supporters. Forget any version of greenwashing with which you may be familiar from corporate experience – that will simply get you and the rest of us washed away;
* You made much of a “squeezed middle” in our society during the campaign. They do exist but ask yourself where they are being squeezed from. A hint – it is not from below. The real inequity and poverty is at the bottom. The people living there are not standing on an escalator that will lift them with the middle if that moves up. You can choose to ignore them, and not to seek more from those at the top, but you and the rest of us will reap the consequences.
* Most of your colleagues do not like unions much. At your last gig you managed to cope with having a unionised workforce and you know that pragmatic people in business can do so. Have a look at where fair pay agreements are underway. Think about whether the pay rates are fair or whether they attract workers, or whether the process has been disruptive to business or consumers. (Spoiler: the answers are no, no and no.) Ask yourself whether suspending those processes is likely to make the low pay go away, the efforts to unionise and push for fair pay are likely to go away, whether possible disruption to business or consumers is likely to go away. (Spoiler – same answers.) Any pragmatic business person will know that the proposed elimination of these processes is simply ideology and should be dropped. You and the rest of us will be better off.
* We agree there are big problems in our health sector. These are not created or dominated by Te Aka Whai Ora. They have been made an issue for reasons that have nothing to do with the efficiency or effectiveness of health services. Listen to those in the sector, overwhelmingly they will tell you that. To make cutting or shifting Te Aka Whai Ora a priority is a diversion from any pragmatic point of view. The Pae Ora structure is not perfect but it can be made to work, it is urgent that it does – that requires active involvement of all involved and cutting through inaction, bureaucracy and lack of clear focus. Don’t let ideology overcome pragmatism in this. Get on with the real issues and you and the rest of us will be better off.
I could go on. Probably will. The point really is that this coming Government, whatever its shape, should take a breath. The slogans are best put aside with the banners and signs. They may win funding, even elections, but they don't help doing things which are not realistic, things which do not gather broad support, doing them poorly, doing them unfairly. While taking a breath, that is worth pondering far more deeply than who gets what office.
The rest of us can do without political entertainment.
