Humankind comes with many different characteristics, and it is sometimes informative to consider how those can be categorised.  Some people, for example, will be extroverts, others introverts, some romantics and others realists, some optimists, others pessimists.

I have devised a test that I think can be used to make another – and, I think, important –distinction.  Imagine you and your friends or family are on a car journey, and have just eaten a take-away meal as you travel.  What do you do with the wrappings?  Do you take them home with you or do you throw them out of the window?

If the latter, I maintain that you fall into the category of the socially unaware and irresponsible – that is, those who think only of their own immediate interests and care little, or not at all, for the interests of others or for the standards of the society in which they live.

Mrs Thatcher, of course, famously (or notoriously) maintained that “there is no such thing as society”, thereby aligning herself, no doubt unwittingly, with the litterers.  The Thatcherite doctrine was, presumably, that we are all individuals, pursuing our own interests, and that concerning ourselves with “society” is a waste of time.

But most of us know better, and understand that if we recognise the rights and interests of others as well as our own, we will find that the society in which, like it or not, we all live will be more integrated, stronger and happier and that, as a result, our individual lives will also be better and happier, not least because it will be more likely that we will find support from our fellow-citizens when we need it and will need to deal less often with the destructive actions of the anti-social.

Thankfully, in New Zealand, judging by the fairly litter-free state of our roadsides compared with those in other countries, we are a fairly responsible lot – and that is what our own history and culture would lead us to expect.  But a visit to any site where travellers habitually stop and spend any time will reveal that we also have our share of the socially irresponsible.

These thoughts have been prompted by the recent reports of literally anti-social behaviour by young people in Kaikohe, acting in gangs to rob stores and break into petrol stations.   It is quite understandable that local citizens are outraged and alarmed at such a blatant disregard for the expected norms and standards, and many have described the perpetrators as acting outside of society, or perhaps as living in a social milieu which simply does not recognise those normal standards.

Perhaps it is time to reflect that our membership as individuals of something called society is based on an unstated bargain – that we owe a duty to society and its members because society looks out for us.

That bargain breaks down if society makes it clear that it accepts no responsibility to some of its members.  If society takes the view, expressed through the institutions it chooses to represent it, that some of its members are “on their own”, and do not merit society’s care and support, then we cannot be surprised if those people decide to act without regard to society’s interests and standards.

So, if young people find that society takes no action to ensure that they are well-educated, healthy, and well-housed, and that they have good prospects of a productive life in a properly paid job, anti-social behaviour may seem like a rational and morally justified response.

And if the rejoinder is made that these desirable outcomes are earned only by the individual effort of those concerned, then this disclaimer simply confirms the perception that society gives no value to these young people and is not willing to make the effort to help them – and it overlooks the extent to which society decides how the cards are dealt and how far individual achievement – even for the privileged – depends on societal support.

The problem is compounded when a generation that itself feels undervalued then reaches child-bearing age and brings up a new generation whose parental guidance is to the effect that their children owe nothing to anyone and can therefore operate outside normal society.

We reap, in other words, what we sow.  Yes, society does matter.  It matters whether rubbish is thrown out on to the road.  It matters whether society recognises its responsibilities to all its citizens.  It matters whether or not all our fellow-citizens have a stake in what we build together.  It matters, whether they know it or not, to the young people of Kaikohe.

Bryan Gould

23 March 2017

The report released last week showing that more than half a million New Zealanders cannot afford to see their GPs, and that the underfunding of the doctors themselves threatens a shortfall in the numbers of GPs we need, will have alarmed many – and not just those unfortunate families who are denied adequate primary health care.

It will come as a shock to many Kiwis, accustomed as we are to leading the world in so many measurements of social provision, to learn that the primary health care we provide is among the worst in the developed world and that the major reason for that is inadequate funding.

The report is in stark contrast to the government’s claims that the health care available to Kiwis is up to top international standards.  How to explain this disparity between claim and reality?

The answer is that the government chooses to measure things that tell a comparatively good story and to ignore other elements of health care that do not appear in such a good light.

The consequence is that the government focuses on hospital, or secondary care, where operations in the operating theatre can be easily counted, and a successful, or any, operation will earn immediate brownie points.  What the government fails to recognise, however, is that most cases requiring surgery will arise because of an earlier failure to detect or treat – and detecting and treating at an early stage is the domain of primary care.

If we can get primary care right, then the number of operations will decline, and everyone can congratulate themselves.  The need for a high number of surgical interventions and hospital treatments, on this reasoning, is not so much a matter for congratulation as evidence of a failure of primary care, and that is why the report on the deficiencies of primary care is so worrying.

What matters, in other words, in a properly functioning health care system, is that we understand the processes that lead to serious ill-health and that we intervene early enough to prevent those processes from reaching their later and more serious stages.  Saving money at the primary care stage is always going to be a false economy.

We know, for example, that poor diet is likely to lead to obesity and diabetes, that damp housing conditions will lead to asthma and even more seriously to strep throat, rheumatic fever and heart disease, that smoking will cause lung cancer, strokes and heart attacks, that skin lesions and sunburns can lead to melanomas.  We will have a better chance of dealing with all of these serious conditions if we get to them soon enough.

We need to take an overall view of health issues, focusing not just on the operating table but recognising that other agencies – in housing, social services and education, for example, are also involved, and that the first port of call, the family doctor, is the most important.

We are already doing pretty well with some of these issues.  The anti-smoking campaign, for example, the immunisation of new-borns and tiny tots, the screening for heart disease, mammograms to detect breast cancer, are all instances of how we can intervene early and prevent later health troubles.

But we can and should do more, in the knowledge that every dollar spent early can save hundreds of dollars later and, more importantly, can save lives and prevent suffering.  That is why we should all be concerned if the essential service provided by our family doctors is either not available because it is non-existent, or is out of reach because it is too expensive.

And we need to be aware of those important health issues that are not susceptible to cure by surgery – such as mental and sexual health problems, and drug addiction, all of which can destroy lives and tear families apart.  Again, it is the family doctor who is the gatekeeper to the treatment that is essential to deal with these problems.

It is time for the government to re-think and re-focus its efforts – not to scale down the help available in our hospitals but to reduce the demands made on it.  New Zealand should not be languishing in an area where we have traditionally done so well, and where we can and must do again.

Bryan Gould

5 March 2017

Bill English has made a sound start as Prime Minister.  He seems to be down-to-earth, and a straight-talker – a welcome change from his predecessor.  But, at the same time, he seems to be prone to making statements based on prejudice and anecdote; we have a right to expect better.

He was quick, for example, to rely on allegations apparently made informally to him by employers about their problems in employing young Kiwis on account of their supposed drug use; he preferred this prejudicial evidence rather than look to his own official statistics which tell a very different story.

His preference seems have been to explain away youth unemployment and to make the case for immigration, even at the expense of slandering a whole generation of young Kiwis, rather than to accept that immigrant labour is popular with employers because it is often cheaper as well as plentiful.

He was at it again when trying to explain away the housing crisis and the rising cost and unaffordability of housing.   The problem, according to the Prime Minister, is apparently due to the supposed fact that we have been “too keen on the environment.”

It would of course be nice if that were true – that we, and especially the government, had indeed been a little keener on the environment; think clean water and swimmable rivers.  His attempted explanation, however, seems to blame rising house prices on local authorities’ wish, quite reasonably, to avoid a free-for-all that creates a bonanza for property developers, but also an unlimited urban sprawl and attendant infrastructure problems.

Saddling local authorities with the blame may be politically convenient, but it is well wide of the mark as an explanation of why the cost of housing has risen so far and so fast.   An accurate answer to that question is, of course, of special importance to the Bay of Plenty, and Tauranga in particular, in view of the surge in property prices that has recently occurred here.

We get closer to the true explanation when we consider the recent report that shows that 40% of house purchases in Tauranga are now made by people who already own their own homes – in other words, who are making a speculative investment.  They enter the property market, not in order to find somewhere to live, but to make a quick speculative profit.

The problem is, in other words, at least as much one of excessive demand as of limited supply – a level of demand inflated by the speculative quest for profit opportunities so that the market is distorted.  And remember that demand is not just a matter of the number of prospective purchasers, but of their purchasing power as well – of how much money they are able to bring to the market.

It is at this point that the role of the banks becomes critical.  It is the banks’ willingness to lend virtually without limit that allows the speculators to bring large sums of money to the market so as to outbid the home-seekers.  The speculators will be happy to bid up prices in the certain knowledge that, for as long as the banks will continue to lend, the value of their “investments” will continue to rise.

This truth has been at least partially recognised by the Governor of the Reserve Bank.  Graeme Wheeler’s loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios have already had some effect in cooling the housing market by restraining bank lending.  But he has more to do – and he needs government support to do it.  Prices will not stabilise for as long as the banks can make easy profits from the virtually risk-free and unlimited lending of money which they themselves create.

The banks are of course a less tempting and easy target for the politicians, including the Prime Minister, than are local authorities.  It will require real political courage to take on the banks – but it must be done.

We must hope that our new Prime Minister will not just take refuge in politically convenient “explanations” but, rather, face up to facts and to the need for the strong action that must be taken.  Our young job-seekers, and our young home-seekers, have a right to expect that their interests will be top of the government’s agenda.

Bryan Gould

3 March 2017

I had the privilege of serving for a number of years on the board of TVNZ.  The company had a dual mandate over that period – first, as a state-owned enterprise, it had to turn a profit by competing with commercial rivals and selling advertising time, so as to pay an annual dividend of at least 9% to the government.  But, at the same time, TVNZ was governed by a charter drawn up by the Labour government in 2003.

The charter meant that, while TVNZ would be called to account if it failed to produce a big enough dividend, it was also required to operate more or less as a public service broadcaster, a kind of south-seas BBC.  The requirements included, amongst other things, recognising New Zealand’s cultural diversity, promoting New Zealand-made content, and providing “independent, comprehensive, impartial, and in-depth coverage and analysis of news and current affairs”.

Successive chief executives found this dual mandate somewhat confusing, but they recognised the importance of the charter’s requirements; and, in strictly commercial terms, of course, the public service role had the advantage of providing TVNZ with a Unique Selling Point.

The board was always alert to ensure that we did not lose sight of our charter obligations – and I recall Rick Ellis, our very able and commercially-minded chief executive, assuring us that “the charter is in our DNA.”

But the charter did not long survive a change of government.  The new National government quickly signalled its intention to consign the charter to the junk heap, on the grounds that it diverted TVNZ from its main function of maximising a dividend that helped the government to shore up its own finances.  The charter was duly scrapped in 2011.

That has left Radio New Zealand as the sole standard-bearer of “public service broadcasting”.  But even that role is now threatened.

Government ministers have made clear their belief that broadcasting should operate on a commercial basis.  They see Radio New Zealand’s own charter as an irksome distraction and they resent the money paid to keep the broadcaster in operation.

So, the funding needed to keep Radio New Zealand afloat has been frozen since 2009, and will not increase in any foreseeable future.  As costs inevitably rise, this means, in effect, death by a thousand cuts.  RNZ is struggling to maintain its role as the sole remaining guarantor of New Zealanders’ access on the airwaves to impartial news and commentary.

The stakes for all of us are high.  The value of a public service broadcaster is not just as a source of calm and authoritative information at times of national emergency, like the Kaikoura earthquake, important though that is.  It lies in what it offers to those who prefer their news reporting not to be influenced by individual or commercial biases; and it also helps to ensure that those beholden to other interests and influences are kept honest.

It is also a question of standards in a wider sense.  Radio New Zealand remains an indispensable provider of high-quality broadcasting, not just in the field of news reporting and in holding to account those who make decisions affecting all of us, but in keeping us informed about world affairs, and the latest developments in music, the arts, science, sport and business.

If Radio New Zealand is no longer able fully to discharge these functions, it is not just a question of what we lose, but of what we are then compelled to rely on.  Those who care little for impartiality and high standards, or who look mainly to be entertained, will happily look elsewhere – to commercial providers or even the social media.  But those who value what Radio NZ offers will be bereft – and will be less than impressed by the limited choices then available.

Like many others, I would prefer not to have the news and current affairs interpreted for me by a Paul Henry or a Mike Hosking.  The news should not be a vehicle for self-promotion or for the presenter’s own prejudices.  Democracy itself is threatened if we are not fully and fairly informed.  Long may Radio New Zealand thrive and continue its essential role – and, hooray, Morning Report is back this week! – but it will do so only if we stand up and defend it.

Bryan Gould

21 January 2017

So-called “casual racism” hit the headlines recently, following the publicity attending the Mad Butcher’s reported remarks to fellow-visitors to Waiheke.  As Dame Susan Devoy, our Race Relations Commissioner, pointed out concerning that incident, racism may not seem “casual” to those who are its target.

“Casual” racism may in some senses actually be even more damaging and more of a danger signal than when it is more deliberate and overt.  Racism, when unmistakeable, is more easily recognised and therefore countered or opposed.  But when it is “casual” and therefore unthinking, and reveals sentiments that are scarcely formulated but which simply rise unbidden to the surface, it is more likely to stay beneath the radar and to have a better chance of being regarded as acceptable and part of the everyday discourse.

The debate about “casual racism” is closely related to the issue of “political correctness”.  Just as the word “casual” is meant to deflect criticism of, and to diminish the significance of, unacceptable behaviour, so too is the oft-repeated claim that protests about such behaviour are examples of “political correctness gone mad”.

This defence has been deployed so often by those who seek to brush aside criticism of offensive words and actions that “PC” has become a veritable term of abuse.  This practice became so much a government-endorsed attitude that the portfolio of Wayne Mapp, a government minister, no less, was extended in 2005 to cover the “monitoring of political correctness issues”, as though it were a contagious disease.

We should not be so easily taken in.  “Political correctness” is a term devised by those who are careless about exacerbating divisions in our society and who seek to avoid justified disapproval for doing so.

No one suggests that offensive views should be censored, but those expressing them should expect to be criticised or at least scrutinised if they do so.  They should not expect to shelter behind a mindless epithet and to get away with the suggestion that any criticism is politically motivated.

Indeed, the “correctness” that is referred to would be better captured by the word “acceptability” – and it is hard to see how the word “political” got into the picture, other than for its derogatory connotations.

The acceptability that is being sought is not “political” but rather social or moral.  It is essentially about how we treat each other.  One would hope that most of us would endorse the notion that we are all better off if we treat each other with thoughtfulness, understanding and, above all, kindness.

Most of us will naturally display such attitudes in our dealings with our fellow-citizens –especially those whom we come across individually in our day-to-day lives.  Life would be a miserable business if we were constantly creating conflict and tensions.  Most of us would not see it as acceptable to offend, casually or otherwise, those we meet or speak to or about, or to treat them so as to denigrate or insult them or make them uncomfortable or unhappy.

Why, then, do we think it is acceptable for people who are given the privilege of airing their views in public – and often on television – to abandon those normal standards of behaviour and to insult and offend – sometimes just as a form of entertainment – those whose offence is merely that they are different in some respect or another?

Next time you hear someone accused of “political correctness” because they object to such behaviour, pause for a moment, reflect and ask yourself – is it really so wrong to expect, indeed demand, that those in public life, in politics or the media especially, should demonstrate the same care, tolerance and goodwill that we, hopefully, take for granted in our own person-to-person interactions?

“Political correctness”, in other words, is a misnomer that denotes no more than the proper standards of behaviour writ large – projected on to the social scale affecting all of us rather than just the individual scale.  We should demand no less from those who claim to speak on our behalf than that they should meet the standards we choose to set for ourselves – that we should speak to each other courteously and kindly.

Bryan Gould

15 January 2017