Dieuwe de Boer: In Government, but not in Power

There is a difference between being in government and in power. Far too often necessary changes are not made because bureaucrats entrench themselves and ministers refuse to demand the changes. I've spoken with former MPs who complain about the lack of influence they had or how departments would try to hide things from them. They were in government, but very far from power.

Take the example of Candace Owens being banned from visiting New Zealand. This decision was made by bureaucrats who didn't want her here, and perhaps even the immigration minister Erika Stanford agrees with them. This reflects badly on the coalition government who were elected to govern with freedom of speech as a vital part of their respective platforms. The coalition parties cannot throw their hands in the air and say "oh well, that was an operational decision." The outcome of this visa controversy should have been made clear to the managers from the start: free speech interests must be upheld.

Take the Ministry of Health new guidelines on puberty blockers or NZ Police's policy to track non-crime hate incidents. The responsible ministers are not very hands on in ensuring that the coalition's commitments are being rapidly met by the bureaucracy. The deep state is digging in its heels and unless the coalition decides to fight harder they will lose.

Seymour's new "Ministry for Regulation" has an unappealing name and so far it is off to a slow start. I am not even sure what it metrics hopes to achieve and I spend way too much of my time following politics. Javier Milei's chainsaw approach and Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are a lot more fun. More aggression. Clear goals. I know what they want to achieve and they will stop at nothing to get there. The entire coalition government lacks that aggression we are seeing from right-wing victors around the West.

One area where we see this type of aggression is in play is with NZ Police and their new gang patch law. I suspect the bureaucracy is moving aggressively to implement this because police lobbied for it. The law itself is flawed and does not go nearly far enough in suppressing gangs, but a half-measure is better than a no-measure. Couple that with "law and order" being perhaps the issue that National identified as key to holding on to power next year. Of course, holding on to power and doing something with it are two completely different things.

Three minutes after midnight when the law came into effect, police made an arrest under the new law. When large gang funerals take place, police are there in overwhelming force. Even shirtless gang-members with their patches tattooed on their bodies faced arrest. That is what the use of power looks like, and it looks good.

To his credit, Mark Mitchell the Minister of Police released a letter on this first day that he expected police to behave in this way. They have done so. Other ministers have either not laid out their expectations or are unwilling to follow through on their mandate.

That signals to voters they can put a party into government, but not into power.

Dieuwe is the editor of Right Minds NZ. In addition to conservative politics and reactionary thought, he like books, gardening, biking, tech, reformed theology, beauty, and tradition. This article was first published HERE