The Things We Aren’t Talking About
VIEWS FROM OUTSIDE THE APIARY: IAN FLETCHER
What are the big issues being overlooked that the incoming government needs to get right to have any chance at improving New Zealand’s lot? From superannuation, to local government, science to health, Ian Fletcher highlights the topics limiting progress and not talked about enough.
By Ian Fletcher
By the time you read this, the election will probably be upon us. I don’t propose to add to the commentary.
Instead, I want to consider some of the things we haven’t talked about enough. These are issues which will shape our lives well beyond the next Parliamentary term. They are also issues where avoiding a decision is itself a decision, and usually an expensive one.
Start with superannuation. I wrote about this a few months ago (Time to Talk About Super), and the subject briefly attracted wider attention. It has since slipped back into the political cupboard, where difficult questions are kept until somebody else has to answer them.
The basic problem hasn’t changed. We have an ageing population, and a pension paid from current taxation. As the number receiving it grows relative to the population paying for it, the pressure increases. Treasury’s long-term projections show the cost rising substantially as a share of the economy. That means less room for other spending, higher taxes, more debt, or some combination of all three.
There is a strong case for raising the age of entitlement, with plenty of notice. Or those with substantial other incomes should get less. Neither approach is painless. These are reasons to design changes carefully. They are a poor excuse for refusing to discuss them. The longer we wait, the harder a fair transition becomes.
Local Bills
Then there is local government finance. What a dreadful mess. Ratepayers are understandably angry at steeply rising bills, plus water charges that look like robbery in many places. Meanwhile councils are trapped: they face large infrastructure bills (often the result of decades of neglect), with limited ability to borrow – so the ratepayers get the bill. And successive central governments find it convenient to blame local politicians for costs it would rather somebody else carried.
The debate some years ago about the former Three Waters went adrift on the infamous co-governance idea; the fact remains that only the Crown has the balance sheet to finance all these repairs and new investment. Again, avoidance makes it all worse.
There is certainly waste and poor management in local government. But even a council composed entirely of actual saints would have to pay for roads, pipes, waste disposal and flood protection. Much of that infrastructure serves people over decades. Some serves national economic purposes, although the bill lands locally. Rural districts know this problem particularly well.
We need a proper settlement about responsibilities and revenue. What should councils do? What should central government pay for? A rates cap, by itself, answers none of these questions. A pipe does not become cheaper to replace because a Minister has announced what its owner may charge.
Public Service – Doing the Work
I wrote recently about the public service (Fixing the Public Service), so I won’t repeat the argument here. But it belongs in this discussion because every serious proposal depends on somebody being able to carry it out. Ministers need competent advice, officials need clear responsibilities, and senior managers must be accountable for results. Announcing a policy is the beginning of the job. Wellington sometimes behaves as though it were the end.
Good Science
Science is another omission. We talk endlessly about exports and adding value. Yet we seem reluctant to sustain the research capability which makes those ambitions possible.
For beekeepers, the case for science funding should be obvious. Bee health, biosecurity, pollination and the credibility of product claims all depend on scientific knowledge. Some research can be funded by individual businesses. Other work benefits an industry, or the whole country, without offering any single investor a sufficient return. That is a straightforward reason for public investment.
Good science also takes time, and is risky. Laboratories, collections and experienced teams cannot be switched off and switched back on when a Minister discovers an exciting new priority. People leave. Skills disappear. Experiments show results we didn’t expect. Rebuilding is slow and expensive. We should demand rigorous assessment of research spending, while giving worthwhile work enough stability to succeed. Reorganising institutions is no substitute for funding the work inside them.
Health – It’s Not About More Money
Health does receive political attention, of course. But too much of the argument concerns how much more money somebody promises to spend. Money matters. But spending is an input. What patients need is timely, effective care.
That requires good management. Somebody has to organise appointments, roster staff, maintain equipment, coordinate tests, arrange discharges and further care, and ensure that information follows the patient. When those things go wrong, clinical time is wasted and patients suffer. Asking doctors and nurses to ‘work harder’ cannot repair every failure of organisation.
We should expect health leaders to understand their own system, identify bottlenecks and spread practices that work. They should have the authority to make improvements and be held responsible for doing so. Better access to primary care and support outside hospital also deserve sustained attention. A hospital bed is an expensive answer to a problem that could have been dealt with earlier.
None of this means that every difficulty can be managed away, or that another round of indiscriminate cuts will somehow produce better services. It means we should be able to distinguish a shortage of resources from a failure to use them properly. Otherwise, we risk merely financing the continuation of existing problems.
These subjects belong together. Superannuation affects what we can afford. Local infrastructure supports daily life and economic activity. Science helps create future income. Health and the public service determine how effectively we turn public money into things people actually need.
The common requirement is a willingness to make choices. That is less attractive than a promise of lower taxes and better everything. It is also what governing involves. We should expect political leaders to prepare the country for decisions that will become necessary beyond their own term of office. We should expect them to tell us where the money will come from and who will be responsible. These are reasonable expectations of government. Sadly, our willingness to accept less is a big part of the problem.
Ian Fletcher is a former head of New Zealand’s security agency, the GCSB, chief executive of the UK Patents Office, free trade negotiator with the European Commission and biosecurity CE for the Queensland government. These days he is a commercial flower grower in the Wairarapa and consultant to the apiculture industry with Honey and Bees New Zealand.
Comments