Dear Paul

As the new Minister of Media and Communications you will be inundated with heaps of free advice and special pleading, all in the national interest of course.

For what it’s worth here is my assessment

Traditional broadcasting free to air content through either satellite or terrestrial transmitters is on its way out but will survive for a few years yet. Audio visual content distributed through the internet will become dominant whether the recipients have to pay or not.

The arts can sometimes pay their way, but over the last 1000 years they have often been subsidised, firstly by the wealthy but in recent times by taxpayers. As you well know there is a fairly widespread consensus that there is a public benefit from the arts which justify taxpayer support, along with that from private donors. Quality news and current affairs on TV/screens is both expensive and can help the democratic process, provided it’s done well.

Taxpayer ownership of TVNZ creates creates extra challenges and opportunities, as it is both a broadcaster and a distributor of audio visual content, purchased offshore and New Zealand content, some of which is subsidised by NZ On Air. NZ On Air which funds audio visual content to TV channels such as TVNZ and TV3, but also many other outlets – says it’s following the eyeballs.

Taxpayers fund both the NZ Film Commission and NZ On Air, which will find their scopes overlap increasingly, as to whether NZ content is distributed by broadcast, the internet or a cinema. In some cases it will be all three.

TVNZ is not worth much more than its buildings and cash less liabilities, but its worth keeping because of its delivery capability. Clearly its eroding advertising base means that in say ten years time the advertising will only be able to fund cheap overseas content, as is the case with privately owned channels. In the near future virtually all NZ content will need to be taxpayer funded, including news.

With the exception of the USA (which does have public media), all or nearly all Western countries have an independent state owned TV channel. I think despite much legitimate criticism of TVNZ’s news and current affairs programmes the case for keeping it enjoys widespread support.

What should you do apart from gathering all the relevant facts and meet stakeholders?

First, discard the option of subsidising legacy media by reducing Korda transmission costs. That would be like doing the proverbial into the wind.

Next, while merging NZ On Air and the Film Commission might make sense, park that idea for something simpler. You need to achieve rationalisation without getting bogged down by officials as they make a meal out of it. Just sack the boards of both and create one small common board for both entities. In time they might decide to have one CEO.

Third, take TVNZ out of the contestable NZ On Air system and fund it directly to supply NZ content as is done with RNZ. Require it to spend most of this money on outside contractors with news and current affairs the exception, as it could be done in-house or by a contractor.

The advantages of these three recommendations are that:

First, they don’t require time consuming legislation, just a three word change to the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Second, they take away the NZ On Air/NZ Film Commission duopoly on taxpayer support, by giving independent companies to deal directly with TVNZ alone and not having to convince also NZ On Air their programme ideas should be funded. It’s actually close to the Maori TV model, overlooked by most commentators.

I have not commented on the quantum of support of taxpayer support which in these difficult times need not be increased for a while.

Declaration: I was a journalist for seven years from 1969-1976 including the NZBC, ABC, UPITN, BBC and NBR. From 2011-2017 I was a director of TVNZ.

Yours sincerely

Barrie Saunders

Astonishing as it may seem NZTA does not know either how much it spends on road cones as part of its Temporary Traffic Management system, or even how many companies it uses to supply and manage the cones. See my Official Information Act request and the response below.

9 April 2024

Barrie Saunders

REF: OIA-14996

Dear Barrie

Request made under the Official Information Act 1982

Thank you for your email of 25 March 2024 requesting the following information under the Official

Information Act 1982 (the Act):

1. The total cost of traffic management in the last financial year

2. How many traffic management firms you used in the last financial year

NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) does not procure Temporary Traffic Management (TTM)

as an individual item, but as part of activities within our maintenance contracts. The State Highway

network is separated into 23 regional networks, each with its own maintenance contract. These

maintenance contractors manage any TTM requirements and resourcing for each regional contract,

whether that be in house TTM or through sub-contractors. NZTA therefore does not hold individual

data on TTM costs or number of subcontractors used by our primary contractors for TTM.

Therefore, I am required to refuse your request under section 18(g) of the Act as the information

requested is not held by NZTA and I have no grounds for believing that the information is connected

more closely with the functions of another department or Minister of the Crown or organisation or of a local authority.

While TTM is important to keep road works safe, the efficiency and costs required are a significant

focus of NZTA’s. On 4 March the draft 2024 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS)

was released for consultation. The draft includes a strategic priority to reduce expenditure on

temporary traffic management and includes a requirement for reporting on TTM on a quarterly basis.

NZTA is actively transitioning to a risk-based approach which will support efficient TTM set-ups that

effectively keep people safe. This will include changes to contracts, a new way of working and

monitoring to ensure this meets both safety and cost efficiency outcomes. You can find more

information on this approach at https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roads-and-rail/new-zealand-guide-to-temporary-traffic-management/.2

Under section 28 of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision to refuse this request. The contact details for the Ombudsman can be located at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.

In line with NZTA policy, this response will soon be published on our website, with personal information removed.

If you would like to discuss this reply with NZTA, you are welcome to contact it by email atofficial.correspondence@nzta.govt.nz.

Thank you again for writing.

Yours sincerely

Vanessa Browne

National Manager Te Toki Manawa – Programme and Standards

Update March 11, 2024

If you think something is not quite right with our Government of any persuasion but are not quite sure, there is a simple solution, just subscribe to Netflix and watch “Utopia”.

In the most recent season you will see exactly what is wrong. Shallow Australian politicians working with truly hopeless government officials, dominated by vastly more shallow scheming HR and Communications departments.

The combination is deathly if you happen to believe in quality Government making decisions on good evidence. Utopia is so realistic it is excruciating to watch.

Every MP should watch this programme, it is truly that good. Quality civil servants should watch it also.

One day there will be a reaction against Communications and HR departments manipulating public policy. The sooner there is an end to their influence the better. Obviously Utopia overstates the HR and Communication influence but it is realistic enough to be scary.

PS: Forgot to mention it is meant to be a comedy – just looks like a documentary.

Update March 12, 2024

A few weeks ago I joined some contemporaries by abandoning the near sixty year habit of watching nightly TV news. I dropped it because I felt it did not give me real information that I had not acquired from other media sources, including some I pay for – The Economist, the NZ Herald, The Atlantic and The Platform. Free media sources I look at online include Stuff, RNZ, Bassett Brash and Hide, PointOfOrder, Newsroom and the BBC’s Radio Four.

Neither TV news service I watched added any value except for floods and other disasters. Political coverage became increasingly partisan and I have zero confidence in their journalists ability to present complex issues in a balanced way. TV has great advantages over other media and massive disadvantages, which many do not recognise. It cannot do nuance. Everything gets presented as black and white and public policy issues are rarely like that. Democracy long predates TV news.

Democracy does indeed need an informed electorate but I do not see that coming from TV news. If both channels news services were shut I am not sure democracy would be any the poorer as those who actually want such news will find it elsewhere. If the Herald, the ODT or the Westport News were shut fewer people would be informed at a local level and also at a national level in the case of the Herald and ODT. Not so sure about the partisan Post in Wellington, where I live but don’t subscribe to, unlike the NZ Herald.

I was a current affairs journalist in NZ, Australia and the UK in my early years, working for the NZBC, the ABC and commercial TV and BBC radio in London. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s I watched current affairs programmes on TV including Fair Go in New Zealand. I think the TVNZ programmes Sunday and Fair Go have fallen victim to changing consumer preferences. There are just so many alternatives.

Even as a director of TVNZ (2011-2017) I rarely watched Sunday because to me the items were simply too predictable. I never watched Fair Go, even though I respected some of its journalists including Garth Bray.

Prior to writing this post I spoke to two very young baristas about TV news which neither watched. One didn’t even have access to a TV. Former radio owner and National Minister, Steven Joyce, says he gave up watching TV news a few years ago and, in an article, he mentioned an audience that did not watch either.

Media has been fragmented by many trends. In ten years time I expect it will have hopefully settled down with changed with new digital sources. Some such as BusinessDesk and Newsroom seem to be doing quite well but we don’t know for certain.

Radio may not be a lot different in say ten years time. It would be nice if taxpayer funded RNZ broke out of its left/liberal monoculture and actually provided programmes that centre/right people such as myself might like to hear. I will not hold my breath on that likelihood in my lifetime. Have completely given up listening to it apart from occasionally the news on road trips. I prefer the chattiness of commercial radio and the traffic information while on the road.

I might subscribe to The Post if it provided a totally different service – just the hard facts about national and local news, biz news and very little commentary. Would also want clearly non partisan writing, not the heavy left/green bias which gave us Tory Whanau as our fairly hopeless Mayor. (Luke Malpass excepted)

The future of TVNZ I have written about in earlier posts. The option I proposed included some direct funding for TVNZ and taking it out of the contestable NZ On Air fund. One advantage of this option is it would take away the NZ on Air monopoly when it comes to state funding of Kiwi content. Monopolies are usually bad and more so in the creative sector. It would also have some similarities with the Maori TV operation which has state funding and a little advertising. That is still a credible option but not the only one. The big questions for the Government to think about about are:

1. Does it continue with the contestable NZ On Air funding of many outlets – in other words follow the eyeballs?

2. Does it treat TVNZ as just another television/video operation with linear and on demand content, and if so why does the taxpayer own it?

3. Does it allow TVNZ to provide subscription video content as well as free to air?

4. Is there a need for a dedicated TV operation that produces NZ content whether linear or on demand and if so would that operation be TVNZ or say NZ On Air?

At present I cannot see the current government has a clear view of the issues. I also see nothing credible from the Opposition parties either. Their proposed merger between RNZ and TVNZ was about as confused as one could get. Former PM Helen Clark harks back to an era which will simply not return. The same goes for the leftish public broadcasting advocates who want a TV licence.

There is a bill at a Select Committee which aims to replicate what Australia and Canada have done to make the international digital giants, Google and Facebook, pay local media companies for the material they use. I have no view on this bill but note some have harshly criticised it and Facebook says it will end its agreements in Australia. Companies that create paywalls don’t really have a problem because they are protecting their copyright.

There is no reason for the Government to panic – democracy is not imperilled but it would be nice to have a nuanced discussion. I think the relentless hostility of most mainstream media (MSM) to the new Government may cloud its inclination to have such a discussion. That would be unfortunate but totally understandable because Ministers are human.

Both Matt Nippert of the NZ Herald and Tom Hunt of The Post deserve a bouquet for their analyses of the truly remarkable deal between the Wellington City Council (WCC) and the troubled American Cinema company Reading.

For this who don’t know, Reading owns a large (more than 14, 000 square metres or 1.4 hectares) block of land in Courtenay Place that once housed around ten screens, which competed with the large screen Embassy and the smaller operations at the Lighthouse and the Penthouse in Wellington.

In 2019 after the Kaikoura quake the Reading building was deemed unsafe and was closed. A carpark owned by the company was demolished and according to The Post there was an insurance payout of $27 million.

Now the WCC is finalising a deal with the Reading which involves the WCC buying the land underneath the building for $32 million giving them the right to buy it back within ten years at the same price. In the meantime according to the WCC Reading will compensate the WCC for the cost of financing the $32 million. There are some conditions to this detail the public has not seen and the Mayor Tory Whanau says trust us the public interest is being protected and its fiscally neutral. According to Tom Hunt The capital gain on Reading’s three properties since it bought them in 1998/9 has been $45.6 million. I am not sure whether this is for just the land.

The WCC may sell some other ground leases to finance the $32 million deal.

The public is denied access to all the detail because Whanau claims it’s commercially sensitive even though there are no other cinemas in a similar situation. I understand from a Whanau interview with ZB there is no guarantee the Reading will rebuild the cinemas so what we are looking at is an American cinema/property company, with a damaged building in Wellington, being bailed out to the tune of $32 million when the same deals are not been offered to other companies with damaged and closed buildings, many of which are New Zealand owned.

Some Councillors voted against on the grounds that it is corporate welfare which it is. A credit to them – Diane Calvert, Nicola Young, Tony Randle, Ray Chung, Sarah Free, Nureddin Abdurahman and Iona Pannett

I live 300 metres from The Reading and am familiar with the impact its closure has had on Courtenay Place, a street which is looking a bit tired for several reasons including the failure the WCC to clean it properly. Unlike the water leaks, it’s not catastrophic.

I have been around public policy for more than 50 years as a journalist, press secretary to a Labour Party leader and a government relations consultant for 25 years. The WCC/Reading deal reminds me of the patronage that occurred in the days of import licensing when Cabinet Ministers made decisions about licenses that could permit some companies to make monopoly type profits.

I spent several years handling public relations at the NZ Manufacturers Federation and observed first hand the intensity of the commitment to import licensing and the hypocrisy of the business leaders when it came to the public interest. In the USA, where I lived for 3.5 years in the 1980s it was interesting to watch how American businesses went about minimising paying tax and maximising subsidies or tax breaks from local, state and federal government. They have developed that into an art form and brought it to Wellington. The Reading management must be laughing all the way to the bank.

The WCC deal with The Reading is one if not the worst deal I have seen at local government level. The WCC should have said to The Reading “we would like you to reopen the cinemas but if that cannot be done sell the low grade building and land. Clearly there are buyers and the end result might be more shops and apartments”. Sir Mark Dunajtschik, a major investor and benefactor in Wellington told the WCC he is keen to be involved. He was ignored by the WCC.

Finally cinemas are doing badly in countries like ours. Streaming and much cheaper large TVs are making life seriously tough for cinema chains. According to Matt Nippert The Reading share price in the USA is down about 90% on a few years back. Although The Reading management say there want to rebuiuld cinemas but I will remain a sceptic until its done.

To me the WCC has a very set of utterly gullible councillors and a commercially naive staff. It is clear from the low 25% vote in its Lambton by election, democracy at local government level is not working for its citizens. Rates increases well exceeded the inflation rate in recent years and it will be over 16% in the next year. The WCC is in deep trouble and Local Government Minister Simeon Brown should monitor it if he can find the time.

Updated February 17, 2024

When ACT’s leader said they wanted legislation to state what the Treaty principles mean, my first thought was this will be controversial and divisive.  Clearly it is.

The first reference to the principles of the Treaty were contained in the 1975 Act establishing the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal. But the principles were not defined by Parliament, then or since, leaving definition to the courts and others. 

To those outside the Treaty industry, the interpretations have seemed rather expandable and the end result would mean a serious erosion of our democracy.  Hence the proposal from ACT to define the principles in legislation. The advocates believe if legislated by Parliament, and endorsed by a referendum, no following government would dare attempt to change them except by legislation and another referendum 

My second thought based on my experience as a government relations consultant, is to be wary that any new legislation could end up producing a result you don’t like. Once a bill is introduced in Parliament ACT will lose control of it, as amendments could be made that it doesn’t agree with.  What does ACT do then? Vote against it? 

I regard Geoffrey Palmer, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, John Key and Chris Finlayson, as all seriously smart, good New Zealanders, who have done their best to improve the lot of Maori and partially redress some of the injustices since 1840. 

However, in my view, all were naive in varying degrees about human nature and where the course they embarked on might lead. That course raised expectations about “co-governance”, which could ultimately result in New Zealand becoming a former democracy. See independent Maori constitutional report – Matike Mai Aotearoa which aims to achieve just that by 2040.   

In a Listener article (February 18, 2023 about co-governance, Chris Finlayson referred to his Marine and Coastal Area Act and said: “The law passed and its tests are being routinely ignored by the courts, but that is an issue for another day.”

Clearly if the courts won’t interpret the Marine and Coastal Act in the way Finlayson and Parliament intended, then Parliament has only two options – accept an outcome in respect of Maori customary marine title it does not agree with, or, change the Act. This is not an abstract issue but clearly would be more than controversial.

It would have been better if the 1975 Treaty Act had defined the principles but that failure means we have heaps of precedent already established.  How would Courts and others treat new statutory principles, versus precedents established? There is another related issue which is if the new defined principles don’t reflect the Treaty accurately, itself a matter of debate, will they really have the public credibility they ought?  

There is an alternative approach which is to remove the reference to Treaty principles where they have produced problematic outcomes, again a far from simple exercise. This is closer to the NZ First policies. 

All these problems arise from the fact the Treaty itself was a basically sound and well intentioned exercise that was shoddily implemented by the British government in 1840, and later basically ignored and broken. It was designed to address particular problems in 1840 including unruly British migrants and warring tribes. We will never know definitively what the 500 plus tribal leaders thought at the time. The fact there is a current debate about whether sovereignty was ceded in 1840 shows the limitations of the documents.  

Trying to retrofit this flawed exercise into a modern constitution is not actually very practical. It is a bit like trying to panel beat a Corolla into a Toyota Land Cruiser. I am somewhat doubtful ACT’s Bill will achieve what they desire because it is trying to fix a shonky structure.

Labour is a big time election loser, but is not the only one. Labour will now have to re-build, while it has two strong competitors on its left – The Greens and The Maori Party. Given Labour’s natural position as a major party, this is much more difficult than it is for the niche parties. I became Labour Leader Bill Rowling’s press secretary, after they were truly smashed by National’s Muldoon 1975, so I know how hard it is with a much smaller caucus.

The other group to lose was the Parliamentary Press Gallery, which is broadly left of centre and operates within the Wellington bubble. Given the Greens hold two of the three Wellington electorates and Labour maybe the third seat, it’s perhaps hardly surprising they have shown themselves to be so out of touch with wider public opinion.

In a sense the journalists live in a bubble within a bubble. I noticed as a lobbyist the political journalists mostly confined themselves to the Parliamentary precincts and did not reach out much to those who worked in Wellington and actually know a fair bit about what’s going on. But Wellington City is a bubble itself, as is Canberra, the only area to vote for The Voice – all states and the Northern Territory voted against The Voice.

It’s time for them to do some serious soul searching. One area that has particularly irritated me over the past three years, is their reaction to those who have questioned the modern radical interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Treaty settlements over the past 30 years are broadly accepted by most New Zealanders, whose grasp of the country’s history is very modest, but most know there needed to be some redress for property taken and there be respect for the Maori culture.

Former Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson documented this with his book, “He Kupu Taurangi” which outlined the discrete co-governance agreements he made with iwi during his term. In the February 18, 2023 Listener he presented his views on the rationale for the settlements and praised Christoper Luxon for his speech at Ratana this year.

That perspective is quite different from seeing The Treaty as an agreement to equally share power and decision making in central and local government, as some seek. This is what has caused extreme concern amongst many, because it is seen as anti-democratic and dangerous. I know of no country where power is allocated on the basis of tribe or race, in which I would care to live in the event I was forced to find another country. What the history of the human race has shown us is that the market economy and a quality democracy has produced better results than all the alternatives.

You might think political journalists would be interested in preserving a quality democracy and in finding out why some people including the ACT Maori MPs, Winston Peters, Shane Jones, the National Maori MPs and others, don’t support the concept of equal partnership. I have spoken with ACT Maori MP Karen Chhour and looked for profiles on her, but yet to find any. I guess they exist somewhere, but have not appeared on my radar. Maybe she is just seen as not important or out of touch.

Instead of genuine inquiry we have had the likes of Judith Collins, David Seymour and co, labelled as “racists” or “dog whistling”. There has been a determined attempt at shutting down any serious questioning of the partnership concept, or even why Maori is often used instead of English with government agencies. I have seen no serious attempt at analysing the issues in depth. It has become a no go zone for mainstream media who now won’t run the likes of Graham Adams, or former Labour Minister and historian, Dr Michael Bassett.

The NZ Herald is making a belated attempt at some balance, with its recent creation of ZB PLUS, an online site, headed by Auckland lawyer Philip Crump. I hope it succeeds.

I have also noticed how the media always runs to Don Brash of the Hobson’s Pledge group, instead of the co-founder Casey Costello. Why? The problem I suspect is Casey is manifestly Maori, and thus she doesn’t fit the media stereotype. As an old white male Don Brash is much better.

For those who don’t know, Casey is now a NZ First MP, where I expect her to make positive contribution to Parliament. She is a former Police officer who has worked in Parliamentary Security and was on the Board of the NZ Taxpayers Union when I was chair.

While they reflect on the election results the Press Gallery might like to think about engaging with people outside the Parliamentary precincts and then venture further afield outside Wellington, to engage with a broad range of Kiwis. I know that is hard when you have day to day commitments in Parliament, but its bubble won’t yield all the answers.

Maybe also it’s well past time when electronic media had conversations with politicians, instead of the “gotcha interviews” they are so fond of, but yield little in the way of insights or real information. And finally, when thinking about the 2026 election just abandon so called leaders debates, which I have not watched for decades because they don’t work anymore.

This weekend’s Australian has extensive coverage on the incredibly deficient state of much schooling in the Northern Territory (NT). The schooling article is very well documented and runs into the paper’s Inquirer section. Alongside this it also contained very well argued pleas for voters to support The Voice in the October 14 referendum.

The front page story was headed “Nation’s forgotten school kids scandal”. “In the NT, 58 percent of all students and 85 per cent of Indigenous students fall below minimum literacy and numeracy standards and attendance rates are as low as 20 per cent in some remote schools.” The actual situation is worse than the bare statistics.

”Among the worst affected are about 400 children learning in remote homelands. Many have access only to part-time education, with a registered teacher visiting just once or twice a week. Many children in homelands are learning in buildings without power or water, and local assistant teachers are left to run classrooms sometimes for months. “

”The Australian visited students at Gamardi, a 75 minute drive from Maningrida in central Arnhem Land, and saw students learning on a whiteboard balanced on a wheelie bin because the classroom, which has now power, is too hot dark to use.”

”The Northern Territory government has known about the dire conditions in these facilities since it conducted a review in 2019, which was never released”. We have traveled through Arnhem Land with Outback Spirit and also The Kimberley and Cape York up to Torres Strait, and find this feature entirely credible.

Much of the dire state of education, particularly for Indigenous children, will already be known to Federal politicians including PM Albanese. On top of educational failures are social disfunction amongst many indigenous people which also is well known to Federal politicians. Billions have been spent in recent decades without achieving what was hoped. Much of this money has ended up consumed by the process, not the supposed beneficiaries.

This is why The Voice is proposed for the Federal Parliament. It’s been massively supported by corporate Australia and vigorously promoted by Federal and state politicians, mostly Labour and The Greens but also some Liberal voices and other leading lights. It’s supported by Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson and opposed by NT aboriginal Senator Jacinta Price, who endured a difficult NT upbringing.

Despite all this current polls suggest it will fail. If it does fail it will be an amazing victory of the masses against the elites.

To me the paradox is Australia does not need an indigenous voice to identify the problems because they are there for all to see. What it does need a practical solutions which will probably need to be devised and implemented mostly by indigenous people. There are already many aboriginal voices, so will an official voice be able to do what hundreds of voices have failed to do, and will federal parliament actually follow through?

PM Albanese could have legislated for an indigenous voice, it does not require a referendum. He could also have had a referendum to symbolically recognise indigenous people in the constitutions preamble and then legislated a voice. Symbolic recognition would have passed a referendum vote and the current Parliament would likely legislate a voice. However this is not what the majority of aboriginal leaders seek

The educational failures documented by The Australian could be addressed now. The NT government needs Federal funding, so why doesn’t the government use this to achieve what it wants educationally and the worst of the housing problems in the NT? If the voice is passed will the federal government suddenly acquire the desire and skills to resolve them? Let’s hope so.

Todays editorial in the right of centre newspaper The Australian sets a shining example of how to handle complex sensitive race relations.

The editorial on the launch of “The Voice “ is headed “Voice debate must unfold in respectful spirit of unity”. The front page lead gave generous coverage to Prime Minister Albanese’s launch speech. This follows week of coverage of the issues with all sides given ample space to present their views.

This contrasts with the way NZ media has tried to shut down debate with allegations critics of the modern interpretations of The Treaty are racists. This has strangled informed debate with all critics whether rational or not are forced to express their views on internet outlets.

Some such as “Thomas Cranmer” and Graham Adams have perspectives that should have space in mainstream media. I accept the NZ Herald has given critics of the modern interpretation of The Treaty, some space but overall mainstream media have shut them out

it would be great if editors could look at The Australian’s coverage of The Voice over the past two months and then reset their policies. I fear for the future of public discourse without an honest open media because it allows extremists to flourish.

The Stuart Nash email saga has triggered calls from many to regulate the lobbying industry, with specific suggestions about what should be done. The lobbying business is often presented as something a bit sinister and certainly dodgy, compared with the honest, bias free journalism we are fed daily.

The question to be addressed is, does the problem(s) warrant intrusive regulations and if so what should be done?

The insiders and revolving doors: I agree there is a problem with Ministers and Parliamentary staffers exiting the building to return as lobbyists. The problem is they have deep knowledge of what’s gone on and relationships which could allow them to have undue influence on decision making. I agree there should be a cooling off period of at least one year and double that for Ministers.

This a restraint of trade issue not a regulation of lobbyists. Clearly it should be written into contracts for all new Ministerial staff. Compensation might be appropriate for existing Ministerial staff who had planned on having a career as a lobbyist. The Cabinet Manual would need to be changed. In both cases the rules would have to allow for a change of Government. I don’t see non Ministerial MPs becoming lobbyists as a problem, as they are typically distant from decision making.

The Official Information Act: Much more important than regulating lobbyists is the oversight of the way Official Information Act requests are handled by the public service and Ministerial offices. A lot of gaming goes on and I find the Prime Ministers’ explanation about how the Nash email to donors was deemed “out of scope”, to be totally disingenuous. Any staffer with half a brain, would have realised the email was explosive. I suspect news of its contents did travel up the system and maybe even to then PM Jacinda Ardern.

I hope the Ombudsman Peter Boshier comes up with the facts and recommends changes to the way OIAs are handled including maybe criminal penalties for unwarranted suppression of information. One option he might like to consider is having his office involved in the actual decision making – by having someone based in the Beehive.

The lobbying business: I struggle to see what’s the problem with professional consultant lobbyists, lawyers, NGO lobbyists and others from entering Parliament Buildings to promote their views and policies. It’s called democracy. Buying policies through donations to political parties is another matter and I support much greater transparency than is currently the case. (See earlier post)

The lobbying business is often described as the wild west because we don’t have the specific regulation that Washington and Australia have. So what. Where is the specific Government regulation of print journalists, the clergy, academics and farmers? We have occupational regulation of say carpenters for good reasons, but I wonder how you regulate good behaviour for lobbyists. What I do know is shonky operators will be found out quickly and will not be successful. Like every Kiwi, lobbyists have to comply with the laws of the land and the Speakers rules for Parliament.

The problem with any new law is the risk of perverse consequences and unnecessary costs. For instance a register of official lobbyists might end up creating barriers to entry for say a PR firm that might wish to lobby only once every five years. Journalists claim they don’t know why a lobbyist is in the building and seeing Minister X. They could simply ask either party. What we do know is Minister X will certainly know why the lobbyist is seeing them. If registered lobbyists were required to show all their clients on a website why not the same for every law firm or other consultancy?

There is an issue of privacy also that needs to be accommodated. Ministers need to be able to discuss issues frankly with lobbyists, just as they sometimes do with journalists.

The media: The Parliamentary press gallery has a remarkably modest understanding of lobbying. They don’t seem to appreciate that much lobbying takes place outside Parliament. It’s often more cost effective to influence the government official who drafts the first discussion document that ultimately leads to a Bill, than make a learned submission on the Bill itself. Much Government policy is not found in legislation but in regulations, standards and decisions made by Government officials. Helping shape these is the work of skilled lobbyists who have the trust and confidence of Government officials, whose only motivation is to produce good policy that works.

I was quite frankly astonished when PM Jacinda Ardern got consultant lobbyist GJ Thompson to set up her office after the 2017 election and was Chief of Staff for a while before returning to his firm. Even more astonishing was the media’s relatively passive acceptance of this amazing decision. Only Victoria University’s Dr Bryce Edwards, complained loudly about it.

I am equally astonished by the way the media uses consultant lobbyists as political commentators. With the exception of Matthew Hooton, most of these lobbyist commentators run fairly predictable party lines, with the left of centre being very consistent. I do not believe lobbyists should be used in this way because they will have many agendas which go beyond the narrow interests of specific clients.

RNZ likes to think it operates on a higher moral plane because its advertising free and its statutory requirements. To me its use of lobbyists as political commentators is a disgrace. There are plenty of journalists and others who could be used to comment on politics and it’s much better the pool is widened so we don’t get the same old running the same old lines.

Will Government act? The decision to ask the Speaker to end issuing swipe cards for consultants etc is almost meaningless. I use to have one which allow me to enter the building but no more. I even had to make appointments with the Opposition to see them because the card only got me through the front door. Had a headline once over a small article which said “Swipe card Saunders”. This has only been an issue because Parliament journalists, who have they own cards, made it so. Now some realise that it really was of little consequence.

PM Hipkins will get the Ministry of Justice to give the Government a report in 2024. We may even get a lobbyists code for how they should operate. Don’t hold your breath for anything dramatic and I don’t want the taxpayer paying for it.

What’s not discussed by commentators is the positive role lobbyists play whether industry based or consultants. They can iron out dopey ideas clients often have. They also aggregate views of their members or clients and ensure decision makers are presented with coherent policy packages. These lower transaction costs for the Government and help improve the policy making process. It’s part of the consultation process and great for democracy.

Disclosure: I was a consultant lobbyist (Saunders Unsworth) for 25 years ending in 2015. Prior to that I worked for the NZ Meat Board, the Manufacturers Federation, Labour leader Bill Rowling in opposition and NBR. I was based in New York in the late 1980s which enabled me to observe how lobbying worked in the USA.