Where Is National’s “Personal Responsibility”?

The Herald on Sunday makes a good point on National’s opposition to the Public Health Bill currently progressing through the House. In its editorial, the paper states:

“Tony Ryall proved up to the task of concocting the obvious soundbite when he said this was “Helen Clark getting into your pantry”. It plugged neatly into a widespread public perception of this administration as too ready to interfere in private lives, but it quite avoids the issue.”

It is certainly saddening when opposition to what is a pressing health concern is reduced to unintelligent catch phrases, instead of the in-depth discussion and critique that such an issue demands. National’s framing of its opposition to the Bill as a matter of “personal responsibility” cuts straight to its core belief that a little “responsibility” on the part of the individual will solve all of society’s ills. But, as The Herald indicates, this quite avoids the wider issues at stake, including the responsibility that business must carry if a genuine attempt to fix the obesity problem is to be mounted.

National’s “Bluelibs” policy advisory group have also picked up the “personal responsibility” line in their statement on the Bill, which said:  

“The basic message is that it’s not your fault that you’re sick or soon going to be; rather it’s the fault of the fast food chains and liquor companies.“

This kind of thinking just defies all logic and commonsense. It suggests that any onus for responsibility rests solely on the individual, while fast food chains are completely blameless. As a qualified nutritionist, I know only too well that the reality, however, is quite the opposite. There is certainly much more to obesity than simple “personal choice”. Genetics, socio-economic status, food costs, and the way foods are marketed and advertised all play a part in the obesity epidemic. Any approach to tackling obesity must target all of these factors if it is to be successful.

In all of this “personal responsibility” rhetoric, National seem to be saying that advertising and marketing has no effect on the choices one makes; this despite a whole field in academia dedicated to studying purchasing trends and developing ways to increase sales through advertising. The fact that Coca-Cola alone spends in excess of $4,000,000,000 annually in advertising its products adds huge weight to the argument that advertising works.

But advertising and marketing in itself is not the problem, rather the socially irresponsible way in which it is carried out. It is no coincidence that New Zealand’s most deprived and most vulnerable are often targeted by this advertising, and it is certainly no coincidence that the deprived feature more prominently in all negative health indicators. Why is it then that there are liquor and fast food outlets on what seems like every corner in South Auckland, yet scarcely any in New Zealand’s wealthier suburbs? And why does the Right persist in deriding these areas and their residents for their lack of “responsibility”, yet continue to totally oppose any attempt to hold business accountable for their socially irresponsible practices? If the Right’s idea of “responsibility” does not extend to all facets of society, including business, then New Zealand should be very concerned.

It is high time business was held accountable for their role in the obesity epidemic, and Labour should be applauded for taking such a stand. It is very hard to see how National’s approach of placing all onus of responsibility on the individual would make any difference in New Zealand’s obesity statistics when business is free to continue targeting its products in such an irresponsible way. How can we, in all fairness, expect people to make the more “responsible” choice when we allow that choice to be one of the hardest to make? More importantly, how can we, as “responsible” adults, expect our children to know what the more “responsible” choice is when we continue to send them mixed-messages through food advertising and marketing?

 

Powered by Qumana

Bishop John (Tama)Key?

As John Key’s chief press officer is away on holiday at present, you could be forgiven for thinking that Key had employed the services of Brian Tamaki in the drafting of his speech on state sector bureaucracy this afternoon. Indeed, if anything, Key’s declaration of “enough is enough” smacked of the vague, knee jerk babble of Destiny party policy. But sadly, it was the words of a man who hopes to be New Zealand’s next Prime Minister.

Key’s announcement was both confusing and lacking in substance. He first chastised Labour for the number of employees working in the state sector’s “core bureaucracy”, then in almost the same breath effectively endorsed Labour’s policy by stating employee numbers would be capped, not reduced. As is becoming customary, Key provided no substantial plans for improving state sector performance, but did say:

“We are going to make do with the resource we have”

If Key’s vision for New Zealand’s state sector is to simply “make do”, then he is hardly the ambitious leader full of ideas he makes himself out to be.

National’s hypocrisy aside, the actual growth in the state sector needs to be considered in light of the major advancement in New Zealand’s public services since Labour came into office. Indeed, public services were in a particularly poor state during the 90s, and this has required a lot of work by Labour to restore them to a standard that New Zealanders both deserve and expect. Consequently, this work has required a lot of careful planning and management, which goes a long way to explaining state sector growth.

All three areas outlined in Key’s announcement, health, education and social development, have been undergoing particularly large transformations over the past eight years. It’s both sensible and logical that whenever such transformations are undertaken, there should first be careful planning of how this is to occur, and then support and supervision during implementation. This is the role that so-called “core bureaucrats” play, and despite National’s view, it is a very important one. It is quite ironic that National is the first to cry out for accountability whenever something goes wrong, and yet they are trying to remove the very checks and balances which prevent such problems arising.

Let’s take a look at some of the major drivers in state sector employment in the three areas outlined.

Education:

• Development and implementation of NCEA
• Introduction of free early childhood education services
• Overhaul of New Zealand’s education syllabus
• Development of modern apprenticeships
• Establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission
• Introduction of the Performance Based Research funding model

Health:

• Largest upgrade of public hospitals in New Zealand’s history
• Introduction of Primary Health Organizations
• Development of New Zealand’s Cancer Control Strategy
• Heavy investment in improving rural access to healthcare services
• Development and implementation of a number of public health strategies, including HEHA and Mission On
• Re-establishment of the school dental service

Social Development:

• Development and implementation of Working for Families

It is not surprising that massive investment in these three sectors has reaped great rewards. As well as having some of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western world, New Zealanders are healthier and wealthier than they were under the last National government.Those rewards have not only come because of the excellent frontline services provided by our doctors, teachers, and allied professionals, but also because of the diligent planning, development and support of those working behind the scenes. These so-called “bureaucrats” often work without acknowledgement and, as shown today, whilst being harshly criticised.

 

Powered by Qumana