Government's Duties

The Last Resort

If one of the roles of the Fourth Estate is to define and articulate the public debate, the Editorial in the New Zealand Herald for 19 May 2024 reinforces many of the stereotypes of the New Zealand condition rather than to propose alternatives to a present state of affairs.

The Context

The background to the editorial was concern about what was described as “the scamdemic”. Last year, it seems, New Zealanders were parted from $200 million by online fraud and cybercrimes. One school principal is considering legal action against Westpac after he and his wife lost $323,000 in an elaborate scam and police have been warning the public to remain vigilant against phone calls and emails where scammers were posing as the Police.

The editorial states:

“Financial crime investigations are complex, involving police and banks across jurisdictions.

And there is an element of personal responsibility, to make sure you’re doing your own checks that everything is above board and people are who they say they are before handing over hard-earned cash.”

The Proposed Solution

The editorial then offers a solution – a solution that was clear from the editorial headline “Should the NZ government be doing more to counter a ‘scamdemic’ costing millions every year?” and the editorial poses the question

“But is it time that our government introduces tighter measures to ensure the safety of Kiwis?”

The answer, I would suggest, must be no.

It seems in New Zealand that the remedy of first resort is the Government. The Government must do something to solve the problem.

The difficulty with that approach is that the Government is often unable to solve the problem in an effective way without further eroding the liberties of the subject and encroaching upon our freedoms by crafting regulatory systems that are imposed on sectors of the community, increasing compliance costs which are then passed on to – we the consumers.

Interestingly enough the editorial goes on – after posing what must be a rhetorical question – to describe steps that have been taken by the banks. The editorial states that

“In 2020, the United Kingdom’s six largest banking groups introduced measures which saw checks on whether the name entered on a bank transfer matches the name of the recipient bank account.

It was hoped that the cross-referencing move would help combat transfer scams and make it less likely customers’ money would end up in the wrong hands.

And last year, major British banks vowed to share more data with each other, especially around suspected serious financial crime.

Similar measures in NZ would be welcome, especially with much of the recent fraud cases being committed offshore, making it hard for NZ authorities to pursue arrests and hold the offenders to account.”

It can be seen from these remarks that the banks have taken the initiative and they could do so in this country without the interfering hand of the State.

But at the same time this call for Government involvement as a problem solver caused me to reflect on the role of the Government which, in this country, seems to be pervasive, its octopus arms reaching into every crevice of our lives.

The Role of Government

One starting point that describes the role of Government is the preamble to the United States Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The themes that emerge from this simple statement are these. The Government ensures:

The establishment of the State – the more perfect Union

• Justice

• Domestic tranquillity or social stability

• The common defence

• The general welfare

• The blessings of Liberty

The scope of the language allows for a considerable amount of activity – especially such a generalised clause as “promote the general welfare” which, in the New Zealand context would be interpreted as widely as possible to encompass our present unsatisfactory situation.

There are varying views on the role of Government. The Left or Progressive view favours an active government with a high level of State involvement in many if not most aspects of community activity. On the other hand the Libertarian view is that the main and only legitimate duty of government is to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens from external and internal threats. This means that the government should provide national defense, maintain law and order, administer justice, and enforce contracts. Libertarians argue that these functions are essential for preserving a free and peaceful society, and that any other activities or services that the government provides are either unnecessary, inefficient, or harmful to individual liberty and social welfare.

Another more moderate view of the role of Government is to function for the benefit of society and the public interest. The roles include:

•        Providing public goods and services

•        Maintaining public order and security

•        Protecting the rights and freedoms of the citizens

•        Promoting the economic and social development of the country

•        Representing the country in the international arena

Of course concepts such as “the benefit of society” and “the public interest” can be interpreted very widely to allow for a level of Government activity that the Progressive Left would envy.

Margaret Thatcher had some interesting things to say about society as well as the role of Government. This comment, made in 1987, is one with which I have some commonality.

“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

… [It] is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate … [t]hat was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system … when people come and say: ‘But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!’

Ronald Reagan was more direct when he said in his 1981 Inaugural Address "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

He had a few other pithy comments about Government.

“Either you will control your government or government will control you” and “The most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.”

There can be no doubt that Governments are necessary for an ordering of the community. But the role of Government should be very limited and very constrained.

The principles underlying the role of Government should be that government activity should be limited, that it should aim to preserve and promote individual liberty, free markets, and traditional values.

Government should have a minimal role in the lives of citizens.

It should only intervene when necessary to protect the rights, security, and welfare of the people. The government should also respect the constitutional process, the rule of law, and the separation of powers, and avoid excessive regulation, taxation, and spending.

The duties of Government should be as follows:

•        To provide national defence and ensure the security of the nation from external and internal threats.

•        To uphold the law and order and protect the rights and property of the citizens from crime and violence.

•        To maintain a stable and sound currency and promote economic growth and opportunity through free trade, low taxes, and minimal regulation.

•        To provide essential public goods and services that the market cannot or will not provide, such as

infrastructure,

education,

health care, and

social security,

but only to the extent that they are efficient, effective, and affordable.

•        To preserve the moral and cultural heritage of the nation and support the institutions of family, religion, and civil society that foster social stability and civic virtue.

This perspective is based on the idea that the government should be limited, accountable, and respectful of the rights and freedoms of the people. The government should focus on its core functions of providing security, justice, and public goods, and leave the rest to the individual, the family, the market, and the community.

A Culture of Dependency

The problem that seems pervasive in New Zealand is that the Government is the first port of call for the solution to any problem – something that Reagan abhorred. But what has happened in New Zealand is a culture of dependency upon the Government. And it goes deeper than that described by Mrs Thatcher. Waiting for the Government to move on anything travels at what could be described as a geological pace.

An example - a small and personal one but which illustrates the problem.

At the moment we have some trees in our street that are fouling the power lines and in high winds result in power blackouts. The trees need pruning. This is the job of the Auckland Council. They have pruned the tress that did not foul the power lines but have left the ones that do.

The power company that attends to reset the transformers won’t do anything. It’s a Council problem they say. Thus the providers of services shift the burden from one sector to another while citizens and consumers suffer. A clear example of “the Government is the problem”

The simple solution would be for residents in the street to get out with a pruning saw and lop the branches off. But one runs into a problem in attempting a self-help solution to a problem such as this. The Council could invoke the law claiming that the trimming of trees involved interference with Council property in that the trees are on Council land.

The same problem arises with the plague of shoplifters at supermarkets. Security personnel or members of the public who try to apprehend a shoplifter may find themselves prosecuted by the Police for assault should they use excessive force. Yet the simple solution would be to provide security guards with a taser. A failure to stop and return the stolen goods should warrant a shock.

But that is a form of self-help vigilantism which the Police will not tolerate. And the same applies to dairy owners and the victims of ram raiders. Heaven help you if you use self-help measures.

Yet the State is failing in its duty to ensure the protection of personal property and ensure a stable society that has confidence in its institutions. Another example of “the Government is the problem”

I am sure that readers can find many more.

Is there are way out

For many people the way out lies three and a half hours west across the Tasman. But although there is higher pay, cheaper property, better climate, and an absence of confrontational racial disharmony – Australia is more regulated and Government dependent than New Zealand. The tentacles of State and Commonwealth Government in Australia are pervasive.

For example the regulatory powers of the E-Safety Commissioner over Internet content are potentially highly intrusive and have significant elements of censorship behind them. The regulatory environment surrounding cybersecurity and data protection is far ahead of the Privacy Act provisions in New Zealand and then there are the taxes and imposts on a wide variety of transactions.

So Australia may not be the answer if one is seeking a less intrusive Government.

To return to the example that began this article. The best solution is industry or community-individually led initiatives.

This has been done in a number of spheres. Readers may recall the proposed Department of Internal Affairs Safer Online Services and Media Platforms content control exercise – now thankfully cancelled and to proceed no further. Rather than have State control of online safety a better solution is to leave it in the hands of industry and practitioners in the field.

Hence, Netsafe co-ordinated the development of the Aotearoa New Zealand Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms. The Code has been adopted by Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Google (YouTube), TikTok, Twitch, and Twitter.

The Code commits signatories to a set of Guiding Principles and Commitments that aim to mitigate the risks and reduce the prevalence of harmful content in seven areas:

·         child sexual exploitation and abuse

·         bullying or harassment

·         hate speech

·         incitement of violence

·         violent or graphic content

·         misinformation

·         disinformation

This seems to me to be a much more positive step than involving Government management of the particular space.

In the same way citizens and communities, rather than relying on Government or a local authority to solve a particular problem should band together to solve it themselves.

This may not be too practical when it comes to the supply of water or electricity but for simple tasks that generally involve Council contractors turning up at a time that suits them, communities or groups could attend to the issue in a much more timely fashion.

It may not be a form of controlling the Government as Reagan suggested but it would certainly be a way of keeping the Government out of the lives of individuals.

And it might replace “The Government must do something” mindset that is so pervasive in New Zealand.