Back in the good old days, they were all Ministers of booze. The whole cabinet. Especially Robert Muldoon.
But the idea that we need a Minister responsible for Alcohol is well-intentioned, like all 80-odd portfolios that reviews and recommendations have created.
This one is a recommendation from the Hospitality Sector Regulatory Review.
The review was done by the Ministry for Regulation.
That was created to cut red tape and make government less complicated.
It's recommended creating a new agency and a new Ministerial responsibility.
It was announced by the Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, who's role was also set up to cut red tape.
Can you see the problem here?
There are no doubt good reasons to make rules simpler and get rid of regulations.
But creating a new Minister and ministry who then does a review and recommends creating another agency and another Ministerial job just sounds backwards.
It's like a bacterial. Bureaucratic bacteria. They multiply and spread everywhere.
One minute it's a single cell, the next minute it's split into two. Next minute there's four. It goes on and on.
We need fewer jobs in Wellington, not more.
Remember, Ireland, Norway, Singapore and Finland who are similar size to us, they all have fewer than 20 Ministerial roles. The UK, Canada, United States and Korea have fewer than 30.
The saving grace is that no decisions on the review have been made. Why not just cut the red tape and send the pollies for a beer at Bellamys.
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Perhaps a Ministry for Minding Their Own Business would be more useful.
A decade ago I advocated within ACT (the party asked me to stand for Epsom before David) for it to promote adherence to strict cost benefit analysis of all government rules to cut red tape. That function should've been executed by putting a small crack team of technocrats in our existing NZ Treasury to do what's inherently an actuarial style technical job. ACT leader Seymour did not. David loves centralization. He loves power. So he set up his own Ministry of Regulation of which he personally is boss. He added red tape. He added complexity. Just like how ACT centralized school lunch provision under David's command. Just like how ACT centralized power in Auckland by amalgamating councils. ACT is not what most readers of this website think it is. It loves big monopolies. It loves centralization. It is anti competition. And its all about one man, David.
Hi Robert, “the party asked me to stand in Epsom before David” says it all really. You lost, he won. Still bitter?
Remind me what exactly the Minister for Racing does. And the Minister for Rail. And the Minister of Statistics. And isn't there a big overlap between the Ministers for Women, Children, Youth, Ethnic Communities, Pacific Peoples, Seniors, and Veterans. And why do we need a Minister of Agriculture AND a Minister of Rural Communities. Why do we need a Minister of Commerce AND a Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing. We seem to have lost the Minister for Auckland but who knew a Minister for the South Island has now emerged. And what in god's name does the Minister for Hunting and Fishing do given there is already a minister of Sport and Recreation?
These are the easy targets, and I'm sure every reader can readily create their own list.
Of course. I knew it was doomed the moment a “ministry of regulation” was created.
The core problem is the credo of our culture. Safety and utilitarianism.
It is a credo because none of us could imagine a situation where not taking an action that supposedly assures safety is permissible let alone preferable.
And we are all inculcated from birth that we can do the “moral calculus” and always prefer that action that supposedly will create the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
But it is all smoke and mirrors. None of us can tell the future. None of us could actually do the calculation if moral actions were even comparable. None of us admit the nonlinear relationship between cause and effect.
The result is a lack of decision that is perceived by us as the “safe” choice. The decider becomes a “safe pair of hands” destined for “bigger things” or things a little bit bigger.(it is NZ after all.
The alternative is unthinkable. Going against the credo? Going against received wisdom, the scientists, the technocrats? Never. Because your career would be over and you’d be overruled anyway.
No. Until we change our thinking bureaucracy will always increase. It is the safe thing to do.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.