Up ahead I noticed traffic slowing on the inside lane. A closer look revealed a road working crew. There were two orange cones in front of a small barrier about 2m wide. Behind the barrier were two men working waist-deep in a hole in the road. A third man stood on the verge observing. They didn’t appear to have a vehicle nearby or for that matter, any other workers with them.
The approaching cars on the inside lane slowed and moved out to the second lane, easing past the workmen, before picking up speed and continuing on their way. Drivers were able to make the decision to slow down and change lanes without the need for signs or direction. Those of us in the outside two lanes continued unabated.
I couldn’t help but think how different such a scene would have played out if the location had been New Zealand. A similar instance on State Highway 1 would see at least 400m of orange cones, signsaplenty advising us to drive at 30km/h, and probably another sign before that saying “road works ahead” or something similar.
Our “men in the hole” would typically be accompanied by at least a couple of vehicles, parked on the affected lane, and a team of people moving around a 5000sq m work site.
Of course our drivers would be guided away from where the road repairs were being undertaken, by a series of cones and barriers placed so closely together it would be impossible to direct your vehicle anywhere off the carefully prescribed diversion. All four lanes would be affected, and traffic would build up to a point where the 30km/h limit was likely wishful thinking.
As difficult as it may be to imagine, there was a time when there were hardly any orange cones on our roads. Their presence was reserved for an occasion where danger was apparent and great care was needed. A few cones might once have highlighted a slip on the Brynderwyns or an accident on a blind corner. In those days, most road repairs were notified to drivers by a “Road Works” sign, and a “30 Temporary” speed sign and occasionally a stop-go person. That was usually enough for us to make our own decision to slow down and steer clear of the disruption in a manner that ensured everyone was safe.
But as the health and safety epidemic took off, the people making the rules were no longer happy for us to make our own decisions. We needed to become more aware of the potential for danger. As a result, increased notification, particularly that in the form of orange cones, was required to draw greater attention to the issues ahead.
As time has marched on and our apparent exposure to danger has grown, so too has the need for more orange cones, and more direction of how we must deal with the dangers we face. A combination of contractor greed and a “belts and braces” mentality around health and safety have contributed to a situation that’s slowing us down, costing us money and disabling our ability to make decisions for ourselves.
Earlier this year, when Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown announced that 49% of the costs of road repairs related to traffic management expenses, it should have sounded alarm bells. What he meant was that we’re spending as much money telling drivers how to behave around roadworks, as we are on the repairs themselves. Imagine if we could eliminate the majority of that cost. Instead we could put a fraction of the savings into driver education and solve all sorts of problems, including how to approach a situation where road workers are present.
Orange cones are a metaphor for the state of the country. We are really good at putting obstacles in the way to prevent us from making progress. There’s plenty of commentary suggesting we don’t need anywhere near the number of cones to manage our roading projects.
But our orange cone mentality doesn’t stop there.
We’ve become a country where the bureaucratic few would prefer rules for us to abide by rather than see us apply common sense as we navigate our day.
If there is a hole in the roof of your shop or warehouse, it is no longer sufficient to arrange for someone to fix it. First we must submit a health and safety plan to WorkSafe. Once satisfied, they will allow us to repair the roof. On the way through the process they expect us to monitor the contractor to ensure that they are operating within the agreed health and safety plan. They might even turn up to check on us. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? We now have orange cones on the roof!
Across the small number of companies that I work with I’ve lost track of the cost of meeting our obligations under AML. I’m not sure how many money launderers New Zealand has caught as a result of the expansion of our AML legislation that was introduced in 2017. But I can say it is costing NZ business hundreds of millions of dollars to pre-screen everyone from home buyers to international investors. Is it worth it? Surely, the great majority of us can assess the credibility of the people we deal with on a regular transaction. Maybe we need an AML-type structure around large financial transactions, but do we really think that such scrutiny should apply to standard real estate transactions between citizens?
That real estate transaction now involves the service provider having to ask a potential buyer about the source of the funds with which they are purchasing the property. Most of us would say, “I work for a living and save my money. And I sold my last house.” Do we really need an expensive process to capture this information? Imagine, orange cones around your real estate transaction.
On the topic of real estate, we should think about the cost of building homes and other buildings. Long before a shovel touches the ground the costs start. Resource consent. Building consent. Sometimes we need a traffic report and a geological survey too. Once construction starts the council inspection process starts. Once limited to three or four council inspections over the course of a project, 20 or 30 visits from the inspectors is now commonplace. Of course, each of these visits come with a cost. One of the businesses I work with needs to make a $500,000 alteration to a commercial building. Of that cost, $150,000 is compliance and consulting fees. I call it orange cones around your building project.
Most recently large businesses are having to sign up to the climate reporting standards. I know of one organisation that has spent $250,000 in order to comply with the new standards. They think that will be an annual cost. This is not a huge organisation either. I have no doubt that the cost will run into millions for some businesses. Let’s be clear. This is spending that doesn’t return anything. Like the health and safety and the anti-money laundering, it might stop something from occurring. Might. But it is a hell of a lot of cost being imposed on us, for a maybe.
These “orange cones” have been placed everywhere around us because we can no longer be trusted to do things properly ourselves.
So, whatever happened to common sense?
Why can’t we rely on common sense instead of legislating people into the behaviours we prefer. Common sense, well exercised would save us hundreds of millions of dollars. Let’s spend that money, or some of it at least, on educating people about the hazards they may face in the world, and then encourage them to navigate those hazards to the best of their ability. We will develop more capability and resilience as a result.
More capable people, making well-informed decisions will create a better society. We will certainly make mistakes. But would we make materially more mistakes than we currently do? Sometimes accidents happen. But the exercise of common sense when encountering an obstacle, replacing the one-size-fits-all directions of bureaucrats, will ultimately make for better communities.
Act leader David Seymour has appointed himself the minister responsible for slashing red tape. Let’s not underestimate the size of his challenge. And he should be supported every step of the way.
Because the ability to respond to challenges as you come across them in your own way, to exercise your own judgment and common sense, and to proactively move forward, are among the core elements of personal freedom. They’re also critical learning opportunities. Every time we get something wrong creates an opportunity to learn from our experience. We’ll be better next time.
The alternative is for the bureaucracy to insist that we do as we’re told, that we approach varying challenges within a set of rules prescribed by someone else. That we avoid thinking for ourselves. That we don’t learn from each experience. And that we remain destined down a path of blind obedience, mediocrity and dependency on the rule-makers.
After all, do we really need raised judder bars to slow cars at pedestrian crossings? Or should we just educate our drivers and pedestrians to make better decisions?
I couldn’t help but think how different such a scene would have played out if the location had been New Zealand. A similar instance on State Highway 1 would see at least 400m of orange cones, signsaplenty advising us to drive at 30km/h, and probably another sign before that saying “road works ahead” or something similar.
Our “men in the hole” would typically be accompanied by at least a couple of vehicles, parked on the affected lane, and a team of people moving around a 5000sq m work site.
Of course our drivers would be guided away from where the road repairs were being undertaken, by a series of cones and barriers placed so closely together it would be impossible to direct your vehicle anywhere off the carefully prescribed diversion. All four lanes would be affected, and traffic would build up to a point where the 30km/h limit was likely wishful thinking.
As difficult as it may be to imagine, there was a time when there were hardly any orange cones on our roads. Their presence was reserved for an occasion where danger was apparent and great care was needed. A few cones might once have highlighted a slip on the Brynderwyns or an accident on a blind corner. In those days, most road repairs were notified to drivers by a “Road Works” sign, and a “30 Temporary” speed sign and occasionally a stop-go person. That was usually enough for us to make our own decision to slow down and steer clear of the disruption in a manner that ensured everyone was safe.
But as the health and safety epidemic took off, the people making the rules were no longer happy for us to make our own decisions. We needed to become more aware of the potential for danger. As a result, increased notification, particularly that in the form of orange cones, was required to draw greater attention to the issues ahead.
As time has marched on and our apparent exposure to danger has grown, so too has the need for more orange cones, and more direction of how we must deal with the dangers we face. A combination of contractor greed and a “belts and braces” mentality around health and safety have contributed to a situation that’s slowing us down, costing us money and disabling our ability to make decisions for ourselves.
Earlier this year, when Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown announced that 49% of the costs of road repairs related to traffic management expenses, it should have sounded alarm bells. What he meant was that we’re spending as much money telling drivers how to behave around roadworks, as we are on the repairs themselves. Imagine if we could eliminate the majority of that cost. Instead we could put a fraction of the savings into driver education and solve all sorts of problems, including how to approach a situation where road workers are present.
Orange cones are a metaphor for the state of the country. We are really good at putting obstacles in the way to prevent us from making progress. There’s plenty of commentary suggesting we don’t need anywhere near the number of cones to manage our roading projects.
But our orange cone mentality doesn’t stop there.
We’ve become a country where the bureaucratic few would prefer rules for us to abide by rather than see us apply common sense as we navigate our day.
If there is a hole in the roof of your shop or warehouse, it is no longer sufficient to arrange for someone to fix it. First we must submit a health and safety plan to WorkSafe. Once satisfied, they will allow us to repair the roof. On the way through the process they expect us to monitor the contractor to ensure that they are operating within the agreed health and safety plan. They might even turn up to check on us. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? We now have orange cones on the roof!
Across the small number of companies that I work with I’ve lost track of the cost of meeting our obligations under AML. I’m not sure how many money launderers New Zealand has caught as a result of the expansion of our AML legislation that was introduced in 2017. But I can say it is costing NZ business hundreds of millions of dollars to pre-screen everyone from home buyers to international investors. Is it worth it? Surely, the great majority of us can assess the credibility of the people we deal with on a regular transaction. Maybe we need an AML-type structure around large financial transactions, but do we really think that such scrutiny should apply to standard real estate transactions between citizens?
That real estate transaction now involves the service provider having to ask a potential buyer about the source of the funds with which they are purchasing the property. Most of us would say, “I work for a living and save my money. And I sold my last house.” Do we really need an expensive process to capture this information? Imagine, orange cones around your real estate transaction.
On the topic of real estate, we should think about the cost of building homes and other buildings. Long before a shovel touches the ground the costs start. Resource consent. Building consent. Sometimes we need a traffic report and a geological survey too. Once construction starts the council inspection process starts. Once limited to three or four council inspections over the course of a project, 20 or 30 visits from the inspectors is now commonplace. Of course, each of these visits come with a cost. One of the businesses I work with needs to make a $500,000 alteration to a commercial building. Of that cost, $150,000 is compliance and consulting fees. I call it orange cones around your building project.
Most recently large businesses are having to sign up to the climate reporting standards. I know of one organisation that has spent $250,000 in order to comply with the new standards. They think that will be an annual cost. This is not a huge organisation either. I have no doubt that the cost will run into millions for some businesses. Let’s be clear. This is spending that doesn’t return anything. Like the health and safety and the anti-money laundering, it might stop something from occurring. Might. But it is a hell of a lot of cost being imposed on us, for a maybe.
These “orange cones” have been placed everywhere around us because we can no longer be trusted to do things properly ourselves.
So, whatever happened to common sense?
Why can’t we rely on common sense instead of legislating people into the behaviours we prefer. Common sense, well exercised would save us hundreds of millions of dollars. Let’s spend that money, or some of it at least, on educating people about the hazards they may face in the world, and then encourage them to navigate those hazards to the best of their ability. We will develop more capability and resilience as a result.
More capable people, making well-informed decisions will create a better society. We will certainly make mistakes. But would we make materially more mistakes than we currently do? Sometimes accidents happen. But the exercise of common sense when encountering an obstacle, replacing the one-size-fits-all directions of bureaucrats, will ultimately make for better communities.
Act leader David Seymour has appointed himself the minister responsible for slashing red tape. Let’s not underestimate the size of his challenge. And he should be supported every step of the way.
Because the ability to respond to challenges as you come across them in your own way, to exercise your own judgment and common sense, and to proactively move forward, are among the core elements of personal freedom. They’re also critical learning opportunities. Every time we get something wrong creates an opportunity to learn from our experience. We’ll be better next time.
The alternative is for the bureaucracy to insist that we do as we’re told, that we approach varying challenges within a set of rules prescribed by someone else. That we avoid thinking for ourselves. That we don’t learn from each experience. And that we remain destined down a path of blind obedience, mediocrity and dependency on the rule-makers.
After all, do we really need raised judder bars to slow cars at pedestrian crossings? Or should we just educate our drivers and pedestrians to make better decisions?
Bruce Cotterill, a five time CEO and current Company Chairman and Director with extensive experience across a range of industries including real estate, media, financial services, technology and retail. Bruce regularly blogs on brucecotterill.com - where this article was sourced
No comments:
Post a Comment