Recent events raise the question of whether New Zealand’s self-proclaimed independent foreign policy is slowly but surely being whittled away in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

First there was the so-called autonomous sanctions legislation rushed through Parliament unanimously a few weeks ago to enable economic sanctions to be made against Russia. Yet when a virtually identical Bill had been introduced last July by National it had been rejected as contrary to the flavour and intent of current foreign policy. 

Autonomous sanctions legislation allows for the unilateral imposition of economic and other sanctions outside a United Nations’ mandate. As a staunch supporter of the United Nations New Zealand had always preferred to act against rogue states in accordance with a United Nations’ mandate rather than at the behest of a superpower like the United States, or another grouping of countries. The absence of domestic autonomous sanctions legislation made it easier for us to do so. It was why, for example, New Zealand was able to resist United States’ pressure to join George Bush’s coalition of the willing in the ill-fated venture against Iraq and was a cornerstone of our foreign policy under both the Clark and Key governments. 

No-one would deny that there are strong reasons for the imposition of sanctions against Russia over the invasion of Ukraine. To that extent, given New Zealand’s abhorrence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it made sense to alter our position on autonomous sanctions to enable us to do so. However, the passage of broad autonomous sanctions legislation means that New Zealand will now find it more difficult to resist United States’ and British pressure to become involved in similar situations in the future, where the moral, political and national interest arguments for New Zealand to do so are far less compelling. At the same time, the passage of the legislation also sends a clear signal that New Zealand will be less inclined to await a mandate from the United Nations in the future. 

The commitment of a small contingent of Defence personnel and an aged Hercules to the Ukraine war is a similar subtle shift in focus. No-one is suggesting this intervention will have any practical impact on the overall situation there – indeed, a fair chunk of the personnel being sent are RNZAF support crew to make sure the Hercules gets there and back safely. It is more a question of the symbolism involved. 

Nor is it the first time New Zealand personnel have been deployed. Post-event peacekeepers and reconstruction forces have played valuable and lengthy roles in the Balkans, Timor Leste, the Solomon Islands, Sinai, Iraq and Afghanistan in the last quarter century. They have won a worthy reputation for their contribution, and we properly honour the sacrifices of those who died performing such service. 

What is different now is that while the personnel now being sent to Europe to support Ukraine will not be actively involved in the conflict, nor will even enter Ukraine, the move does signal a more active response than to previous crises. We appear to be quietly moving beyond the hitherto post-event logistical support, peacekeeping and recovery roles New Zealand has become so adept at. 

The counterargument is that Russia’s unprovoked, premeditated assault on Ukraine is the most profound threat to international order since the end of the Second World War, and therefore requires the combined response of the liberal Western democracies to help Ukraine counter it. There is also the modern-day version of the Domino Theory argument – that if Ukraine falls, then other independent states, once in the old Soviet orbit, like Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia come under more immediate risk. The consequence of that occurring would be a far more serious conflagration. The belief is that a strong and united front from the liberal Western democracies is required to bring home to Russia and its apparently obstinate leadership the complete unacceptability of its conduct.  

New Zealand has every right to conclude that support for Ukraine is not only justified in humanitarian and moral terms, but that it is also in our national interests to do so. But for a small country so far away from the scene of the conflict there is only so much we can do. We have taken some steps on refugee resettlement and the provision of general humanitarian aid, but we can do much more in that space that will be far more effective than a token military response. 

It is clear from the number of blue and yellow flags and emblems fluttering around our cities and towns that New Zealanders strongly support Ukraine’s independence and want to do the best we can to uphold that. It is doubtful that a small group in an elderly Hercules is that best effort. 

While a dispassionate assessment would downplay the efficacy of direct military involvement, it is easy to understand why the government has made limited moves in this direction. It is a practical display to other nations supporting Ukraine of our support for the cause. While understandable, it leaves unanswered, if not unconsidered, the bigger question of the precedent it creates. 

It may well be that New Zealand is now realising that in today’s changing international environment an independent foreign policy approach probably needs to become less purist and more flexible and pragmatic. The rising tension between the United States and China – two nations with whom New Zealand has close relations but for very different reasons – was already leading many to speculate that eventually we will have to make a choice between the two. Trying to be friends with both will become an increasingly difficult line to straddle if tensions between them persist and escalate. 

Therefore, if the latest response to the Ukraine situation does represent a shift in foreign policy direction towards more active engagement with and support of historic partners than has been the case since the 1980s, the government should say so. It cannot just rely on other countries interpreting the subtleties of our policy shifts correctly. If that is not the intention, the government needs to be equally clear in reasserting our independent foreign policy and presenting our stand on Ukraine as consistent with that. It cannot afford ambiguity. 

It has often been said that one of the reasons for the impasse with the United States in the 1980s over our anti-nuclear policy was because of initial mixed messages from New Zealand on the scope of the policy. If a general foreign policy reset is now underway prompted by the Ukraine invasion, New Zealand needs to make the scope of that change very clear to friends and allies from the outset, to avoid similar confusion, resentment and distrust occurring in the future.

 

 

 

 

The call by Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi to pay Māori a pension from the age of 57 should not be dismissed out of hand. He is right to draw attention to the fact that on average Māori die earlier, and therefore have less time to enjoy a quality retirement. In terms of equity, he also has a point, given that the New Zealand Superannuation Scheme is a taxpayer funded, “pay as you go” scheme, meaning that Māori who do not live as long in retirement are effectively short-changed on the taxpayer contribution they have made over their working years.

A similar argument can also be made in respect of other groups, like manual workers for example, who on average do not enjoy the same post-65 life span as others. However, the problem with setting a blanket age limit – like Waititi’s suggestion of 57 for Māori, or 65 for the general population for that matter – is that not everyone’s circumstances are the same. So, what would be a decided benefit for some, would have little impact for others and would therefore not be a particularly helpful or well-targeted intervention.

But that does not detract from the relevance of Waititi’s call or mean it should just be swept under the carpet as too difficult to address. Fortunately, there is another way of resolving the problem he has raised.

Some years ago, I suggested the concept of variable New Zealand Superannuation arrangements, or Flexisuper as it became known. It was designed to address fairly the issues Waititi is concerned about today, by giving people choices over when they took up New Zealand Superannuation.

Under Flexisuper, a person would have the option of choosing to receive New Zealand Superannuation from the age of 60 at a lower rate from the normal rate. In practical terms, that would mean about 66% for life of the rate payable to those who chose to wait until 65 to take up their entitlement. For those with a likely shorter life span this would mean they would be able to choose to collect a reasonable pension from the age of 60 for whatever years are left to them, whereas currently they are entitled to nothing until and unless they reach 65. Under Flexisuper, someone choosing not to uplift New Zealand Superannuation until the age of 70 or above would receive a higher rate.

Flexisuper could therefore be close to cost neutral – those opting for 60 would be effectively offset by those deferring until age 70 – which would peg current superannuation expenditure at roughly current levels. This would make New Zealand Superannuation not only financially sustainable into the future but would also mean that there would be no need to lift the standard age of entitlement beyond 65.

Flexisuper would not be means tested, nor affect any private pension arrangements or eligibility for Kiwisaver pay-outs at the age of 65 for those who were members of that scheme. Its great advantage is that it gives people the opportunity to plan their retirement lifestyles according to their needs and circumstances, without the arbitrary intervention of the state.

Consistent with confidence and supply agreement provisions, the National-led government released a discussion paper on Flexisuper in 2013 and invited public submissions. These showed strong support for and understanding of the idea, and separate polling at the same time showed that Flexisuper was nearly twice as popular with the public as other options like raising the age of entitlement or bringing back means or asset testing.

Unfortunately, National declined to go any further. It was worried about the impact a choice-based scheme might have on universality, especially for those who chose the 60 option but lived on well after the age of 65. In any case, National was more interested in reducing the overall cost of New Zealand Superannuation than notions of flexibility or equity.

Its answer to the affordability question was to propose a gradual upwards shift over the twenty years to 2037 in the eligibility age to 67. But that did nothing to address the plight of the under 65s seeking to leave the workforce early.  Of the other parties, only Te Pāti Māori showed any interest in the idea at that time, for pretty much the same reasons as Waititi is advancing today.

But the issue is not going to go away. Demographic projections suggest the proportion of Māori and Pasifika will rise steadily to almost 30% of the population by 2038. Because the mortality gap with Pakeha looks likely to remain about the same as now, the problem Waititi is drawing attention to will be escalated – more Māori and Pasifika coming to the end of their working lives but still dying earlier than Pakeha.

At the same time, as the population reaches 6 million or more by 2040, the sustainability of the present New Zealand Superannuation Scheme will be severely tested. Lifespans are expected to be increasing steadily (the gap with Māori and Pasifika notwithstanding) meaning a higher proportion of New Zealanders than ever before will be eligible for New Zealand Superannuation.

Labour now seems to be joining National in acknowledging that this may mean an upwards adjustment of the age of entitlement at some future point to maintain universal superannuation. While gradually raising the age of entitlement seems standard practice among OECD countries, it is still an overly heavy reliance on a single tool that will do little to address some of the wider social and demographic issues now emerging. Those in their 30s and 40s now are unlikely to appreciate being told that while they will continue to “pay as you go”, their future entitlements are likely to be arbitrarily capped by the state.

In planning their futures, people want to have some control over the circumstances they are likely to face. This applies whether they be Māori whom Waititi is properly concerned about, Pasifika, those approaching retirement, or those early in or near the middle of their working careers. FlexiSuper could be a step towards giving all of them greater flexibility and options in planning for their retirement. It therefore deserves fresh consideration. Rawiri Waititi’s call provides a timely opportunity to rekindle that discussion.

 Wellington’s long-awaited and controversial Transmission Gully Motorway opens to the public today – a mere 103 years after the MP for Otaki at the time proposed it be developed as a road for motor vehicles to commemorate the fallen soldiers of World War I.

The new 27-kilometre motorway, north of Wellington from Linden to McKays Crossing just north of Paekakariki, is a state-of-the-art project, incorporating the most modern design and safety features. In a first for New Zealand, it has its own radar system, like those operating on many European highways, to detect crashes and other road incidents and provide up-to-the minute information to motorists.

Speaking at the opening ceremony, Transport Minister Michael Wood waxed lyrical that “Transmission Gully is one of the most significant and complex new roading projects ever undertaken in New Zealand … requiring innovative environmental and construction techniques.” Yet only a few weeks ago, when Waka Kotahi did not open the road before Christmas as planned Wood dismissed the project, which commenced construction in 2014, as a National-led government “botch-up”, an intemperate claim churlishly repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister after yesterday’s opening, where he had seemed to be very content sitting, smiling, and purring, in the front row of the dignitaries alongside Minister Woods.

I had the privilege of driving over Transmission Gully – or Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata, the name gifted to it by local iwi Ngāti Toa – shortly after the opening ceremony. It is a spectacular four-lane motorway, a vast contrast to the current winding, accident prone Coastal Highway it replaces. It will cut journey times into and out of the capital, as well as providing safe earthquake access and egress. (Transmission Gully has been designed to withstand an earthquake of 1 in 2,500-year severity.) While it has been a long wait, the finished product is certainly worth it, and will be quickly embraced by those living here and everyone using it.

But aside from its impressive technical qualities and the substantial improvement it brings to driving conditions into and out of Wellington, Transmission Gully/Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata will be a game-changer in another respect as well. It is likely to be a massive boost to industrial and residential development to Wellington’s north, around the Porirua Basin and through to the Kapiti Coast. And with a new four-lane highway from Peka Peka (north of Waikanae) through to Otaki, currently about an hour’s drive north of Wellington, due for completion by the end of this year, the whole area should expand rapidly. Once the railway line to Otaki and on to Levin is electrified – to allow suburban rail services to operate that far north – as promised over the next three years, the greater Wellington region should be able to look forward a greater level of economic and population growth than ever before.

The problem with all this additional growth, though, is as some Wellington city local politicians keep pointing out, that it is likely to be at the expense of Wellington city. It is easy to see why – there is more residential and commercial space available to the north, the climate is more congenial, and improved road and rail links make the journey into Wellington less demanding.

But Wellington city has been dying a slow death for some years – a point former Prime Minister Sir John Key was roundly criticised for raising as far back as 2013. Nevertheless, Wellington’s CBD is a shadow of its former self, with prestige department store, David Jones, due to close around the middle of this year. Add to that the Covid lockdowns and the fact that most of the public servants who previously filled the inner city’s cafes, restaurants, bars, hairdressers, and other service businesses are still working from home, and the picture for Wellington businesses looks grim.

Moreover, in that context, the city’s projection of population growth of 80,000 for Wellington city over the next 30 years looks like ludicrous fantasy. Worse though the City Council has now decided that, to meet this fictional demand, apartment blocks up to six stories high can now be built in residential areas, on a non-notified consent basis. It is kneejerk nightmare stuff, based more on trying to keep Wellington city as the central point of the growing wider region than common sense.

The opening of Transmission Gully/Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata confirms that the Wellington region’s future growth and development will not come from Wellington city.  The city’s future lies in being the centre of government, and the country’s cultural heartland, and the Council needs to shift its focus accordingly. What Te Ara Nui highlights is that the Wellington region is too small, even if future population fantasies materialise, to continue to operate as five separate insular cities (Wellington, Porirua, Kapiti, Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt) the way it does at present.

The opening of Transmission Gully/Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata needs to become the catalyst for a new examination of the way the Wellington region works to get the maximum benefit from the new motorway. It is time for a fresh look at the viability of the region’s local government structure and whether a region of just 530,000 people needs a regional council and the five district councils.

Transmission Gully/Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata is about to dramatically change the Wellington region’s roading and transport landscape, and impact population growth and economic development for the future. At her speech opening the motorway, the Prime Minister said it was an “engineering marvel” which will benefit the whole country, not just local communities, for generations to come.

But to become a reality, that will require local politicians to look beyond their own parochial patch and adopt a greater regional and national perspective to ensure those benefits are achieved.

 

According to Mental Health and Wellness Commission statistics, one in ten New Zealanders made use of the website www.depression.org.nz in 2020/21. At the same time, just over 191,000 people (3.7% of the population) accessed mental health services directly and 9,392 were admitted to acute inpatient care. Our annual suicide rate rose to just over 600 cases, with our youth suicide rate remaining one of the highest amongst the world’s developed nations. 

By any measure, these statistics portray a serious mental health crisis in New Zealand. While differences in the way statistics are collected makes direct comparison with earlier years difficult, it is a more than reasonable assumption that the overall position has been getting worse over the last twenty years or so. The Mental Health and Wellness Commission reports that the percentage of young people seeking mental health services help has risen by a third since 2016. 

Following its Mental Health Inquiry in 2018 the government allocated $1.9 billion in the 2019 Budget to dramatically improve the delivery of mental health services. The announcement was widely acclaimed at the time and long overdue. In August last year the Minister of Health was proclaiming “This government is transforming Aotearoa - New Zealand’s approach to mental wellbeing with greater focus on care in the community, and more emphasis on prevention and early intervention.” 

However, in its report this week, the Mental Health and Wellness Commission has painted a somewhat different picture about the $1.9 billion new spending. Its conclusion that “improvements in services have not materialised as we had hoped for over this time” was simply damning. Even the Minister now concedes the Ministry of Health has “struggled to achieve as much as we would have liked them to,” on mental health, a far cry from his bold rhetoric of just seven months ago. 

The 191,000 people who accessed mental health services directly last year are but the tip of the iceberg. When family, friends and workmates associated with them are taken into account, the real figure is probably four, maybe five, times higher. It could well that around at least 10% of our population are affected directly or otherwise by mental health issues. 

It is likely to get worse before it gets better. I recall as a Health Minister being advised by mental health officials after the Christchurch earthquakes that typically the mental health crises following traumatic events can take up to four years to surface in the community. In the aftermath of an immediate crisis people are too busy getting their own lives back in order, they told me, it is only after time has settled that the mental health impacts become apparent. On that basis, the full impact of the social and economic impacts of the pandemic on the mental health of New Zealanders may yet be two to three years away, further highlighting the desperate need to improve services in the meantime.   

The point which the Minister made in his too gung-ho statement last August about the need to “focus on care in the community” is correct. But the problem is care in the community cannot be delivered by a centralised agency like the Ministry of Health, or even district health boards. The service base needs to be broadened dramatically, so it can be delivered in a way that is non-threatening to patients, without the cold walls of bureaucracy around it. That should go without saying in a country as culturally, ethnically and gender diverse as New Zealand, but it still seems the point is not getting through. 

When I was the Minister responsible for mental health, about a decade ago, I was stunned to find that, the prevailing view at the time notwithstanding, there was no shortage of mental health resources in the community. On the contrary, there were literally hundreds of agencies, big and small, up and down the country serving the mental health needs of local communities. Some were better than others, some were more well-meaning than they were well-informed, but there was no doubt about their dedication to meeting the mental health needs of their communities. 

The problem was then, and I suspect remains the case today, that access to funding for the improvement of service delivery and better training for mental health workers was strictly controlled by autonomous district health boards, who were legally not subject to Ministerial direction, and the Ministry of Health. Their joint attitude was that if a service could not be provided by a district health board it was probably not required or worth providing at all. So, many of these community health agencies have therefore been left largely to their own devices, over the years, while district health boards either tried to replicate what they were doing, or just ignored them altogether. Many patients almost certainly fell through the cracks because of that. 

The fact that $1.9 billion of funding allocated to the Ministry of Health almost three years ago has led to no improvements in services will come as no surprise to anyone working diligently in the field, but it is a scandal of serious proportions, raising many questions. What has the money been spent on so far, or is it just still sitting there? Where was the plan for its utilisation at the time the original Budget bid was made, and how was that to be monitored? The impression is left there was no plan, let alone any monitoring, and it was all just left to struggling officials who have achieved very little. 

Mental health consumers will be both furious and frustrated that the promise of so much has led to so little. At the very least, there needs to be an urgent inquiry, by the Auditor-General maybe, into what has happened. 

The almost 200,000 New Zealanders accessing mental health services each year, and those close to them, deserve so much better.     

 

 

In our system of government, the Prime Minister is often described as “primus inter pares”, the first among equals, or the chair of the board when it comes to leading Cabinet and the wider team of government MPs. The Minister of Finance, correspondingly, is the effective chief executive overseeing and pulling together all the strands of government to make sure the government’s objectives are achieved. 

While the public focus is naturally on the Prime Minister who, in the modern environment, is expected to front for the government on everything, the Minister of Finance is never far behind. Although the Prime Minister is the public face of the government, the Minister of Finance is constantly making sure that government’s policies are properly co-ordinated and responsibly fiscally managed to its best political and economic advantage. At Budget time each year the Minister of Finance gets to put it all on display, and it is no coincidence that Budgets are often seen as the sole work of the Minister of Finance, rather than a collaborative effort by the Prime Minister or the rest of the government. 

Stereotypically, Ministers of Finance are normally expected to effortlessly quote endless financial statistics, percentages, and arcane acronyms, and always appear far more knowing and world-wise than anyone else. They invariably adopt over time a miserly persona – even more profligate Ministers like the current incumbent like to give off the sense that it is “their” hard-earned money they are spending, not the government’s, and certainly not that provided to them by the long-suffering taxpayer. 

Some Ministers of Finance have been mercurial – Sir Robert Muldoon liked being described as an “economic wizard”, even if his overall record suggested otherwise. Others like Sir Roger Douglas have been bold reformers, while more steady hands like Sir Michael Cullen and Sir Bill English have achieved major changes over a longer period. Some, like Sir Arnold Nordmeyer, are remembered for the wrong reasons (the 1958 Black Budget) while others have simply been forgotten altogether. 

It goes without saying that a strong and competent Minister of Finance is a key component of a modern, successful government. Equally important is the partnership forged between a Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. The relationship between the two must be close and supportive, with each having and showing complete confidence in the work of the other.   

When the partnership between David Lange and Sir Roger Douglas, which had been so successful, broke down, that government’s demise began. Similarly, when it became clear Jim Bolger and Ruth Richardson were moving in different directions, she had to go. On the other hand, the strong relationship between Helen Clark and Sir Michael Cullen was a key component in that government’s longevity, as was the link between Sir John Key and Sir Bill English in the last National-led government. So far, the partnership between the present Prime Minister and her Minister of Finance has looked strong and unified. 

Often, although not always, the bond between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is reinforced by the Minister of Finance also being the Deputy Prime Minister. That is the case at present, and applied with other long-term governments, like those of Helen Clark and Sir Michael Cullen, Sir John Key and Sir Bill English, and even back to Peter Fraser and Sir Walter Nash. However, only a handful of Ministers of Finance – Nash, Muldoon, and English – have gone on to become Prime Minister. 

Against that background, the choice of Nicola Willis to be National’s new finance spokesperson to replace the departing Simon Bridges is a sensible one. Bridges’ sudden retirement is a blow to National – he was beginning to look like a potential Minister of Finance in the Cullen/English mode and will therefore be hard to replace. Nevertheless, Willis has the capacity to step up quickly and seamlessly to her new role, and she has many other advantages besides. 

As National’s deputy leader since late last year, she has quickly built a close relationship with party leader Christopher Luxon, and the pairing is already becoming established in the public mind. Her elevation to finance spokesperson should reinforce that and will confirm her authority over her Caucus colleagues, which will become more important as the party goes about preparing (and costing) its election policies for next year. Experience working for Fonterra, alongside Luxon’s own corporate background (he used to run an airline, you know) means she will be very much at ease in the corporate boardrooms Ministers of Finance need to pay heed to. 

Her time previously as a leading adviser to Sir John Key when he was Prime Minister will have given her a strong sense of the political challenges involved in running a government and implementing its policy programme. She will be able to use these skills to good advantage with her Caucus colleagues over the next year or so, as well as with Luxon who, it needs to be remembered, is still very inexperienced in such matters. 

As National’s housing spokesperson, Willis demonstrated a passion for the portfolio and an ability to talk with the public in very clear and understandable terms about the issues as she saw them and the changes she would like to make. She should be able to use these skills and experiences to talk about National’s cost of living “crisis” campaign and wider approach to economic policy in a way that seems real and relatable for people. Willis is unlikely to fall into the trap most Ministers of Finance and finance spokespeople do of relying almost exclusively on arid statistics to bolster her argument. 

Her clashes with the current Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, will be fascinating. They know each other well having both stood in the Wellington Central electorate for the last two elections. Robertson is teetering on the verge of taking on the miserly persona of Ministers of Finance past, and given Willis’ unashamedly liberal credentials, is likely to find her a more difficult opponent to pigeon-hole than the much more conservative Bridges. While the exchanges between them will be courteous, Willis is unshakeable, and Robertson will need to be careful that her “working mum with four kids” approach does not get away from him. 

When Christopher Luxon became leader of the National Party there were many critics of his social conservatism who felt that would hamper his ability to present National in a modern and progressive light. So far, as the polls strongly show, he has defied that expectation, even if there is still a long way to go until the next election. His appointment of Nicola Willis as finance spokesperson continues down the path he has set. 

Just as Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson were Labour’s political generational change, Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are doing likewise for National. Luxon’s next challenge having set out National’s furniture the way he would like, is to show how he and Willis are going to use it. Their first task is to be sure none of their other colleagues decides to knock down a table or two along the way.

 

 

 

The most basic and cherished right in a free society is the right to vote. Wars have been fought over it, and people have given their lives and endured other indignities in defence of the right to cast a vote for whom they choose at election time. It is the great leveller – the one time when the say of the loftiest and the lowliest in society has the same value.

Therefore, revelations last week that nearly 800 New Zealanders living overseas have the lost their right to vote due to the closure of the borders because of Covid19 are extremely concerning. The situation arises because under current electoral law New Zealanders living overseas must return home at least once every three years to retain the right to vote here. When Covid 19 struck and the borders were closed it made it impossible for a number to fulfil that obligation, hence the cancellation of their right to vote.

Some may see this as an unintended consequence of the pandemic. More correctly, it is a direct result of government policy over control of the borders. The government was made aware in 2020 this problem was likely to occur but, to its eternal shame it chose to do nothing to protect New Zealanders caught out this way, either before the 2020 election or since. It could have easily passed emergency legislation back in 2020 to cover those likely to be affected but declined to do so.

Even now, when the borders are reopening, making it easier for New Zealanders to return home when they wish, and thus protect their eligibility, the Justice Minister remains non-committal about resolving the issue of the 800, saying only that he is prepared to “look at it”.

The vehicle for resolving this would be the normal legislation the year before an election to tidy up some of the administrative issues arising from the previous election. But even if this issue is addressed in this year’s legislation it seems unlikely to be in time to enable the affected 800 to vote in this year’s local body elections if they were of a mind to join the minority of other New Zealanders who do so.

Of more concern is the Minister’s lethargic approach to the matter. This involves the right of fellow New Zealanders to be able to cast a vote like the rest of us. It should not be a matter that the Minister needs to “look at” before deciding what to do. The issue is a no-brainer – the right to vote is absolute and it should not have been beyond the Minister’s wit to make a clear statement that the right to vote of those 800 New Zealanders will be immediately restored. This is one of those “no ifs, buts or maybes” issues that deserves a clear, unequivocal Ministerial response immediately. His inaction so far has been unconscionable.

Restoring their rights so they can vote in upcoming elections this year and next is straightforward. It should be treated separately from the wider issue of the so-called three-year rule itself. But it looks as though the Minister is keeping the rights of the 800 and the future of the three-year rule closely and incorrectly linked, which could well delay progress in resolving this electoral injustice.

The three-year rule has not been looked at for at least 30 years, so a review is probably timely in any case. It is presently one of the most restrictive voting rules in the world when it comes to citizens living overseas. Yet only Ireland has a greater diaspora than us amongst the OECD countries, with over 62,000 New Zealanders voting from overseas at the last election.

In the United States, France, South Africa and most recently Canada, there is no limit on the time a voter can live overseas and still vote in elections in their home country. In Britain, the right to vote is protected provided the person undertakes to return home within 15 years, and it is 6 years in Australia. Italians living in a country with no Italian Embassy where they can vote are reimbursed up to 75% of their travel costs to return home to vote.

Alongside these more generous provisions elsewhere our three-year restriction looks out of step and harsh. Other countries seem more intent on keeping their diaspora closely linked to the home country than we do, even though around 20% of our population now lives outside New Zealand.

Strangely, there seems little domestic political appetite for reviewing three-year rule, let alone extending the period to something more in line with other countries. Perversely, New Zealand political parties have become far more active in recent years in campaigning overseas for the votes of those expatriate New Zealanders still able to vote and can be expected to increase that role in the future. In its interim report on the 2020 election the Justice select committee did recommend considering allowing votes from overseas to be cast electronically, given the difficulties often experienced in getting voting papers to overseas in time, but this was separate from the three-year rule.

For those New Zealanders living overseas already aggrieved at being shut out of coming home for so long because what was the world’s most oppressive state-run isolation and quarantine system, and who have now lost their right to vote as well, the “team of five million” has become no more than a cruel and sick joke Indeed, it is a testament to their patriotism that they remain so determinedly New Zealanders, in the face of what is at best indifference and at worst callous disregard by the government for their circumstances.

The right to vote is absolute, not conditional – it needs to be restored immediately to those New Zealanders who have lost it because of government policy.

No ifs, no buts, no maybes. 

 

I was reminded recently of T.S. Eliot’s famous lines at the end of his classic poem, “The Waste Land”: “This is the way world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” 

The occasion was the government’s latest announcements bringing forward the dates for reopening New Zealand to returning New Zealanders and overseas visitors with the removal of most border controls. These new dates speed up considerably the timetable the Prime Minister had earlier announced just four weeks ago, telling Newshub then that “these are very firm dates we’ve set” and she would not be backing down from them. 

The government realised in October that despite the Auckland lockdown it was not going to be able to stamp out the Delta variant. Since then, it has been on an inevitable but still reluctant pathway of reducing the restrictions it has imposed on New Zealanders, at home and abroad, since the arrival of Covid19, just over two years ago. 

The arrival of the far more contagious Omicron variant in late December and its rapid spread since then finally forced the government’s hand. Maintaining a complex system of restrictions and mandatory isolation requirements was just not going to work in an Omicron environment, and it finally dawned on Ministers that it was time to trust people to self-manage their own situations. 

But this was no bolt from the blue. Opposition parties had been warning since late last year that the arrival of Omicron on the same scale as in other countries would overwhelm our rules, not to mention our health system potentially, and that the government needed to move to relax restrictions. Revelations this week about the unacceptable delays in getting PCR testing results to people in a timely manner confirm that view, but, at the time last year, the government’s response was that the Opposition parties’ plans would “give New Zealanders Covid for Christmas.” The calls were therefore ignored then, only to be picked up and announced as her own in the Prime Minister’s “Reconnecting New Zealand to the world” speech on 3 February. 

When Opposition parties criticised those announcements as too little, too late, they were again excoriated by the government as irresponsible and wrong. But, as before, this week’s announcements of an accelerated timetable – again presented as all the government’s own idea – substantially addressed the fresh points made by the Opposition. Now it seems only a matter of time before the current early October date for the complete reopening of the border, something else Opposition parties have been calling for, is also brought forward. 

All this means that rather than ending with a bang, New Zealand’s pandemic restrictions now seem more likely to peter out in a quiet whimper over the next couple of months or so. 

In part, this is because the measures taken to control the spread of the virus have been effective – particularly the national vaccination programme, which after an incredibly low and fitful start has seen New Zealand end up as one of the world’s most highly vaccinated nations – and in part, it is because the government, like just about everyone else, is suffering from Covid19 fatigue. This is because despite all its ravages, the massive economic and social disruptions it has caused, here and elsewhere, and because of the public response, the impact of the pandemic has not been nearly as severe as first feared. 

In 2020, for example, Professors Michael Baker and Nick Wilson were predicting up to 33,600 New Zealanders could die from Covid19, if the government took no action. In a report released this week they say that 2,750 New Zealanders lives have been saved since 2020 because of health measures taken to suppress all respiratory viruses, not just Covid19. In the event, the total number to date of Covid19 deaths has been just 56, just under a tenth of the number that die annually from influenza, a remarkable tribute to the efficacy of the public health response. 

At the same time, however, this success has contributed to the public complacency about Covid19, because things have not been that bad after all. Many New Zealanders now feel simply “over it.” That pervasive feeling, which even the Prime Minister admits to having, was always going to make it difficult for the government to sustain the previous high level of restriction into a third year, even before the arrival of Omicron made it impossible. 

What reminded me of Eliot’s lines is that according to at one least interpretation they relate to the end of one world – in his instance the world of pre-World War One Europe – and the birth of a new world, consistent with the whimper of a new-born child. The “Waste Land” of the past lies buried with that old world, and the focus moves to the new world ahead. 

So it is with Covid19. While its spectre will remain for some time, and with that, the prospect of new and yet more virulent strains emerging, the increasing reality for New Zealand, like every other country, is of having to live with the virus and return to as normal a way of life as possible. That will impose a fresh set of challenges that governments will need turn their attention to. Reopening borders goes far beyond just welcoming family and friends back from overseas or seeing the return of international tourism. 

Future challenges include the restoration of social cohesion and the reconstruction of the decimated small to medium sized business sector, mainly but not exclusively in hospitality and tourism. And rebuilding capability in the health, health services, and infrastructure sectors to ensure we can cope with any future pandemic that comes our way. This includes restoring the whole of government approach to pandemic planning and response that was allowed to lapse after 2017. 

As the period of prescriptive national measures to fight the pandemic wanes and is replaced by a greater reliance on self-preparedness, the focus will shift to governments needing to work alongside people to help them look after themselves, rather than just tell them what to do. 

In New Zealand, as elsewhere, it has been so far relatively easy for Opposition parties to criticise governments for the rules they have imposed on their peoples to fight the pandemic. As we have seen here, to gain uniform compliance government-imposed rules have invariably been complex, often appearing inconsistent, unfair to some, and difficult to administer efficiently. MIQ would be the obvious example, but the procurement problems the Ministry of Health has faced throughout the pandemic – from PPR equipment, to vaccines, and RAT tests – cannot be ignored. These have all proved fertile ground for Opposition parties to till. By always initially denying the worth of any criticisms, and then acknowledging their validity only in its subsequent actions, the government has to some extent been playing into the Opposition’s hands. 

However, the new focus on self-management and personal responsibility changes all that. While calling for the government to get out of people’s lives and let them take personal responsibility for their own wellbeing is an easy rhetorical call to make, it becomes harder to be critical when people do just that. Governments cannot easily be blamed for people’s individual decisions, especially by those saying they should have been trusted all along to make them. 

Therefore, while Opposition parties may feel they have won a battle with the ending of managed isolation and border restrictions, the move to personal responsibility means they are now facing a completely new political challenge.