It is frequently said that the real test of political leadership comes in a crisis.

Dame Jacinda Ardern transformed a hitherto ho-hum Prime Ministership that had been looking decidedly one-term with her response to the Christchurch Mosque attacks in 2019. Her handling of the Covid19 outbreak a year later cemented her reputation as a compassionate and empathetic leader who was good in a crisis.

In both tests, Ardern faced no choice but to act. She was in office and the responsibility fell to her. But there have been other occasions when leaders have come into office because there has been a crisis and they have been seen as the best person to deal with it. The obvious example is Winston Chuirchill’s replacing Neville Chamberlain in Britain in 1940 when invasion by Germany seemed imminent.

Christopher Luxon’s response to the Mount Maunganui landslip has been impressive so far. He has spent a lot of time at the site, meeting and comforting the families of the victims and encouraging and supporting the emergency rescue workers, quietly and genuinely without grandstanding. His demeanour in Parliament when the House resumed this week was in a similar vein – a mixture of compassion and sorrow, commitment to support those who have been affected by the tragedy, and a willingness to thoroughly examine all aspects of what happened to make sure such events do not occur again.

While Luxon has done well so far, the real test of his leadership is yet to come. Fine words and sentiments in the wake of a disaster have an immediate calming effect, but their true worth is determined by the level of the response that follows.

When Cyclone Gabrielle occurred in February 2023, then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins won plaudits for his immediate response. His personal ratings soared and boosted his political honeymoon as a then newly appointed Prime Minister. But by April, when it was clear that the government’s response was falling short of the expectations Hipkins had created, public support plummeted and Labour began the downward spiral which culminated in its heavy election defeat in October 2023.

Luxon needs to be wary of falling into the same trap. The government’s response therefore must be measured, realistic and substantially achieved before the election in November. In this regard, the appointment of Chris Penk as Associate Emergency Management Minister is a good move. Through the way in which he has reformed building regulations Penk has built a reputation for competence and an ability to cut through complex red tape to achieve workable, practical solutions. Bringing him in to assist the Emergency Management Minister shows the government is taking its responsibilities in the wake of the landslip very seriously.

Penk’s deftness will be important in facilitating the government’s ongoing dealings with the families of the victims and the wider local community whose lives and business have also been disrupted. At the same time, the government will be expected to be resolute in getting to the bottom of why the tragedy unfolded the way it did, and in identifying where there were systemic and operational failings by the various agencies involved.  

Luxon has already made it clear he thinks there should be some form of independent investigation of the circumstances, a view apparently not yet completely shared by the Tauranga City Council. But Luxon is absolutely correct. Even with the best will in the world, the Council cannot be left to effectively investigate the competence and propriety of its actions itself. Its findings, however critical, would simply lack public credibility.

The government should therefore look to the example of the Christchurch earthquakes and establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Maunganui landslip. A Royal Commission, comprising suitably qualified and independent members, would be an appropriate level of response to a disaster of this magnitude and a clear indication of how seriously the government is treating the issue.

It should be charged with looking at all aspects of the event, including the adequacy of the Council’s monitoring and regulatory procedures beforehand and the effectiveness and co-ordination of the post-event emergency response. A Royal Commission could also look beyond the specific circumstances of Tauranga and consider whether the same potential risks exist ion other parts of the country. And it should be charged with making an interim report before the end of the year.

As with all major natural disasters, the country has come together for a brief period of shared grief and shock. That will not last, and people will soon get on with their lives again. But while immediate memories may begin to fade, the lessons learnt, and how the government and the other authorities responded, will linger longer in the public mind. And the judgment of whether Luxon is a good leader in a crisis will be determined less by his words and actions in the immediate aftermath than by the extent to which he is seen to have honoured the commitments he made.

The announcement this year’s general election will be held on November 7^th should come as no surprise. It is the date least encumbered by other events, and the last realistic date which gives post-election government formation talks the best chance of being completed before the Christmas break. Parliament is required to meet no later than two months after an election – in this case by January 7, 2027 – so an early November election makes it possible for the new Parliament to be convened in probably the week before Christmas.

Aside from heralding the informal start of the election campaign – even though the election itself is still over 40 weeks away – the formal announcement of the election date also kicks off some other processes. The most significant of these is the Period of Restraint. This is a bureaucratic device, with little to no constitutional standing, which has been engineered by officials over recent years to constrain governments from using the instruments of state for too much overt political work in the lead-up to an election.

The Period of Restraint has come to be applied for the last three months before an election – in this year’s case from August 7^th. Under this specious device, governments are not expected to make significant appointments or initiate new policies or information campaigns during the three months prior to an election. That completely overlooks the reality that governments are elected to govern for a full three-year term and that they retain their full authority until election day.

The upshot is that for the last three months before an election, the government of the day is effectively reduced to caretaker status. When the two months or so of post-election negotiations is added, the period of caretaker rule could be up five months or more, to the bureaucrats’ delight.

Parliament begins sitting for the year next week. According to the timetable approved by Parliament before last Christmas it will sit for 22 weeks (66 days) before rising on September 24^th and being formally dissolved on October 1^st for the election. But five of those sitting weeks come after the Period of Restraint begins, leaving just 51 sitting days available to the government to introduce new legislation to progress its agenda.

When the time allowed for set-piece debates like the Budget Debate, the Estimates and the Prime Minister’s statement is factored in, the time available to the government to progress its legislation, without resorting to Urgency, or extended sitting hours, could reduce to much nearer 42 to 45 sitting days.

Although the Minister of Finance has not yet announced a date for the presentation of the 2026 Budget, the Parliamentary timetable suggests May 28^th is a likely date. Parliament goes into a two-week recess after then, which will allow Ministers time to get around the country promoting the Budget (and the government generally) before Parliament resumes in the latter half of June.

These factors were obviously at the back of the Prime Minister’s mind as he developed his recent state of the nation speech. The tight Parliamentary timetable meant he needed to be careful about the commitments he made. Of the three priorities he identified, only resource management and planning law reform is likely to be completed before the Period of Restraint commences. The Prime Minister acknowledged that the government’s NCEA reforms were on a longer timescale and that National’s plans to increase employer and employee Kiwisaver contributions were something the party would campaign on at the election, rather than introduce this year.

The government will be keen to progress through Parliament as many as possible of the large number of other government Bills currently before select committees before the House rises for the election. But any new legislation introduced this year is unlikely to pass before the election, unless it is urgent or enjoys cross-party support. Rather, the government’s priority will be clearing its legislative decks, and leaving as little Parliamentary time as possible for the Opposition to promote the issues it sees as important.

Now that the election date has been announced, all parties will be gearing their political, organisational, and fundraising activities around it. Many are already well advanced in their candidate selection processes. The closing date for nominations to stand for Parliament will be October 8^th and party lists must be completed and lodged with the Electoral Commission by midday that day.

The timing of the election also has significant implications for voters. Under changes to the Electoral Act last December, voters will now no longer be able to enrol to vote on election day, as had been the case since Labour’s 2019 amendments. This year, the closing date for voter enrolment will be October 26^th, thirteen days before the election, and the same day early voting begins. If the trend of recent elections continues, most voters will have voted by election day.

Many voters will also be voting in new electorates following the redrawing of electorate boundaries by the Representation Commission promulgated last August to reflect population shifts identified in the last Census.

While all these dates define many of the formal elements of the general election, there will still be many twists and turns to go through before the next government is installed and the normal processes of government resume.

All of which contribute to the fascination of politics.

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.

For more than a century New Zealanders have prided themselves on their “can do” mentality. Our “number eight wire” approach to problem solving is legendary. It derives from the ability settlers developed in the early days of colonisation to utilise number eight-gauge fencing wire to fix all manner of things for which parts were either unavailable or too expensive. It was an ingenuity and resourcefulness necessitated by the country’s geographic isolation.

Over time, it became an important part of our national make-up, signifying an approach to resolving issues that was both practical and innovative. New Zealanders became very confident of and content with their ability to deftly and efficiently resolve difficult problems this way.

So, it comes as a jolt to the national psyche when that “can do” approach is challenged. Such a challenge came recently from the chief executive of the Ports of Auckland when he told an Auckland audience that New Zealand was becoming known internationally as “No” Zealand “because you just say no to everything.” While he was talking about tourism and cruise ship visits particularly, his jarring warning can be applied to other areas as well.

Over the last twenty years or so there has been a decided shift away from the previous generally permissive approach to new business and social activities to a more specific emphasis on “permitted activities”. These activities have generally required resource consents under the Resource Management Act, often introducing new compliance costs and additional regulatory restraints on activities. In addition, ever increasing health and safety standards have imposed their own restraints.

Against that backdrop, it is easy to see how the “No” Zealand image can take hold in stark contrast to the innovative “can do”, nothing-is-a-problem approach we have been used to. And it is easy to see how the desire to light regulatory bonfires becomes so attractive.

Although some of the regulations put in place over the last couple of decades have been excessive and, in some cases, downright silly, most have been necessary to protect the environment, ensure good workplace practice and uphold safety. The answer to the “No” Zealand complaint is not therefore to get rid of all regulations – nor was the Ports of Auckland chief executive suggesting that – but to ensure that when regulations are put in place their focus is enabling activities to proceed, rather than preventing them.

In this regard, the regional government reforms announced by the government this week and foreshadowed in this column some weeks ago, assume an additional importance. Many of the regulations businesses complain about as constraints on their activity emanate from regional government and often appear more about preventing or restricting an activity than facilitating its development in an environmentally sustainable way.

As well as being a de facto amalgamation of territorial, district authorities and cities, the government’s reforms are also an opportunity to get rid of the regulatory inconsistencies and lack of common standards that apply at present. The aim should be to streamline current procedures and set clear and consistent standards governing future commercial and other activities in a region. If an entity complies with those standards, it should then be permitted to operate, without the need for costly licences and permits, which have often become no more than a revenue gathering device for the local council.

As the Ports of Auckland chief executive noted elsewhere in his remarks, there are now clear incipient signs of economic recovery – for example, container volumes handled at Auckland last month were the highest in nine years. Similar cautiously optimistic comments have also been made by several economic commentators in the last few weeks. This week’s OCR rate cut by the Reserve Bank is a further sign of recovery.

But the caveat they are all entering is that the recovery is still in its early stages and will take further effort to be sustained. A defter regulatory approach to new existing businesses therefore becomes more imperative, to lock in what gains there are at present.

Earlier this year the Prime Minister told a government-convened infrastructure summit that New Zealand was open for business again and was keen to engage with the international investment community. The “No” Zealand message is somewhat at variance with that call, but needs to be heeded, nonetheless.

If the government’s regional government reforms are accompanied by a more rational regulatory approach that focuses on encouraging commercial and other opportunities, rather than restricting them, the “No” Zealand message can be countered. And the Prime Minister’s call that New Zealand is open for international investment again will look more credible and achievable.

But beyond that, a more positive and pragmatic regulatory environment may reinvigorate our traditional “can do” optimism and energy. It has been to our national cost that that spirit was allowed to become dormant in recent years when conformity and compliance held sway.

The proposal advanced by the Institute for Democratic and Economic Analysis (IDEA) for a Kids Kiwisaver scheme raises interesting questions.

Under IDEA's plan, which is effectively a compulsory savings scheme by stealth, every child would be automatically enrolled in Kiwisaver at birth. There would be a government kick-start to each new Kiwisaver account and thereafter a government matching of small annual contributions by low- and middle-income families to a child's account.

IDEA estimates that the overall cost to the government would not be high, and that by the age of eighteen, each child so enrolled would have about $10-20,000 in their Kids Kiwisaver account, which could then be converted into a full adult Kiwisaver account. Along the way, IDEA hopes that those young people will have developed a strong savings habit to see them through the balance of their working lives.

When Kiwisaver was established in 2007 its purposes were two-fold. The first was to provide a long-term savings vehicle for New Zealanders to boost their retirement savings and lessen their reliance on National Superannuation after the age of 65. The second was to boost New Zealand's poor national savings record by effectively locking up access to Kiwisaver funds until the age of 65, so that invested Kiwisaver funds could be utilised for infrastructure development.

A limited exception was subsequently introduced to allow access to a portion of one's Kiwisaver funds for purchasing a first home. Over the years there have been calls to allow access to Kiwisaver funds - such as repaying student loans or meeting health costs - but governments have so far sensibly resisted these. Kiwisaver’s strength – both from a personal and a national perspective – is that funds are locked in until the saver turns 65, providing a measure of certainty for the future.

For the IDEA plan to succeed, it will be important to ensure that this aspect is preserved across the board and that young savers will not be able to withdraw their funds at age 18. Some may argue that 18-year-olds ought to be able to access funds saved through Kids Kiwisaver to pay for their tertiary education. However, that misses the point of what a long-term savings scheme should be all about. Any compromise on this point simply diminishes the value of a long-term retirement savings scheme and is contrary to Kiwisaver’s founding principles.

In any case, savings by parents, through whatever form, to meet their children’s future educational costs, while laudable, are a personal choice, reflective of their circumstances, and should not something the government becomes involved in supporting through matching contributions.

When Kiwisaver was introduced, it was a voluntary contributory scheme. It quickly proved more popular than originally anticipated, raising the question of whether it should be converted to a compulsory national scheme. However, successive governments have demurred on this point, perhaps mindful of the result of the 1997 referendum on a proposed Compulsory Retirement Savings Scheme when 91.8% of voters rejected the idea, although this result is generally thought to have been influenced by a negative reaction to New Zealand First which had promoted the referendum.

Nevertheless, the reluctance to apply overt compulsion notwithstanding, Kiwisaver has since its introduction in 2007 automatically enrolled new employees, who have up to 56 days to opt out of Kiwisaver if they wish. So, the scheme has become a de facto compulsory savings scheme.

However, IDEA’s plan for a Kids Kiwisaver scheme enrolling every child at birth raises again the question of whether the government should grasp the nettle and remove the current opt-out provisions altogether. As it stands, it is estimated that 96% of the workforce are currently in Kiwisaver, so removing the opt-out provisions is hardly likely to be controversial and would be simple to do legislatively.

So far, there have been no signs of any moves to make Kiwisaver compulsory. While some political parties’ policies favour compulsory Kiwisaver, the issue is not a priority for the current government. Nor was it for its predecessor. Both governing blocs seem content to let the sleeping dog of compulsion lie, figuring that 96% voluntary membership of Kiwisaver makes the final step to compulsion unnecessary.

Similarly, there has so far been little political reaction to the IDEA plan, suggesting that the parties are not persuaded that a separate Kids Kiwisaver scheme is necessary. After all, there is nothing to stop parents opening Kiwisaver accounts for their children now, although there is no government incentive to do so. But the current arrangement is skewed towards better off families that can afford to make regular savings contributions for their children, a point IDEA’s plan seeks to rebalance through its proposed government matching contributions to low- and middle-income households. However, whether those families will be in a financial position to make meaningful contributions is doubtful.

There is also the question of whether better-off families would use the Kids Kiwisaver plan to shelter income and thereby reduce their tax liability, raising tax avoidance issues, sure to attract the attention of Inland Revenue.

Nevertheless, the IDEA Kids Kiwisaver plan is a useful contribution to the ongoing wider debate about promoting a better savings culture in New Zealand and long-term retirement planning generally.  

Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby once advised his Minister that “nothing must be done for the first time” because “doing the ‘right thing’ once could create a dangerous precedent, obligating one to do it again.” Therefore, he argued it was best to do nothing at all, thereby avoiding setting any precedent.

In advice to Parliament’s Education and Workforce Select Committee in August regarding a petition calling for volunteer firefighters to receive the same coverage as employed firefighters, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Accident Compensation Corporation jointly argued that “Expanding work-related cover to volunteer firefighters would be complex to implement. Work related cover is only available for injuries that are caused by work. ACC would continue to need sufficient evidence that a work-related mental injury, disease or infection was caused by the work tasks carried out. This would be less clear cut than it is for paid employees.”

In other words, do nothing. The principle that experienced volunteer firefighters exposed to the same level of risk should receive the same level of ACC coverage as their employed counterparts if injured or exposed to the same carcinogenic risks while doing the same job is apparently too difficult to comprehend. Or that paid firefighters who are fully covered as employees would not be covered if they were working in a voluntary capacity. Therefore, best to do nothing. Advice straight out of Sir Humphrey’s textbook.

It is little wonder so many politicians consider the Yes Minister series was far more a documentary than a comedy. The tragedy is that the attitudes and bureaucratic behaviours it pilloried so savagely in the 1980s are still alive and well in the public service over 40 years and several public sector reform rounds later.

The joint MBIE/ACC advice picks up on Sir Humphrey’s ‘right thing’ warning. They advised the select committee that if the law was changed to broaden ACC coverage for volunteer firefighters, it would have to be extended to include other emergency service volunteer workers such as Surf Lifesaving New Zealand, Coastguard, Land Search and Rescue, St Johns and Wellington Free Ambulance. Well, yes that is obvious and has never been denied by the petition’s sponsors and the United Fire Brigades Association. But it is hardly a valid reason to continue to do nothing.

MBIE and ACC did however concede that the cost of extending coverage to volunteer firefighters would be only $244,533 annually, but then, lest that might persuade MPs to support the petition, quickly fell back on the tried and true ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument. Again, Sir Humphrey would have been very pleased that his advice was being followed.

The sad thing is that while Sir Humphrey’s observations were made in the world of fiction, there are real people suffering today because of the lack of ACC coverage that MBIE and ACC so staunchly defend. If these agencies were genuinely concerned about the categories of volunteers not properly covered by ACC at present, they would have proposed specific possible solutions to the select committee, not hidden behind the many “why not” reasons their official advice contained.

None of the reasons they proffered were insoluble. All could have been easily resolved with a little creative and constructive thinking. But meeting need by providing proper public service is clearly beyond the scope and moral capability of these two agencies and their leaders. Again, conduct the same as Sir Humphrey would have advised. By focusing on process over outcome, MBIE and ACC are seeking to prevent change and the implementation of just, beneficial and fair social policy, an outcome many would describe as bureaucratic failure.

MBIE and ACC concluded their advice to the select committee with the somewhat dismissive observation that “depending on the circumstances, volunteers can endeavour to seek damages through the courts, and prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 may also be able to provide reparations.” They should be careful about what they wish for.

Any actions by volunteers for compensation through the courts would likely lead to substantial damages being awarded against the Crown, far more than the $244,533 annual cost of extending ACC coverage reported to the select committee.

But then, as Sir Humphrey once told his Minister, “The public doesn't know anything about wasting government money. We're the experts." By their bureaucratic lethargy on the volunteer firefighter coverage issue, MBIE and ACC seem keen to prove this point all over again.