NZ 'credibility gap'

by Graeme Pirie

The Public furore over Sir Edmund Hillary's recent speech on political morality has highlighted a growing problem in the politics and public administration of this country.

Although Sir Edmund's speech as reported seems to imply a misunderstanding of the essential nature of politics as the negotiation and bargaining of proposals by conflicting interests—an activity not compatible with some conventional notions of morality—the widespread excitement created by the statement seems to reflect a growing awareness that not all is satisfactory in the conduct of public affairs.

The "Sunday Times." in an editorial some time ago, warned in good American Johnsonese of a growing "credibility gap" between our politicians, the administrators, and the people.

Protest movements, demonstrations, and other forms of political dissent, suggest that the present generation of New Zealanders are even less disposed than their predecessors to accept unquestioningly the utterances of their rulers, even though clothed in the metaphysical and sacrosanct aura of such symbolism as "Her Majesty's Government": particularly when the person whose presence presumably sanctifies the institution is neither a resident nor a citizen of this country.

In the absence of metaphysical or regal notions of authority as an acceptable legitimation of government activity and decision, it may be wise to examine more acceptable procedures for gaining popular support of governmental decisions.

Should the tendency to cynicism and distrust of government and the conduct of public affairs increase, we may well be in for an era of increasing civil disobedience.

Carl Friedrich in a discussion of the problem of authority in a world where all traditional values are questioned, asserts that authority is only accepted when communications have a "potentiality of reasoned elaboration in terms of shared values or beliefs; or 'knowledge' or information which is available to all." If access to this information is denied the public have no way of establishing whether the reasons they are given are adequate, or the decisions are "authoritative" for them.

The proceedings of Parliament are publicised in New Zealand. Competing parties have developed, offering electors alternative policies and courses of action from which to choose. This provides a choice which theoretically is based on the knowledge of issues through observation of their public debate in Parliament—information to which all who are interested have access.

So long as issues are reasonably simple this system works but the activities of government have become much more widespread and complicated in the economic and social regulation of the modern Welfare State.

Austin Mitchell has recently pointed out that, "Although the basic outline of our system is one of government by party, its real essence has become one of government by competition between interest groups—legislation formed in consultation with the groups becomes a structure of compromises, difficult if not impossible for the House to alter. The information gap increases—because the real decisions are taken as the result of confidential negotiations which Parliament can neither publicise nor analyse."

Political Science honours student, Graeme Pirie, examines the relationship between administrators, politicians and the public in New Zealand.

He suggests information on which decisions are based should be more freely available and not shrouded in secrecy.

"We must be prepared to change, and change drastically," he says.

The role of the Administration has changed from that of simply carrying out the decisions of the Cabinet after discussion in the House, to that of interpreting the conflicting requirements of various laws and policies, conducting negotiations with the groups and assembling information for the Ministers. Yet all this is carried on behind the cloak of administrative secrecy.

How does the Opposition in Parliament obtain access to the information on which Government policy is based, in order to carry out its function of criticism, review, and the discussion of issues for the illumination of the watching public?

Austin Mitchell's answer is to establish research staff for Members, to enable them to carry out their inquiries and cross-examinations of Ministers with a greater backing of information. But if the public faith in the integrity of the system has already been undermined it may require more than the reequipped MPs to restore public confidence.

How for instance does the public know that the information it is fed is accurate or the complete story as far as is known at the time? And how do new groups find or gain access to the decisionmaking centres of the politico administrative system?

We may have to reexamine the whole institution of administrative secrecy.

The idea of the conduct of public business in administrative agencies under the watchful eye of the public is foreign to our understanding of the workings of the Cabinet in our Parliamentary system. Cabinet has inherited the English tradition of administrative secrecy, and it is widely assumed that violation of this secrecy would sabotage the doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility, by which our administrators are presumed to be held responsible to their Minister, Cabinet, Parliament, and ultimately to the people.

Yet, if the prestige and effectiveness of Parliament has declined as has been suggested, some other system or at least a modification of the present one may be necessary. Is Ministerial Responsibility a sacrosanct dogma? Might not other forms of responsibility be as effective or even more so?

In a semideveloped country such as ours, with its confusing array of economic and social problems, can we any longer rely on the traditional wisdom of a reasonably stable country such as Britain, valuable as her legacy may have been in the past?

We must be prepared to change, and change drastically as the need arises. We need to draw on all the innovative and creative ideas we can muster if we are to keep afloat in the modem world. If the public is alienated from the political system, will we be able to develop the cooperation on which further national progress must depend?

Already we have the Ombudsman, taken over from a non - British parliamentary system. Proposals have been made for Administrative courts based on the American model. Without suggesting that we should become a race of compulsive copycats, we can learn much from the institutions developed in other countries and improve our own particular hybrid system.

Sweden for 200 years has maintained a Parliamentary form of government, but its administrative decision making is carried on in a climate of "open access." New Zealanders and others with parliamentary systems derived from the British model, accustomed to the concept of Government from a mystical height of secrecy and inaccessibility, will be amazed to learn that the conduct of public business in Sweden is very different, in an interesting article in the International Review of Administrative Sciences (1966 No. 2.) D. C. Rowat has described the system . . .

"Whereas in most countries all documents are secret unless a specific authority is given for their release, in Sweden all documents are public unless specific legal provision has been made for them to be withheld ... A citizen can demand to see the minutes of Parliamentary Committees . . . and in the great offices of Stockholm the documents and decisions of the day are brought into a room where the representatives of the media may see them . . . This is a daily routine."

In New Zealand few members of the public even know when Parliamentary Committees are sitting, and even if admitted they are only the guests of the Committee and may be removed at the discretion of any of the members.

How often do we hear the complaint that the daily press is ineffective and superficial in providing informed interpretation and comment on the events of the day? But is this the fault of the press? Do the Media have access to the information?

In a country where a substantial portion of the workforce are public servants sworn to secrecy, it is surprising that they get information at all. The press has to rely largely on "leaks," rumours, and unquotable "informed sources"—or on the official prepared handouts of administrative spokesmen, which are designed to promote a favourable impression of their activities.

How often are rumours dismissed as "malicious, bunkum, or poppycock" by our leaders. Yet how much more effective it would be to say "these are the facts on which the decision was made," refer to sources, and suggest that critics consult them and suggest a better way of conducting affairs. Rumour thrives on public ignorance and where information can only be obtained in an underhand fashion rumour has to fill the gap.

Nor does this mean that everything has to be public. Obviously there are such things as business contracts which in the negotiating stages must be protected, there are the personal affairs of private citizens in contact with the welfare agencies, and there are reasons of national defence which must and should be protected by secrecy. But does secrecy need to be carried to the extreme that it is?

A reemphasis invoking secrecy only for specific reasons, rather than the abstract reasons of State which cover all cases, would clarify the distinction between the "necessity for secrecy" and the "habit of secrecy. And if the public felt that they were at liberty to see for themselves why their leaders made certain decisions they would feel less like overprotected children and more like adult citizens.

Of course, there would still be differences of opinion, but at least we would be able to see why. It is most important in a democracy that "justice should not only be done but also appear to be done."

It is too much to ask a sophisticated nation to accept as an act of faith the credo of its leaders. Statements require reasons if they are to be understood and appreciated. Access to information, discussion, and the consequent awareness of the problems involved in political decisions would go a long way to reestablishing public confidence.