OPINION
Christopher Luxon made a big speech on Saturday, and then spent 20 minutes trying to explain to journalists what he really meant. It was confusing.
The headlines were about his "tough on gangs" proposals. But he also talked about the evil of co-governance, the value of social investment and the way "spending" and "bureaucrats" make everything worse.
The Government "co-governance" proposals for water and health will give Māori agencies important roles. This, Luxon said, is "an assault on the fundamental principle that everyone's vote carries the same value as everyone else's". National, he said, "doesn't support co-governance of public services". Neither of these things is true.
Perhaps Luxon has not read last month's column in the online magazine e-tangata by National's former, long-serving Minister for Treaty Settlements, Chris Finlayson.
"My perspective on how to put things right is fundamentally a centre-right one," wrote Finlayson. "It asks the question: 'Why does the Government think it knows best?' The Government makes heaps of mistakes. I was in there for years. I saw; I know. So, I don't think that Government has all the answers, and I agree with Ronald Reagan that, so often, Government is the problem."
Then he wrote, "If you apply this to the history of our land, the question becomes: 'Why should the state be the one to control everything? Why can't there be principles of sharing power?'"
Finlayson held the Treaty settlements job for nine years. Before his time, he noted, the National-led Government in the 1990s signed the Waikato-Tainui settlement, which covers rivers and harbours. "What did people think was going to happen? It had to be about power-sharing, and that's what we got with the Waikato River Authority."
He also cited the example of Te Urewera, where Ngāi Tūhoe assumed "administrative responsibility" while he was minister.
TVNZ's Yvonne Tahana asked Luxon on Saturday how he felt about this. He said it was fine, because Treaty settlements are different. She asked him why – the principle of shared power is the same – but he couldn't answer.
The fact is, the water in the Waikato and a whole range of health and other services in Te Urewera are subject to "co-governance of public services". This doesn't worry Luxon, but he's happy to sloganise about it anyway.
Finlayson said, "The idea that power can be shared scares some people. Whereas my attitude is if central Government has failed in so many areas, which it has, and if there are different ways of looking at issues that involve bringing iwi into decision-making, or handing over decision-making, then let's give it a go."
Christopher Luxon could champion that idea. But he's chosen not to.
Finlayson, quoting the former British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, referred to the "sour right". He said, "There are always going to be people like that, and you have to be reasonably charitable towards them for a while — and then just ignore them and get on with things."
Luxon, instead, is pandering to them.
That's also what he's doing with his tough-guy gang posturing. The appalling drive-by shootings plaguing Auckland right now are the result of an utu-inspired gang war between the Tribesmen and the Killer Beez, as Jarrod Gilbert so insightfully explained yesterday.
It requires a committed, in-their-face police response and it will take a little time. But it's already happening. As Luxon and his police spokesman Mark Mitchell both accepted on Saturday, the police do not need any extra powers for this.
But Luxon announced his new policy: Ban gang insignia in public and give police the power to stop gang members gathering in public, associating with each other, in real life and on social media, and "accessing guns".
It's frightening to see 500 gang members attending a tangi and then roar down the road on motorbikes. It might be a lot more frightening to watch a thousand police trying to stop that happening.
And it's confusing to think how the police might stop gang members talking to each other on social media. As for guns, the police already make tens of thousands of legal firearms searches, without warrants.
Luxon's gang plan would probably breach the Bill of Rights Act. He responded to that on Saturday by saying gang members who break the law have given up some of their rights.
But we don't have a Bill of Rights just for nice people who never do anything wrong. We have it for everyone. We proclaim the rights that belong to all because that's how we ensure they belong to each one of us.
Just before he launched into the chest-thumping, Luxon said, "National will bring back the long-term, social investment approach so that resources are directed where they can do the most good."
Social investment is a welfare strategy developed under Bill English. It recognises that with big-data analysis, it is possible to identify most of the people who are most at risk in society, right from their pre-school years. It proposes in-depth, targeted investments to help those children, so they don't grow up to become traumatised outcasts and criminals.
It's disputed. Few would deny the value of helping the kids in most need and everyone knows the first years are the most formative. But the big-data profiling has the potential to be badly misused. And a precisely targeted system could deny support to many more kids who really need it but aren't "at risk" enough.
There are three big points to make here. The first is that social investment is expensive: It requires strong funding across many government agencies. If Luxon cuts taxes, where will the money come from?
The second is that social investment recognises that solving social problems is a complex business. If we really want to reduce crime, social alienation, family harm, poor mental health, substance abuse, bad health, underachievement in school – whatever marker you want to use – we have to address the way little children are raised.
Getting tough with gangs is pointless if we don't do that. National knows this. Luxon could have explained it to his supporters. He chose chest-beating instead.
And the third point? Social investment requires skilled officials to administer it: To design the programmes, do the data analysis, manage the social workers and other frontline staff, analyse the results, look after the funding, pass on the necessary skills, promote the programmes so they get to the right people … To make sure it works.
But Luxon also used his speech to complain about a "pattern of more spending, more bureaucrats and worse outcomes". Asked after the speech, he said his Government would spend the money on frontline workers instead of bureaucrats.
It's just blather. Tough on gangs, don't give Māori any power, down with bureaucrats. They're slogans, drifting free of the tether of reality.
The thing is, we really do have a public service problem in this country. Too often, they're risk averse. Too often, they're not committed enough to their duty to carry out government policy. But these are culture problems, not a problem caused by excess spending.
You rarely hear bosses in the private sector admitting they employ "bureaucrats". They have senior leadership teams and other essential managerial types.
Suggesting frontline workers are the only valuable workers is like saying the only staff an airline needs are pilots and cabin stewards and baggage handlers. Maybe those guys on the tarmac with the paddles. Are they frontline?
Luxon probably wouldn't go that far. Despite all the blather, he surely knows how the world works. After all, he used to run an airline.
OPINION: Measuring influence of protest at ballot box would be to miss the point.