Government’s reforms verging on Orwellian

Sunday, 31 August 2025

Vernon Small is a journalist and former Labour government advisor.

OPINION: In George Orwell’s book Animal Farm, the pigs that overthrew the humans claim four legs are better than two. But as they rise onto their hind legs they decide that four legs are good, but two legs are better.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, citizens were taught Doublethink, so they could hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and use logic against logic.

It’s hard to know whether it is more Animal Farm or Nineteen Eighty-Four but this Government is racking up a growing list of reforms that it claims will achieve the very opposite of logic. Or that nebulous productivity gains will outweigh public safety issues. Or that long term reforms will deliver better outcomes than immediate action.

So, relaxing or increasing speed limits, we are led to believe, will increase productivity while not causing more road deaths and injuries – despite the link between higher speed and greater harm.

Loosening the enforcement of health and safety laws in favour of “guidance” will not harm – and could even improve - workplace safety because firms live in fear of enforcement visits. That, despite a lack of supporting evidence and the changes made to address enforcement issues raised by the Pike River disaster.

We were told, paradoxically, that since smoking rates are falling anyway, it is justified to repeal further measures to reduce smoking. Oh, and cutting the cost of another tobacco product is good because it will help reduce smoking rates.

This week Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced changes to liquor laws that would loosen restrictions while barring national liquor-harm lobby groups from making submissions on liquor licenses. It would also give applicants the right to respond to objections to District Licensing Committees, which at least fits a greater “fairness” test.

McKee – in an echo of her argument in favour of looser gun laws – said the changes would reflect the fact that the great majority of those who drink responsibly should not be penalised because of the behaviour of the few.

In a similar vein, as my fellow columnist Janet Wilson has pointed out, the auto-self-congratulatory Local Water Done Well reforms are turning into a bugger’s muddle that defies the promised improvements.

They were supposed to allow local government authorities to retain their own water assets – if they chose – while reducing costs. Some 47 authorities would transfer their water assets into 15 council-controlled organisations (not the 10 mandated by the previous government).

But reality has got in the way.

Instead, about 40 water entities are set to be formed and ratepayers will face escalating costs of water just as the Government contemplates putting rates caps on councils.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts has rattled his sabre at local councils who do not combine their water assets and he has the power in his back pocket to force them into regional groupings.

Mandates bad, enforced amalgamations good. Local good, local bad.

Less illogical were the measures announced by Finance Minister Nicola Willis this week to improve supermarket competition, but they still harboured paradoxes.

Fast-track provisions for new supermarket approvals make sense, though they curb local community input.

It’s unclear how quicker approvals for new stores will encourage new players, but not also aid the expansion of the existing duopoly. Big Grocery’s first instinct was to welcome the move, even though Willis suggested it would be hard for them to argue for new fast-track stores on competition grounds.

Meanwhile, the big bang - and likely most effective - option of splitting up Woolworths and Foodstuffs into smaller groupings or by brands (restructuring in Orwell-speak) – is still on the table. It now awaits a cost-benefit analysis.

In Willis’ own view it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

You can bet your bottom grocery dollar that submissions against a break-up will present a doomsday economic scenario where the threat to property rights spooks investors, outweighing benefits to consumers.

In any case, the lack of enthusiasm for the supermarket review from overseas players, and the cautious reaction from Costco suggest progress will be slow.

It is this slow response to its efforts, not just its own Orwellian approach to public policy measures, that is bedevilling the Government’s popularity and its ability to deliver its promises.

Trusting the market will provide “jam tomorrow” in response to regulatory changes is always going to be a slow burner, even with fast-track provisions in place. Intervention can be blunt, but it is so much more immediate.

And National is hedged in by its own instincts as well as pressure from its partners.

ACT will fight tooth and nail to prevent intervention that undermines the pure property rights of supermarket owners.

Elsewhere, NZ First doesn’t like a hands-off approach to the energy market where a clash between Regional Development Minister Shane Jones and Energy Minister Simon Watts is seeping through the wallpapered-over cracks.

Jones wants the government policy statement on energy to be changed because it is out of date. His aim is to stop “de-industrialisation” and help firms hit by rising energy costs and the shortage of gas.

Energy Minister Simon Watts says the policy statement, which relies heavily on the market to solve costs and supply issues, will not be reviewed.

Doublethink, one government.

What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz. Please include your full name and address.