Oil ban decision risks PM’s moral high ground
There’s a saying in debating that it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong, as long as you’re sure. It can feel the same way in politics, even though it shouldn’t be that way. For all the power held by bureaucrats to frustrate decision-making with inconvenient advice or warnings of unintended consequences, sometimes a very small group of people simply decides something will happen, and that is that.
This was the case with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s decision to end new offshore oil exploration in New Zealand. Since she led a group of Cabinet colleagues into the Beehive theatrette to announce the move on April 12, there has been mounting speculation about just how little detailed analysis was undertaken behind the move.
It had already become clear that key agencies (the ministries for the Environment and of Foreign Affairs and Trade) had provided no advice. Officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment had been openly grumbling to the industry that they were being sidelined. National leader Simon Bridges said he had been told by officials they were explicitly being asked not to provide advice on the decision (something the Government denies).
But only yesterday did New Zealand learn that whatever advice was provided, it ultimately meant nothing. This was not an agreement made around the Cabinet table, bound by collective responsibility. It was a political deal, struck after intense lobbying between the leaders of political parties. Cabinet was informed after the fact.
Cabinet is where many political promises ultimately die because bright minds convince the body that the consequences are too great or the outcomes will be different to what politicians hoped they would be.
It is little wonder that Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones made such a petulant showing when the announcement was made: dragging his feet, covering his eyes and grabbing the lectern as if it was a brace.
For all we know, Jones heard about the decision 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 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 the 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.
This was a political deal, struck after intense lobbying between the leaders of political parties. Cabinet was informed after the fact.