First the Prime Minister disdained an apology to the woman whose alleged abuser was allowed to leave with diplomatic immunity, then the Transport Minister bypassed airport boarding security, now the Conservation Minister is telling the Fish and Game Council to back off the issue of dairy farms' river pollution. New Zealanders are quick to punish governments that come to believe they are "too big for their boots".
Polls suggest the Key Government is heading for a possibly stunning victory at the election less than eight weeks away. The margin of seats might be tight but National's vote could be higher than it was when it won a second term. To increase its vote at a third election would be a remarkable achievement. But it may not happen if the electorate detects a whiff of hubris setting in.
Leading members of all long-established governments succumb sooner or later to the belief that they should always get their way. If New Zealanders are quicker than most people to punish the first sign of this conceit it is a good thing that they do so, for New Zealand's system of government ensures that once elected, its leaders do almost always get their way.
We lack constitutional checks and balances such as an independent legislature, a second chamber or a written constitution. In their absence, statutory bodies such as the Fish and Game Council are especially valuable. The council administers hunting and freshwater fishing licences and is financed by the fees. Though it receives no money directly from the Government, it relies on the votes of a majority in Parliament for its exclusive right to issue licences and charge fees. Nick Smith seems to think it should be a tame creature.
He is annoyed that the council has joined environmental groups in criticising the damage that dairy farming is doing to rural streams and rivers. At a meeting on July 18 he told its representatives that "Fish and Game need to work out what they want to be - a statutory body [with] legislation and a relationship with the Government, or an NGO [non-government organisation]". The implication there was fairly clear: if it wants to be a critic of government support for irrigation and dairying it could lose its statutory role and assured income.