It was ironic that the very week former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer lambasted Parliament and recent governments for too much rushed legislation and excessive use of Urgency, the government announced the repeal of his flagship Resource Management Act and then took Urgency to pass the first stage of its reforms through Parliament.

The Resource Management Act was a radical piece of legislation designed in the late 1980s to balance economic development and environmental sustainability. It combined a previously disorganised regime of up to 54 different pieces of planning legislation in one coherent Act. However, the plethora of local government rules and by-laws developed subsequently to make the legislation work, steadily ground it down, blunted its purpose, and reduced its effect.

In recent years, there have been many calls for the Resource Management Act to be replaced, but that has proved to be difficult to achieve. The Key government sought to “streamline” the Act to make it work more effectively but could not secure the political support necessary to do so. The Ardern government did manage to repeal the Resource Management Act and replace it with two new pieces of legislation. However, they were quickly repealed by the current government when it came to office, and the Resource Management Act was reinstated temporarily, pending the government’s consideration of the changes it wanted to make.

This week’s announcements, which appear to have been generally well received, spell out the government’s intentions, but they do not necessarily restore the sense of certainty that has been lacking in recent years. Moreover, it is likely to be at least 2029 before the range of the reforms the government is proposing, and the associated changes to the regional government structure take full effect. With at least one general election due before then, there is no guarantee that the changes being proposed now will survive unaltered until then.

All of which raises another serious concern to go alongside Sir Geoffrey’s criticisms of rushed legislation and too much Urgency. Too often, major legislative reforms passed by one government have been repealed by the next government, often before there has been sufficient time to assess whether they are working properly. The saga of the Resource Management Act over the last 35 years would be the stand-out example.

We therefore need to develop a better way of dealing with major, complex law reforms to ensure they are both durable and sustainable. A greater level of agreement across the political aisle when significant structural reform legislation is being developed would be a step towards achieving that, but the change in our still combative political culture that would require that will not happen quickly.

Earlier this year, both National and Labour mused loftily about the desirability of a more bipartisan approach to long-term infrastructure development but so far there have been few signs of any practical steps either party has taken to achieve that.

Right now, proposed changes to the structure and purpose of regional government and the changes to resource management law cry out for such an approach if they are to be successfully implemented. Labour has so far kept its powder reasonably dry on its attitude to these changes, but there does not seem to have been much, if any, cross-party discussion before their announcement.

Yet intended long-term, major legislative reforms developed without cross-party input, only to be abruptly overturned by an incoming government, have the potential to weaken our Parliamentary democracy, just as much as the rushed legislation and excessive use of Urgency that Sir Geoffrey has called out.

As it proceeds down its current reform path, which it claims will save New Zealanders more than $13 billion in compliance costs over the next thirty years, the government has a real opportunity to change the paradigm by engaging constructively with the Opposition on the new legislation it is developing. Their joint aim should be structural change that will both meet the country’s needs and substantially endure beyond future changes of government.

Such a move would break the entrenched mould of only the government of the day being capable of having the answers to complex problems. And that could lead to a more collaborative Parliament, and better overall decision making and legislation as a result.

That is perhaps too optimistic and wishful an outcome to immediately aim for. But it is a positive thought for the future, and a good note for Dunne’s Weekly to conclude on for this year.

Best wishes to all readers for Christmas and the New Year ahead!

In the wake of the Jevon McSkimming scandal, the resignation of former Police Commissioner Andrew Coster as chief executive of the Social Investment Agency was not unexpected. Both the criticisms of Coster's judgement on the McSkimming case when Police Commissioner that were highlighted in the Independent Police Complaints Authority report and the sensitivity of his new role at the Social Investment Agency made his continued employment in a senior public service role untenable.

Although Coster's handling of the McSkimming case was severely criticised in the IPCA report, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche and others have drawn attention to Coster's high personal integrity. His failings seem due more to bad judgement rather than improper conduct. As the New Zealand Herald put it in an editorial, "it would appear the former Police boss was bad at his job, rather than a bad man."

There has been much comment that the detrimental impact of McSkimming’s conduct on public confidence in the Police will take a long time to overcome. The Public Service Commissioner has also hinted at implications across the public sector which will need to be addressed. In short, this is the biggest blow to the reputation of the Police since the circumstances surrounding the departure of Commissioner Compton following financial mismanagement allegations in 1955.

Inevitably, this raises questions about Coster's appointment as Police Commissioner and whether he was the best person for the job. In New Zealand, senior appointments - such as the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Police - are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Coster was appointed Commissioner of Police in 2020 on the personal recommendation of then Prime Minister Ardern who made it very clear that he was her personal choice because of his "positivity, inclusion and integrity." Scuttlebutt at the time implied he was not the preferred candidate of the Public Service Commission but was appointed because he was known to Ardern and she liked his softer "policing by consent" approach to law and order issues. McSkimming was appointed Deputy Commissioner three years later, on the advice of Prime Minister Hipkins, following a strong recommendation from Commissioner Coster. These two appointments go some way to explaining Labour's comparative silence on the issues disclosed in the IPCA report.

In the wake of the fallout from the Coster and McSkimming appointments, it should be considered whether the process for such important and sensitive appointments remains fit for purpose or whether some greater independence and transparency is required. On the face of it, it is difficult to see how this might occur since the current processes for appointing senior public servants are set out very clearly in the Public Services Act and the Policing Act, as far as the Police are concerned.

Where the system failed in both the Coster and McSkimming cases was simply that at the end of the process, the wrong person was appointed. Both were more cases of human error, rather than systems failure. It is possible, however, that a more robust role for the Public Service Commission might have countered Ardern’s preference for Coster and Coster’s advocacy of McSkimming. But, at the end of the day, it is very difficult to overrule the authority of a Prime Minister set on a particular course of action, or a Police Commissioner urging a certain appointment.

Nevertheless, there could be changes around the interaction between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General when making such statutorily based appointments. Although the appointments are nominally made by the Governor-General, the reality is that the Governor-General merely signs off the name put forward by the Prime Minister. Perhaps in the future, the Prime Minister could be required to present all the names on the short-list, including a preferred option, to the Governor-General, for consideration over a period of some days before the appointment is finalised. That would allow time for more background checks to be made and further questions to be asked, especially in cases where the Prime Minister’s recommendation differs from that of the Public Service Commissioner.

This “cooling off” period would be a protection for both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General, to prevent potential embarrassment down the track. Were it in place, it would have almost certainly prevented the McSkimming appointment. And a more formal process like this would not cut across the constitutional requirement that the Governor-General should act on the advice of Ministers.

There is no doubt that the Coster and McSkimming cases have shaken confidence in the core of our public service system. Public Services Commissioner Roche effectively acknowledged that in his observation that he was aware that chief executives across the sector were watching his actions on Coster very closely. He fully understands that his response to Coster establishes a precedent that will from now on apply across the public sector in such circumstances. In that regard, he has put an important marker in the ground.

The reality is that in large public and private sector organisations there will always be individuals who will act improperly or inappropriately. That is the nature of the human condition. The legacy of the McSkimming case is not that it will have stopped future occurrences of its type – it will not have. But hopefully it will have made Ministers, chief executives and senior managers more aware of the possibility of such situations, and the early warning signs that accompany them.

The failures of leadership at so many levels and the consequent catastrophic impact on victims, individuals and organisations that this case demonstrated were utterly unacceptable. Therefore, the focus for the future needs to be on identifying potential similar situations early, whether they be in the Police or any other public sector agency. Once identified, it is in everyone’s interests that they be resolved as fairly, quickly and thoroughly as possible.