OPINION: The government’s 100-day plan ends this week. Researcher Marianne Spaddle gives it some “E” ratings.
Each of us evaluates the government’s 100-day plan (that little test it has created for itself) by how it approaches the issues that interest us.
At the Maxim Institute, where I work, public policy research focuses on the social institutions that help people thrive and the developments that threaten or foster them. So education is in our sights, as is the rise of artificial intelligence and how governments approach constitutional issues.
Before we get into the “E” grade, let’s take a look at what we’re measuring.
The 49 points in this plan show that while there is only so much the government can do in the next few months, there is much it can reverse.
The 19 items begin with the words “repeal,” “repeal,” “withdrawal,” “cessation,” “cessation of work,” or “introducing a bill” that overturns a previous law. (Of course, these reversals in the Labor government’s policies continue what Chris Hipkins started in 2023.)
Constitutional law expert Edward Willis said the practice was “a bit of a political gimmick.”
As promised, the controversial Three Waters, Clean Car Discount, Auckland Fuel Tax and Auckland Light Rail are no more.
A plan is basically a to-do list. Write down everything you can realistically do before the tool goes down. Include some challenging items. Then I’m happy just throwing in a bunch of things that take 30 seconds to complete and making them disappear.
Let’s take number 22 on the list. “Cease implementation of the new Important Natural Area and seek advice on the management of the area.”
Email three or four people for advice.
Tick-tock.
The government easily gets an “E” on these low-hanging fruit, like scrapping old laws and launching new initiatives.
Probably too easy.
Speaking from the Beehive Theater for the first time as prime minister, Mr Luxon announced a list of 49 actions which he described as “very ambitious”.
It lost credibility by using urgency to pass legislation that overturned Labour’s bills – a tactic that Christopher Luxon rightly called “irresponsible” when Labor went too far.
Green Party co-leader James Shaw calculated that the Coalition had used urgency 16 times by early March. The government’s defense that it is simply restoring things to the way they were does not allow bad precedent to be reinforced.
Passing the bill on an emergency basis avoided debate and public opinion, and was intended for exceptional circumstances.
What is exceptional about the change of government? Many MPs attended the 2020 vote, but in the midst of the government’s overreaching measures against the coronavirus, they rushed and accidentally passed the wrong bill.
And no one noticed.
We need a stronger signal that the government will be constrained by the spirit of sensible parliamentary procedure. These constraints don’t just deter sloppy legislation or bad behavior. They are essential to declining public trust in government.
Start with the easy things first
Return to list.
The Coalition has ideas for more than dismantling Labour’s legacy. Although 11 items describe new initiatives, only one of his items begins with a request for consideration, reflecting a new emphasis on talking less and doing more.
One of the highlights was the successful establishment of an expert group to redesign the primary school English and mathematics curriculum.
It addresses the under-appreciated flaws in our education system created by the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum. If we get this right, we should narrow the widening gap in educational outcomes and strengthen support for teachers.
Would banning smartphones and requiring minimum instruction in core subjects be effective? Despite all the fuss — well.
The quality of education will improve if we give teachers and principals more freedom to make these kinds of decisions and give teachers better ability to teach. It’s not that easy to implement, and neither is polling.
And the polls show us that this government is working as advertised. The argument that it is “radical” comes from those who would prefer the Prime Minister to simply manage the status quo rather than reset it. For example, before becoming Prime Minister, John Key called working for his family “communism by stealth”. after that? He made it stick.
Moving some policies back to 2017 should spark debate, but is it radical? Not likely.
The people who elected this government don’t want surprises, they want action. Yes, the 100-day plan is arbitrary, but the focus on it suggests voters may be getting what they wanted.
And for that, the government gets an extra “E” for “expected.”
Let’s hope that by focusing on law and order, the economy, and education, we can reverse the trend of centralization and inefficient public services. If so, that “E” grade may represent “Excellent.”
Marianne Spaddle is a researcher at Maxim Research Institute. Maxim Her Institute is an independent think tank working to promote the dignity of all people in New Zealand by championing freedom, justice, compassion and hope.