Oil ban decision risks PM’S moral high ground

when Energy Minister Megan Woods informed Cabinet that a deal had already been cut.

In fact, it appears the deal was the subject of exhaustive meetings and discussions, amid warnings from the Beehive that from time to time, this is how decisions will be made in this coalition. But this is not how government should be done. To be clear, while there are many people who remain sceptical, the balance of opinion in New Zealand, including corporate opinion, is that climate change is real and has to be addressed.

The sooner we get on the road to a cleaner economy, the easier the path will be.

In that way, even reasonable opponents of the prime minister’s move may respect that this administration and future ones will be forced to make difficult choices.

But process matters and this is a major decision, which could affect New Zealand’s energy security in years to come.

The Cabinet manual says matters which are significant in policy terms are ‘‘controversial matters’’ or which could impact on the government’s financial position, must be submitted to Cabinet. This decision is all of those things.

While Woods has made it clear that eventually the matter will go through the Cabinet process, the executive branch of government is in an impossible position.

What happens if, when a Cabinet paper is submitted, it contains some awkward truths? Perhaps it will say that enacting the plan will lead to coal being imported, because New Zealand will run out of gas sooner than expected.

If Cabinet is to be constrained in this way, what is the point of having one?

There are famous examples of Cabinet ignoring official advice and history eventually showing it was right to do so. Treasury warned that Kiwibank would never be financially viable and the government of the time went ahead and did it anyway, creating a company which helped lower bank fees across the industry.

In this case, Cabinet ministers are reduced to functionaries, carrying out the bidding of the party leaders.

The Government’s supporters have been quick to point at examples where National did similar things. Sir John Key’s decision, made when he was Opposition leader, to override the decision-making processes of Pharmac in promising to fund breast cancer drug Herceptin is a perfect example that every Government is the same in the end.

Politicians ultimately the reserve the right to shortcut the decision-making process to come to the conclusion they want to.

But for a Government which proclaims its values and promises openness and transparency, it is on a fast track to losing any moral high ground.