Thanks for that, Cyril. I see NZ has dropped in its ranking. They also say 'freedom of the press is not legally guaranteed' in NZ, which I guess is true, other than in the NZ Bill of Rights Act. The press deserve something like the academic freedom section in the Education and Training Act.
The focus on integrity and transparency is a good lens through which to evaluate politicians but there is an additional perspective that is useful to consider when it comes to the ‘fast track’ question and this is competence. Politicians should not be making these sorts of decisions outside of the public eye because they typically don’t have a handle on the details of these questions. Competent politicians (who have their egos under control) use the select committee process - and the advice from their ministries - to improve their decision making. Like all effective managers, they know what they don’t know. While they have the general idea about what they want to achieve, they are confident enough in themselves to consider the views of those who understand the details of a particular issue (including those who disagree with them). Rory Stewart in his autobiography - Politics on the Edge - makes it very clear that few of politicians actually have expertise in the areas that they are responsible for.
Really good point, Mark. At worst, the criteria for fast-tracking would be more about networks, loyalty and donations. A lot would depend on who gets appointed to the 'expert panels'. It's not too late for the bill to be amended, but it looks like they want to by-pass anyone who knows stuff that might impede developments.
Cheers Grant, that's a second article I'm thinking you might be interested in this free press worldwide analysis and ranking by the reporters without borders. If you are aware of it, just a heads-up that latest 2024 index has been just recently released https://rsf.org/en/country/new-zealand
Grant - agree with your last comment on journalists and their extreme use of language damaging trust in news.
But another point - I'd read your comments on transparency and conflicts of interest with more interest if you referenced politicians / parties on both sides of the aisle - rather than just focusing on the latest lot...
Hi Kimbal. Thanks for the comment. I've critically examined politicians and parties on the other side of the aisle in earlier posts. For example, the OAG published critical remarks about Labour's poor control in funding projects during the pandemic. Parties on both sides have let us down, it's fair to say. Cheers. Grant
“If you want to be informed, switch off the TV and read the paper” - currently, only too sadly true, Grant.
Agree 100%.
Thanks for that, Cyril. I see NZ has dropped in its ranking. They also say 'freedom of the press is not legally guaranteed' in NZ, which I guess is true, other than in the NZ Bill of Rights Act. The press deserve something like the academic freedom section in the Education and Training Act.
The focus on integrity and transparency is a good lens through which to evaluate politicians but there is an additional perspective that is useful to consider when it comes to the ‘fast track’ question and this is competence. Politicians should not be making these sorts of decisions outside of the public eye because they typically don’t have a handle on the details of these questions. Competent politicians (who have their egos under control) use the select committee process - and the advice from their ministries - to improve their decision making. Like all effective managers, they know what they don’t know. While they have the general idea about what they want to achieve, they are confident enough in themselves to consider the views of those who understand the details of a particular issue (including those who disagree with them). Rory Stewart in his autobiography - Politics on the Edge - makes it very clear that few of politicians actually have expertise in the areas that they are responsible for.
Really good point, Mark. At worst, the criteria for fast-tracking would be more about networks, loyalty and donations. A lot would depend on who gets appointed to the 'expert panels'. It's not too late for the bill to be amended, but it looks like they want to by-pass anyone who knows stuff that might impede developments.
This is a great read Grant, thank you!
Thanks for the thought, Fiwi!
Cheers Grant, that's a second article I'm thinking you might be interested in this free press worldwide analysis and ranking by the reporters without borders. If you are aware of it, just a heads-up that latest 2024 index has been just recently released https://rsf.org/en/country/new-zealand
Grant - agree with your last comment on journalists and their extreme use of language damaging trust in news.
But another point - I'd read your comments on transparency and conflicts of interest with more interest if you referenced politicians / parties on both sides of the aisle - rather than just focusing on the latest lot...
Hi Kimbal. Thanks for the comment. I've critically examined politicians and parties on the other side of the aisle in earlier posts. For example, the OAG published critical remarks about Labour's poor control in funding projects during the pandemic. Parties on both sides have let us down, it's fair to say. Cheers. Grant
Hi Robert. I'm sure that's ok, but it'd be nice to know who "we" are... And please rerun the link to my book.
Cheers
Grant