Opinion: The Government's 100-day plan comes to an end this week — and researcher Maryanne Spurdle has a few 'E' grades to give it.
Each of us will grade the Government’s 100-day plan — that little test it wrote for itself — by how they’ve approached issues that interest us.
Where I work at the Maxim Institute, our public policy research focuses on social institutions that help people flourish and developments that threaten or promote this. So education is in our sights, as is the advent of artificial intelligence and how the Government approaches constitutional issues.
Before getting into that “E” grade, let’s look at what we’re measuring.
A glance at the plan’s 49 points reminds us there’s only so much the Government can do in a few months, but there’s plenty it can undo.
Nineteen items start with “repeal”, “abolish”, “withdraw”, “cancel”, “stop work” or “introduce legislation” to reverse previous legislation. (Credit where it’s due — these reversals of the Labour government’s policies continue what Chris Hipkins started in 2023.)
Constitutional expert Edward Willis said the practice is "a bit of a political gimmick". (Source: Breakfast)
As promised, we no longer have the controversial Three Waters, Clean Car Discount, Auckland fuel tax, or Auckland Light Rail.
The plan is essentially a to-do list: Write down everything you’ll realistically do before tools go down. Include a few challenging items. Then throw in a bunch of things that take 30 seconds to complete just for the satisfaction of crossing them off.
Take number 22 on the list: “Begin to cease implementation of new Significant Natural Areas and seek advice on operation of the areas.”
Email three or four people for advice.
Tick.
For these quick-tick items — reversing old legislation and kicking off new initiatives — the Government earns the “E” for easy.
Too easy, perhaps.
Luxon spoke from the Beehive theatrette for the first time as prime minister, as he released what he described as a "hugely ambitious" list of 49 actions. (Source: 1News)
It loses credit by using urgency to pass bills reversing Labour’s legislation — a tactic Christopher Luxon rightly called “irresponsible” when Labour overdid it.
Green Party co-leader James Shaw calculated that the coalition Government had used urgency 16 times by early March. The Government’s defence — that it’s merely restoring things to how they were — doesn’t excuse reinforcing a bad precedent.
Passing legislation under urgency bypasses debate and public input, and was intended for exceptional circumstances.
What’s exceptional about a change of government? Many MPs were around for the 2020 vote where, in the midst of the Government’s Covid response over-reaches, members accidentally passed the wrong bill in their haste.
And none of them noticed.
We need stronger signals from this Government that it will be constrained by the spirit of Parliament’s sensible procedures. These constraints don’t just discourage sloppy law-making and bad behaviour; they’re essential for public trust in gvernment, which has been declining.
Moving on from the easy
Back to the list.
The Coalition does have ideas beyond dismantling Labour’s legacy. Eleven items speak to new initiatives and only one starts with commissioning a review, reflecting a refreshing emphasis on less talk and more action.
One point that flew under the radar is the successful establishment of an expert group to redesign primary schools’ English and maths curricula.
This addresses an under-appreciated deficit in our education system that the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum helped create. If they get this right, gaps that have grown in educational outcomes should narrow and teachers will be better supported.
Will banning smart phones and mandating minimum instruction in core subjects also help? Despite the fuss — meh.
The quality of education would improve if we gave teachers and principals more freedom to make these kinds of decisions and we better equipped teachers to teach. It just wouldn’t be as easy to implement, nor would it poll as well.
And the polls do tell us that this Government is functioning as advertised. Claims that it’s “radical” come from those who preferred prime ministers to merely manage the status quo, rather than reset it. John Key, for instance, called Working for Families “communism by stealth” before he became Prime Minister. And then? He entrenched it.
Taking a few policies back to 2017 should spark debate, but is it radical? Hardly.
Those who elected this Government don’t want surprises, and they do want action. The 100-day plan is arbitrary, yes, but the focus on it signals that voters might be getting what they asked for.
And for that, the Government earns another “E” — for “expected".
Let’s hope that its attention to law and order, the economy and education can also reverse the trend towards centralisation and ineffective public services. If it does, then that "E" grade might stand for “excellent".
Maryanne Spurdle is a researcher at Maxim Institute. Maxim Institute is an independent think tank working to promote the dignity of every person in New Zealand by standing for freedom, justice, compassion and hope.
SHARE ME