Too often, an apparent concern for good public policy is really a cover for the protection of vested interests. In a small and intimate society like New Zealand this can make it difficult for governments to reach the best decisions on critical issues.

There is no intrinsic wrong in groups promoting their vested interests when issues of public policy are being considered, provided those interests are clearly identified. However, we are often too polite a society to do so. And so, the vested interests become – by default – a more significant part of the story than they deserve to be.

Earlier this week, the Maritime Union hit the news with claims that the cost of cancelling the Cook Strait ferry replacement could be as high as $500 million on top of the $500 million already spent on “sunk” costs. It did not name its “impeccable” sources, saying unconvincingly they were far too sensitive to be revealed publicly. Nevertheless, the media took the unsubstantiated claims seriously and dutifully reported them as such. So far, there has been no independent confirmation of the Maritime Union’s assertions, which are left looking like fact.

The Maritime Union has a long history – led by such colourful figures over the years as Fintan Patrick Walsh, Bill “Pincher” Martin and more recently, Dave Morgan. It has always staunchly promoted mariners’ conditions of service and general rights, leading to some of our more significant industrial disputes. So, its entry into the ferry replacement debate should therefore be seen for what it is – a legitimate attempt to protect the future employment interests of its members. Dressing it up as a wider concern about the contract arrangements for the replacement of the ferries is a clever tactic from the union’s perspective, but, in the absence of corroborated information, is hard to take more seriously.

In a similar vein, the head of a major traffic management company says, “everyone wants to tackle the cone problem, but framing it as a ‘war’ implies someone will have to lose”. And, he says, such rhetoric will undermine the attempt to save lives. While admitting that New Zealand might be the world’s “most cones per worksite” nation, he seeks to position the argument in more reasonable terms, saying the issue is a safety one for the community to resolve. He professes support for the criticisms of the Transport Minister and the Mayor of Auckland about what they consider to be the excessive use of cones. But then he says he has “a problem with some of the consequences of their delivery” and falls back on the cones are “an item ultimately designed to protect someone’s life” defence.

He also just happens to be chair of the Temporary Traffic Management Industry Steering Group which is considering ways in which current traffic management issues can be streamlined and improved to gain more public support. He could have added – but did not – these include protecting the interests of the plethora of traffic management companies across the country and the revenue they derive from central and local government.

Given his comments, and the prominence of traffic management companies and their ubiquitous cones, this is another area where it will be difficult to separate the obvious protection of vested interests from a sound public policy outcome.

Earlier this week, the government announced it was accelerating from 2026 to next year, the introduction of a new mathematics curriculum for primary and intermediate school students to significantly improve achievement rates. Since then, there has been a steady stream of criticism of the plan from various education groups. This has ranged from questions about who was involved in advising the government on the new approach, to claims its introduction is being unnecessarily rushed, and that there has been insufficient consultation.

The policy is certainly a departure from what was being developed under the previous government, and there are suggestions traditional practices are being bypassed, with resource materials being sourced directly from the private sector, rather than developed in-house as usual. It is easy to see how some professional noses are out of joint that the government is apparently upending their traditional way of doing things in favour of what the Prime Minister says is “swift action to transform maths education” and to end what he describes as years of “not setting kids up for success.”

However, in the debate which has followed this announcement the idea of “setting kids up for success” seems to be taking very much a back seat to the interests of the professional groups. It parallels the wider discourse about education which too often descends into the narrower argument of more resources for teachers, rather than the best ways to meet the needs of children. But skewing policy decisions to appease educational interest groups, as has happened too often in the past, has not always led to the best outcomes for children and parents, as appallingly low maths achievement rates confirm.

In an open society, interest groups have a right to promote their interests and causes and to seek to influence policy outcomes accordingly. But there also needs to be greater recognition that vested interests and good public policy outcomes do not always coincide, and that in the interests of transparency vested interests need to be identified clearly and publicly, so they can be appropriately discounted.

Above all else, the ongoing responsibility facing governments is to pursue the best policies, not just those which satisfy the most interest groups.