With apologies to John Milton for misusing his title, but does New Zealand have an accountability issue? Recent events suggest the answer is yes, and our democracy is the poorer for this.
Accountability is a cornerstone of a successful democracy. Yet it is rarely discussed, particularly when public debate is increasingly dominated by topics such as artificial intelligence, social media, and the causes of political division.

New Zealand has the good fortune to be a high trust society. While it is fraying at the edges, it remains highly trusting, and this is a consequence of our inherited Westminster political system. This is not the sole reason, of course. Our Judeo-Christian heritage has also helped shape the values and social norms that underpin a high-trust society. If uncertain of this claim, just compare the cultures of those nations with high levels of corruption and distrust.
Unfortunately, in recent weeks, we have had several high profile examples of where accountability is failing.
The first was the deliberate misleading of Members of Parliament by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). This was in relation to an IT project that was costing tens of millions of dollars and also failing, then ultimately failed. A total waste of money that the civil servants involved sought to hide.
The responsible Minister was kept in the dark, while MBIE officials appearing before a select committee, including Chief Executive Nic Blakeley, at best misled MPs and at worst outright lied.
Parliament has since decided this was a contempt. I can say as a former MP, this is a very serious judgement.
And yet, no further action was required because, according to the Committee, an apology had been given. Similarly, the head of the Public Service Commission – Sir Brian Roche – declined the CE’s resignation letter, on the basis he was relatively new to the role.
This is the wrong decision and goes to the heart of accountability. People and organisations need to be held accountable when in error. Consequences need to be proportionate, but ‘I am sorry’ is not an act of accountability when Parliament has been both misled and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted.
I do not know Mr Blakeley, but his resignation should have been accepted. In fact, credit to him for offering it. But this sorry situation lacks accountability and sends the wrong signal to the civil service but also to the taxpayer. Put simply, lying and misleading are acceptable so long as you act contritely once caught out.
Similarly, there is no accountability around the horrifying deaths due to the landslides at Mount Maunganui earlier this year. The report recently tabled clearly showed a council being warned of the risks over 25 years. Tragically, the council officers responsible and processes in place, failed and six people died unnecessarily.

The slip, within the Mount Maunganui campground
Yet, to date, no one has been held accountable. While there have been several chief executives and mayors over that 25 year period, the current chief executive – in the role of eight years – has not tendered any resignation. Instead, he’s saying he is somehow best placed to fix things now, despite having not done so.
Without accountability, trust fails. It is not a stretch to say that people’s trust in their elected officials and the public service is being undermined. We have MPs and councillors just making things up. As I write, Green MP Tamatha Paul continues to make claims that are demonstrably incorrect. Most recently, she wrongly accused another MP of owning property he does not own. This follows earlier statements about shoplifting and imprisonment that were also widely challenged.
There are plenty of other examples across the political spectrum.
We can add other entities as well. Whether the Police with its recent leadership scandals; a judiciary preferring activism to parliamentary sovereignty; a mainstream media interested in framing narratives that suit a political agenda rather than reporting; or churches and their various scandals. For democracy not only to endure but to flourish, public trust in institutions is essential.
But, as the axiom goes - trust is hard won, but easily lost.
Another area of accountability lacking is the wanton use of name suppression in our courts. High profile business people, sports people, and others are being granted name suppression. I take a rather simple view on this – being publicly held accountable for your crime is part of the punishment. Yes, there are exceptions but what I observe now is not an exceptional use of name suppression by the courts, but something regular and frequent.
As many note, we are developing a two tier system based on your social standing. This is not only wrong legally and morally but also undermines societal trust.
There are some glimmers of positivity though. I was pleased to see both the Prime Minister and, eventually, the Minister for Social Development recently apologise for errors made around welfare payments. They are not responsible for the actual operational failures but as the Minister(s) responsible, there is a degree of accountability. Being prepared to face the cameras, say something has gone wrong, and saying sorry is appropriate. It was the right thing to do.
Accountability is not about punishment for its own sake. Instead, it is about maintaining public confidence that mistakes, misconduct, and failures will be acknowledged and importantly, addressed. When leaders, officials, and institutions are held responsible for their actions, trust in them and across society is strengthened. When accountability is absent, cynicism grows and confidence erodes. New Zealand remains a high-trust society, but that trust should never be taken for granted. If we want our democracy to remain strong, accountability must once again become a principle we expect, demand, and uphold across every institution in public life.
As I finish writing, we now have the Moa Point report landing. As with other examples, a major ‘disaster’, this time in Wellington, and yet no accountability.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.

8 comments:
>"Our Judeo-Christian heritage has also helped shape the values and social norms that underpin a high-trust society. If uncertain of this claim, just compare the cultures of those nations with high levels of corruption and distrust."
Funny then how surveys tend to show that Westerners' trust in their governments tends to be in the 30-40% area (some considerably higher, such a Holland at close to 60%) while Saudi Arabia heads the field at almost 90%. Muslim counties with low (Western European level) trust ratings tend to be those with serious issues such as civil unrest and economic malaise.
Always check your data when you start crowing your achievements - you may end up choking on your smugness.
New Zealand does not have an accountability issue so much as it has a bullshit issue. We spout more of it than Moa Point. The fundamental problem is that we tolerate it.
New Zealand is only a high trust society to those that haven't been looking.
Simon you MUST Include the office of the Health and Disability Commissioner in your list of massive accountability fails.
Many years ago now I was shafted by the HDC after being bullied by a doctor ( a member of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians - the RACP) renowned for particularly nasty behaviour. ‘Low level resolution’ works only when there is good faith. When one party bullies then it becomes instead just one more opportunity for that party to attack the victim.
In my case for instance, it was argued that they couldn’t make the finding that I was. bullied because it wasn’t documented in my medical notes - unbelievable!
Your comment that “I am sorry’ is not an act of accountability” cuts right to the heart of the ongoing HDC farce.
An ‘apology’ is ALL that 99.99% of medically wronged patients can even hope to get under the NZ system.
In fact, look closely into what the HDC process has slowly and quietly morphed into over the past 25 years:
JUSTICE FOR HEALTH CONSUMERS HAS BEEN LEGISLATED OUT OF EXISTENCE.
Start reading the HDC outcomes in the papers. The wronged patient ( often egregiously wronged) gets an enforced apology ( which immediately flags it for the receiver as a non apology) and the hospital gets to commit to tidying up a couple of procedures so that the harmful event “ will never happen again”.
This is a complete charade.
I think if you dig deeper you will find that the complaints resolution procedure was purely about making the system ‘safer’ in a ‘no blame’ sort of way. Admirable if no-one is to blame but an absolute travesty for the harmed patient if someone is.
The supposed warm and fuzzy ‘benefit’ to the complainant is that their two ( or three or five or, in my case TEN ) years of hell going through the complaints process, is that they get to pat themselves on the back and say ‘hey, didn’t i do well - my mum’s still dead ( or maybe I still can’t walk and no one gives a jot) but at least i made the world a better place by ensuring that my local hospital updated some obscure procedure manual.”
I would guess that maybe 90% of patients who go through the nz HDC complaints process come out BITTERLY disillusioned ( as I obviously was)
But do not, what ever you do, rely on the HDC’s own surveys to get your answer to this. They are done in such a way as to hide completely this soul destroying destruction of trust in our health care system that is being advanced under their watch.
When you are inside the tent, you see and understand things that those outside the tent can only barely grasp if at all.
The HDC system is nothing more than a flimsy mirage of hope for wronged patients.
Address this - clearly and with independent advice, and you will be doing something truly important to begin to rebuild trust.
FROM THE MODERATOR
This submission was heavily edited to remove potentially actionable material.
Yes, I bet support for the government in Saudi Arabia really is "almost 90 %"
. Well that's what they have to say isn't. Or in such states they get variously, hung, beheaded, stoned to death, have acid poured on them, get set on fire, and are raped mutilated, murdered and massacred in a multitude of ways.
I bet election debates in Afghanistan are really jovial affairs.
I bet support for the government there is
200 %.
You appear to be a very nice but very naive chap Simon, if you believe that the trust factor in NZ remains anything like it was, say, 40 years ago. The political and bureaucratic scene has gone, in my experience, from mainly reasonably honorable to disastrously corrupt and incompetent. One might only reflect, in horror, on the last 6 years. There is no recovery likely, when your very worst are all on the top of the tree.
Tom Logan, it is very hard for a Westerner to get his/her head around this, but most people in most Muslim countries, including the educated classes, favour Sharia law (84% in Pakistan, 86% in Malaysia, 82% in Bangladesh (82%), about three-quarters in Egypt). They tend to view Western governance and law as culturally remote, a colonial era imposition.
The Sharia includes a blueprint for how government should work - little wonder therefore that the model, complete with the embellishments you list, meets with widespread approval.
Don't shoot the messenger!
Unknown above: sorry, wrong forum.
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.