Who Voted for Ministerial Dictatorship?

Who Voted for Ministerial Dictatorship?

Something is seriously wrong with how New Zealand makes its laws. This morning on Radio New Zealand, former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer – normally the mild-mannered academic – described the current state of executive power as “unbridled ministerial power” and went further, calling it “ministerial, something close to dictatorship.”

Host Kathryn Ryan responded, “That’s a very strong thing to say.” It is. And when someone who’s spent half a century studying our constitution starts using language like that, perhaps we should be paying closer attention. I’d encourage everyone to listen to the full interview.

Back in 1979, Palmer wrote a book called Unbridled Power? arguing New Zealand had become an “elected dictatorship.” The question mark in that title has now been answered. Nearly fifty years on, the warning signs he identified haven’t faded – they’ve intensified.

Here’s what should worry every New Zealander, regardless of which party they support: according to Parliament, the House spent 121 hours and 33 minutes under urgency in 2024 alone. That’s a staggering amount of legislation pushed through without normal scrutiny.

Records Nobody Should Be Proud Of

The coalition government has set a record that should concern us all. More bills have been passed through Parliament under urgency – completely bypassing select committee scrutiny – than any government since at least 1987. In the first 100 days, 13 bills were rammed through without public submissions, without expert testimony, without the checks that protect us from bad law.

A Victoria University study found that between 1987 and 2010, the average number of bills passed entirely under urgency was ten per Parliament. This government hit that number in seven weeks.

Before anyone accuses me of partisan sniping: previous governments used urgency, too. Labour was no saint. But there’s a difference between occasionally expediting legislation and making it standard procedure. What we’re witnessing is a systematic erosion of the processes meant to improve laws.

The Fast Track Problem

The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 exemplifies everything that’s gone wrong. Under this legislation, ministers can approve major development projects with minimal oversight. The Environment Court has been largely written out of the process. The Minister for the Environment has little meaningful role in decisions that will affect our environment for generations.

The whole programme upends the usual procedural protections of the separation of powers. Ministers like control, but they’re not supposed to be omnipotent. That’s the whole point of having checks and balances.

The Auditor-General felt compelled to make a submission on the Fast Track Bill, warning the select committee that conflicts of interest “can create public concern around the integrity of decision making” and urging stronger transparency and accountability safeguards. When your own watchdog is worried about integrity safeguards, you might want to pause and reflect.

Why Process Matters

I understand the frustration with bureaucracy. Having run businesses, I know the temptation to cut through red tape and just get things done. Speed feels efficient. The process feels like an obstruction.

But here’s the thing: the processes we find frustrating exist because previous generations learned hard lessons about what happens when they’re absent. Select committees aren’t just talking shops. They’re where experts point out flaws in proposed laws. They’re where affected communities get their say. They’re where mistakes get caught before becoming entrenched in legislation.

Even Attorney-General Judith Collins, not exactly known for hand-wringing about executive power, felt compelled to write to her Cabinet colleagues in March 2024, warning that the 100-day plan “has necessitated key processes being truncated or skipped.” She reminded ministers that proper processes are essential for good legislative outcomes.

When your own Attorney-General is sending memos about poor process, something has gone seriously wrong.

An Executive Paradise

The late Australian constitutional scholar Leslie Zines once called New Zealand an “executive paradise.” Unlike most democracies, we have no upper house to check hasty legislation. We have no codified constitution to constrain governmental overreach. We rely almost entirely on convention and goodwill – and goodwill appears to be in short supply.

The irony is painful. Chris Bishop, now Leader of the House and primary user of urgency motions, was an outspoken critic of this practice when Labour was in power. The same tools he condemned as an opposition MP have become his go-to governing technique.

What Can Be Done?

Palmer and others have proposed parliamentary reforms – limiting the use of urgency to genuine emergencies, ensuring that select committees are properly resourced, and requiring transparency about lobbying activities. None of these ideas is particularly radical. Most functioning democracies already have such safeguards.

But I’d go further. What New Zealand lacks is a tool the Swiss have used successfully for 150 years: the veto referendum. This allows citizens to challenge laws passed by parliament if enough signatures are collected. Imagine if New Zealanders could trigger a referendum on the Fast-track Approvals Act or any legislation rammed through under urgency. That’s real accountability – not relying on politicians to constrain themselves, but giving citizens the power to say “not so fast.”

Relying on parliamentary reform alone requires political will, and there’s little incentive for any government to constrain its own power. Each successive administration tends to like the authority it inherits.

This is where ordinary citizens come in. Democratic institutions only work when people pay attention and hold representatives accountable. Voting every three years isn’t enough. Democracy requires ongoing engagement and refusing to accept “we’re too busy” as justification for bypassing scrutiny.

Whether this government survives its current controversies isn’t the point. The damage being done to our democratic processes will outlast any particular administration. The precedents being set will be inherited by future governments of all stripes.

Democracy is fragile, and the erosion happens slowly enough that we often don’t notice until it’s too late. When constitutional experts start warning we’re heading towards something “close to dictatorship,” it’s time to sit up and take notice – and demand better tools to hold our politicians accountable.

Steve Baron is a New Zealand-based political commentator and author. He holds a BA with a double major in Economics and Political Science from the University of Waikato and an Honours Degree in Political Science from Victoria University of Wellington. A former businessman in the advertising industry, he founded the political lobby group Better Democracy NZ. https://stevebaron.co.nz