Why New Zealand isn’t ready for a four-year parliamentary term

Summarised by Centrist 

The author Brian Easton, in In Open Seas: How the New Zealand Labour Government Went Wrong: 2017–2023, warns against extending parliamentary terms to four years without reforms to strengthen accountability. 

He describes the government as “an elected dictatorship.” Cabinet ministers overly rely on a public service, which advises them, but manipulates policies behind the scenes. 

Parliament’s mechanisms for accountability—questioning ministers or challenging the bureaucracy—are weak. Easton cites the Three Waters reforms as an example, where bureaucrats bypassed MPs to make unauthorised changes, calling it “an indication of the bureaucracy’s contempt for them.”

He also criticises the 2020 Public Service Act, which was years in the making but given only six weeks for public consultation. “Did it think that the public has little interest in the way the bureaucracy is run and no competence to comment on it?” Easton asks.

Easton argues that the Official Information Act is another failing tool, as agencies routinely obstruct journalists seeking transparency. 

He suggests making independent commissioners like the Ombudsman, and privacy commissioner offices of parliament, to strengthen their accountability and reduce bureaucratic interference. However, “The bureaucracy will fight tooth and nail to prevent the transfer of the commissioners who are under its control. Are you surprised?” he writes.

Read more over at The Spinoff

Subscribe to our free newsletter here

Enjoyed this story? Share it around.​

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Read More

NEWS STORIES

Sign up for our free newsletter

Receive curated lists of news links and easy-to-digest summaries from independent, alternative and mainstream media about issues affect New Zealanders.