I listened to a Podcast the other day which featured Shane Jones, Deputy Leader of NZ First and currently a minister of a few things. He is an interesting speaker and discussed many issues in response to questions from the presenter. One topic he raised as a problem which needed addressing was bureaucratic overreach whereby senior bureaucrats ignore, or fight against, the decisions of the people’s representatives.
This overreach sees heads of ministries ignore or fight against the decisions of their Ministers, and Cabinet, with the reason for their dissent often being ideology. This can result in the decisions of the people’s representatives being ignored or altered, often delayed, which is a failure in our democracy. It is a failure because our democracy has two arms, our representatives who make decisions and the bureaucracy who organise the work required to enact those decisions. The bureaucracy does of course offer advice on the various issues, but once the representatives make the decision the bureaucracy’s role is clear. Just do it!
Shane Jones pointed out the situation in other countries where those at the top of the bureaucratic tree must resign at the time of election to be replaced, or possibly reappointed, by the incoming representatives. An extreme level of this practice occurs in America where even positions as low as dog catcher can be up for election. Mr Jones is to campaign for such a system in New Zealand at the upcoming election.
I suspect this is a policy that will get much support with voters as this type of failure of our democracy effects many of us as it also occurs at Local Government level. For readers of The Informer this type of failure has clear examples within TCDC. I offer an example.
The Informer printed an article about the Taputapuatea Reserve flood protection requirements a couple of weeks ago. This article described the flooding experienced by residents along Buffalo Beach Road during cyclone Gabrielle, the work they have done to protect their properties and the discussions they had with Council staff to try and have a low-cost bund (a small stop bank) erected to protect their properties from flooding. After the last local body election one of these residents made a submission to the Mercury Bay Community Board aimed at getting the bund to proceed. This was largely successful in that several visits to the site were carried out which included Councillors and Community Board members and some bureaucrats from TCDC.
Our representatives could see that the work was required, there were no obstructions to the erection of the bund, and it was an economical piece of work. While one bureaucrat was reluctant, the decision was made to proceed with the work as soon as possible, before the expected January weather events.
The work was not carried out. The residents got flooded again with damages totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars. When asked why the work was not done it is reported that a bureaucrat said their decision was made due to the possibility of legal action from owners of other, previously protected, sections that could potentially be flooded due to the new bund. Anybody that understands the geography of the region knows this excuse was complete balderdash.
What is unclear was if the Chief Executive was part of this decision. They should have been as it was a major decision that they were responsible to see enacted.
In making their over-riding decision bureaucrats went against the wishes of the people’s representatives and caused the TCDC to be in breach of requirements to protect sections from flooding. They have caused nuisance to a group of ratepayers and potentially face a significant legal claim from residents whose property values have plummeted. Any such claim would, I presume, be a cost to us ratepayers. Why do they do this?
Could the answer be that Council staff do not have respect for the people’s representatives and the decisions they make. This is understandable in some situations, take Wellington for example where the Council made some “wish list” type decisions worth millions when water and sewerage needed urgent attention. But is it justified in all situations?
The benefit of the changes Shane Jones is proposing is that it allows the people to decide whether Council staff are working for the people properly. If bureaucrats overreach their level of authority, imposing themselves on the decision-making process with horrendous effects, it would be good to make them aware of our displeasure at the voting box.
