Honesty, integrity, transparency.
These values are all too often cited by politicians and political parties as core to what they believe and how they want to operate to deliver for their constituents.
But there is often a disconnect between promises made on the campaign trail and what is delivered when in government, impacting the trust in politicians, political parties, and our political institutions.
We already know there are issues with trust in our political institutions. Politicians regularly find themselves at the wrong end of ‘most trusted’ lists and can often come back to the issue of ‘over-promise, under-deliver’. This isn’t just a New Zealand phenomenon; it is an issue globally – particularly in (but not limited to) liberal democracies.
This year’s Budget has thrown a spotlight on this issue with several election promises either undercooked, or in some cases, missing altogether.
The cancer promise
While issues of public sector cuts and reduced funding for Māori initiatives attracted the biggest response in the lead-up to the budget, the weeks since have seen heavy focus on the absence of funding for the 13 new cancer treatments promised by National during the campaign.
Politically, this is a baffling omission, and a politics 101 kind of failure.
The absence of this promise from the Budget has been widely condemned and raises significant questions about what exactly the priorities of the coalition really are. Cancer patients, advocacy groups and medical experts have questioned why National would make such a promise, only to push out the plan, having a massive impact on cancer patients.
The Prime Minister and finance minister have subsequently changed their language on the issue from “hopefully in future Budgets” to “by the end of the year”. This policy was one that should have been a win-win, from both a health-of-the-people, and a political perspective.
It was an odd election promise to make in the first place as it comes up against the existing mechanisms in place, but the bigger issue is the failure to deliver on it.
On top this, there was also a reduction in the number of new medical student places to be funded. National had promised an additional 50 places spread across the universities or Auckland and Otago, as well as progressing a third medical school at Waikato University. The Waikato school now looks to be off the table, while the 50 additional medical school places were reduced to 25.
The problem with campaign promises
The issues around health promises made on the campaign trail followed by the realities of government raise a range of questions around what parties (across the board) should be allowed to promise in the lead-up to elections.
There are a few options that could help change this.
One is an independent policy costing unit. This is not a new idea and has been proposed by international bodies and political parties over the years – Labour actually advanced work in this space before adding it to their pile of unfulfilled ideas. This has associated costs, and questions around what makes it independent, but is something worth much deeper exploration.
A major criticism of recent political campaigns and some of the promises made (across the spectrum) is that the inaccuracies made in costing and planning have major flow-on effects for costs when they come to be implemented.
The OECD recently made such a case regarding policy proposals in New Zealand’s 2023 election and noted an ‘Independent Fiscal Institution’ (policy costing office) would help aid the democratic process by “switching the debate from the veracity of the costings … to the merits of the policy itself”.
The other area for change is for politicians and political parties to take a more sincere approach to how they campaign. This is about being more honest about what they can achieve, and more realistic about what they can promise.
This is always a difficult spot for political parties – their currency is votes and to win votes they need to put something on the table to entice voters. Being positively future-focused and realistic can be difficult.
In simple terms, political parties need to stop making promises that don’t have clear costing and implementation in place.
Ultimately, we need a political establishment willing to change focus from short-sighted policy-making that reinforces its own position, to a longer-term intergenerational approach to the way policy and Budgets are developed.
What is required is for politicians to move from being reactionary and populist in their approach to policy, and instead be leaders. Politics should be about vision and reform, and politicians should be leading with ideas and how they would implement such ideas. I have far more respect for politicians and parties I disagree with but have a clear and coherent policy platform based on a clear set of values, than those who build their policy in a reactive and jumbled way.
Given the current state of politics, I understand the hope that politicians will lead rather than react is idealistic, so until we reach a point of maturity where this is achievable, I’ll settle for politicians and political parties being more responsible and realistic in what they promise.