A timely commentary and analysis Bryce, but you have not extended your analysis to include the elephant in the room. I'm 77, female and wealthy by most standards and would actually have no objection to, for instance, a CGT. I have Maori ancestry and know my whakapapa and am well aware of past grievances as my family suffered loss of land. But I am disgusted by the antics of the TPM and the slavish adherence by Pakeha academics and public servants to the Critical Theory diktats of brown good, white bad. In my opinion this insidious creep in all our institutions -law, education, policing, health, the media - has done more to foster distrust and division than anything the "elites" are or are not doing. And almost the only way to begin to counter this distrust is for the mainstream media, print and digital, to realise that their sustained bias on all fronts, is coming home to roost as they lose readership, and pull finger and return to balanced reporting rather than the opinion pieces masquerading as fact and ad hominem attacks on anyone with contrarian views.
An excellent article - as ever - but I wonder if enough weight has been given in NZ to another set of issues driving loss of trust and confidence in New Zealand media and institutions.
I'd suggest that a disucssion of "elites" in New Zealand is less about business and billionaries, but about something else. Most businesses in NZ are small to medium businesses - and many are self employed - are we really raging against them? Yes, there are some monopolies doing well in NZ, but they are a creature of poor (even if well-meaning) regulation (the Reserve Bank in the case of retail banks) and/or by regulatory agencies lacking the courage to do the right thing (the Commerce Commission in the case of supermarkets and the electricity sector). I'm not sure that big business bribery and corruption is at the heart of these issues in NZ.
I wonder if the "elites" that we need to talk about more are the "lanyard classes" - bureaucrats, academics, media and some politicians - where there is an increasing discomfort that they are pursing their own agendas even when they are ostensibly serving the public. In many cases, it seems that there are pushing ahead with their own agendas and interests, oblivious to the concerns and doubts of "ordinary" New Zealanders. There seems to be no vehicle for ordinary New Zealander to be able to express that disquiet without risking a derisory label. Some examples. (1) There was a huge loss of trust and confidence in the Covid response when otherwise law abiding people lost their jobs because they exercised their Bill of Rights entitlement to decline a Covid vaccine. I'm no anti-vaxxer - but this was a huge overerach of the state that severely damaged people's trust in Government and supporting institutions. (2) The previous Government's co-governance policy was poorly explained and justified - to some it looked like Treaty=partnership=50% of voting rights in public institutions when many New Zealanders think of the control of public entities should be more broadly based and reflect a one-person, one-vote framework. (3) The previous Government talked about bringing a "new form of democracy" into NZ - around co-governance - without thinking they needed to explain it, or bring the public along with it. (4) voting rights in local government council committees are being given to people who have not even stood for office, or received a mandate through a public vote. (5) many public consultations (for example, by my local authority) are undertaken when it is clear that a decision has already been taken, and the public voice will matter for nothing.
All of these trends appear supported, and encouraged, by the lanyard classes. Critical thought and contra-comment are risky - eg: the concerns expressed, and the carreer risks anticipated, by some academics if they dare not toe to the new mantras on sensitive topics. Local and central government bureaucracies appear complicit, as does the media.
This is not a contadict the points made by Bryce about income inequality and people worried about their life chances. They are real for many, and will be a good part of the story. But it is not the whole story, and a turn-around in trust and confidence will not happen if reform is not made to core institutions.
Sincere thanks, Bryce, this is compelling reading and very timely.
Barometers tell you about the weather; Edelman has been a reliable one for at least 20 years, and this insight about NZ's 'crisis of trust' is spot on. And, as you also imply, if there were a high level of trust reported right now, we might be far more worried.
Democracy here has become so dysfunctional that I think we need an orchestrated Movement for Democratic Change (sic). The news yesterday that many of the hard-worked submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill appear to be destined for the bin leaves me feeling helpless, as does the news of the carbon credit deal with Rio Tinto - - but these are no more than the tip of an iceberg, and as someone smart said, there's no point going around chopping the tips off icebergs. We need to focus more deeply.
The notion of grievance politics is a double-edged sword for sure - - recalling that ‘ain’t they awful’ is one of the classic scripts of the victim or the helpless child. Yet injustice is real, and to take action against it is I think an accountability that the notion of ‘citizenship’ requires.
I printed this off to read: the margins are now full of my scrawls, and indeed, so much here points to the seeming relegation of New Zealanders to the margins. Decisions are being made daily by government, yet in reality, who is deciding? Each decision I see appears to enable deregulation or privatisation, both of which put my wellbeing at risk. Yes, lobbying influence is well out of control, yes we have lost personal agency, and concerns about real corruption are very real.
Considering trust, and its two key constituents, transparency and accountability: right now, we dearly need both. Trust: it’s interesting to ask, ‘Trust to . . . what?’ Trust you with my car keys? Trust you not to harm me? Trust you to be competent?’ Above all of these I feel a sense that we trust those who have a moral compass. We trust genuineness; we trust integrity, trust those whose words are not crafted out of a hidden agenda, folks who stick to the genuine meaning of words - not double-speak - where words such as freedom or equality do not mean indulgence for the ‘haves’ and inequity for the rest.
(I am interested that commenters do not trust Te Pati Maori. Funnily, I don’t know anyone who does not, but then one must ask, ‘Trust to . . . what?’ I wouldn’t trust them to always be moderate!)
Media: let’s call this 'information' - the way that people understand their world. Yes it’s vital that citizens are vigilant, scrutinise sources, identify the ‘spin’; favour alternative journos. Yet only a certain proportion of any community is equipped to do this. It is not snobbery to say that critical thinking skills are not evenly distributed: psychometrics databases show huge variances across populations. And why should we not believe what we read or see on the 6.00 news? Only renegades question what nobody else around them doubts.
I wonder how a street poll would report the answers to questions such as: Do you believe that NZ cannot fully fund a welfare state because of Labour’s disastrous economic management? Do you believe that Maori enjoy unfair advantages and that we need to level the playing field? Do you believe that a capital gains tax would impoverish those who create the wealth that enriches us all? Do you believe that as a naïve, tiny player, we need to persuade big multinationals to rescue us, by packaging enough benefits to satisfy them?
What arises for me is that change management needs strategy. Analysis of where we are; understanding of the key attributes of where we need to be; evaluation of the systems – the ‘infrastructure’ – that need to transform; a tally of the assets and resources that we have among us to carry things forward; awareness of the risks and threats; a genuine movement to make it happen. I think this is beyond any single platform. It needs us all.
The problem of distrust has been well canvassed in Bryce's article but are the suggested solutions adequate to recreate trust in the political and business systems?
Simply saying that politicians and business people should become more trustworthy will not cut the mustard. Of course they should, but they are not doing that. They are heading in the opposite direction at a rate of knots.
So what should we do and what should the rest of the western world do? We should put in place structural reforms which address the failings of the present system. In politics, the open ballot, continuous election, and voter defined constituencies would cut to the heart of the causes of distrust. Of course the politicians won't want to go down that route because while they would like to be trusted, the last thing they want is a system which would compel them to be honest.
In business, we have to get rid of the monopolies to allow genuine competition wherever that is possible, and nationalize those industries in which genuine competition is not possible.
A very good start Bryce. Keep it up. The debate for change must not be led by politicians, or political parties, as they live in eco chambers chatting amongst those who agree with them. I was a Labour member, activist and local body representative for more than 4 decades. When the Party just cocked up, in their last term of government, beyond my tolerance point, I resigned. Any subsequent attempt to engage over policy matters has been dismissed as "he-left-us-and-is-therefore-the-enemy" and my ideas, and those of my extensive networks, are generally treated with indifference. I have friends from a range of political parties who have had the same experiences, so Labour isn't on its own with this behavior. My observation, having left the Party, is that I can see how the distrust of politicians and their institutions is felt by those outside the "in groups". I've joined them myself. I'm now on the outside looking in. The politicians and their Institutions have become tone deaf.
No one I know trusts the press but when trust in the government is discussed, as the government is made up off various parities with various agendas, then trust is broken down into which party can be trusted rather than the "government"
No one I know trusts the Maori party, some trust the Labour party, trust in the Greens seems scarce, National seems trusted more than NZF while the ACT party is trusted for it clear positions and adherence to them.
It is a very subjective topic as distinct from the trust in the press issue for which there is ample hard evidence for its demise
I find the comments about trust in business unusual. There are so many requirements for business to adhere to in H&S, Employment issues, and in commercial law that I find it hard to see why trust in business is lacking. Examples of real world problems experienced under business umbrella would be helpful to understand this issue.
Despite the old addage, the statistics do not lie. In general people do not trust politicians and they do not trust "business". Of course not every politician is distrusted by every citizen, but to provide a list of politicians who you personally happen to trust is not a satisfactory way of responding to the problem articulated by Bryce Edwards.
Neither is it adequate to point to regulatory and legal requirements which suggest to you that business should be trusted, even though it clearly is not.
If you want "examples of real world problems experienced under business umbrella" look no further than the New Zealand electricity industry which has failed to do what an electricity industry should do (produce enough electricity to meet demand at an affordable price) and has instead taken the rent seeker's option of increasing fixed charges by several hundred percent. Or consider the banks which make excessive profits from the suffering of mortgagees, or the supermarkets which abuse their monopoly powers to extract abnormally high rates of profit. Take the real estate industry ... do I need to go on?
If you don't understand why New Zealanders distrust politicians and business then you are probably part of the problem.
It’d be helpful to know how these attitudes were measured. From conversation in my community nobody trusts the media or the Maori Party but I’ve never heard anyone comment about “business” adversely.
This analysis gives me hope of a better future for our little country - providing those concerned by the erosion of democracy and growing inequity make their voices heard.
Good stuff. There's a lot going on here. I'd say housing and food affordability have to be very big factors but other factors that have undermined trust but I don't think are sufficiently recognised is the Covid response. In hindsight it's hard to see it was other than disastrous as much as people like Michael Baker and others argue to the contrary. This event shocked at least 33% of the population at the easy slip into totalitarianism and now lost it'll take a generation to regain trust (if the right thing is done which is to acknowledge it but there is no sign it will be) so in short we are f..... Time to align with BRICS and get closer to China and drop Europe, UK and the USA I say.
We have suffered nothing less than an aggressive foreign corporate take over orchestrated by the senior-most privately owned investment banks of Europe and America using an increasing paced incremental attack plan.
First, encumbering us with more debt than they knew was good for us by not widely known means by which they create money at the time of making loans rather than being dependent upon already existing money deposited with them, then putting you into bankruptcy receivership to drive you into the hands of corporations they also own.
This video details step by step how it has been done here in New Zealand, but more importantly, what other reputable nations have done to free themselves from this scam:
A timely commentary and analysis Bryce, but you have not extended your analysis to include the elephant in the room. I'm 77, female and wealthy by most standards and would actually have no objection to, for instance, a CGT. I have Maori ancestry and know my whakapapa and am well aware of past grievances as my family suffered loss of land. But I am disgusted by the antics of the TPM and the slavish adherence by Pakeha academics and public servants to the Critical Theory diktats of brown good, white bad. In my opinion this insidious creep in all our institutions -law, education, policing, health, the media - has done more to foster distrust and division than anything the "elites" are or are not doing. And almost the only way to begin to counter this distrust is for the mainstream media, print and digital, to realise that their sustained bias on all fronts, is coming home to roost as they lose readership, and pull finger and return to balanced reporting rather than the opinion pieces masquerading as fact and ad hominem attacks on anyone with contrarian views.
An excellent article - as ever - but I wonder if enough weight has been given in NZ to another set of issues driving loss of trust and confidence in New Zealand media and institutions.
I'd suggest that a disucssion of "elites" in New Zealand is less about business and billionaries, but about something else. Most businesses in NZ are small to medium businesses - and many are self employed - are we really raging against them? Yes, there are some monopolies doing well in NZ, but they are a creature of poor (even if well-meaning) regulation (the Reserve Bank in the case of retail banks) and/or by regulatory agencies lacking the courage to do the right thing (the Commerce Commission in the case of supermarkets and the electricity sector). I'm not sure that big business bribery and corruption is at the heart of these issues in NZ.
I wonder if the "elites" that we need to talk about more are the "lanyard classes" - bureaucrats, academics, media and some politicians - where there is an increasing discomfort that they are pursing their own agendas even when they are ostensibly serving the public. In many cases, it seems that there are pushing ahead with their own agendas and interests, oblivious to the concerns and doubts of "ordinary" New Zealanders. There seems to be no vehicle for ordinary New Zealander to be able to express that disquiet without risking a derisory label. Some examples. (1) There was a huge loss of trust and confidence in the Covid response when otherwise law abiding people lost their jobs because they exercised their Bill of Rights entitlement to decline a Covid vaccine. I'm no anti-vaxxer - but this was a huge overerach of the state that severely damaged people's trust in Government and supporting institutions. (2) The previous Government's co-governance policy was poorly explained and justified - to some it looked like Treaty=partnership=50% of voting rights in public institutions when many New Zealanders think of the control of public entities should be more broadly based and reflect a one-person, one-vote framework. (3) The previous Government talked about bringing a "new form of democracy" into NZ - around co-governance - without thinking they needed to explain it, or bring the public along with it. (4) voting rights in local government council committees are being given to people who have not even stood for office, or received a mandate through a public vote. (5) many public consultations (for example, by my local authority) are undertaken when it is clear that a decision has already been taken, and the public voice will matter for nothing.
All of these trends appear supported, and encouraged, by the lanyard classes. Critical thought and contra-comment are risky - eg: the concerns expressed, and the carreer risks anticipated, by some academics if they dare not toe to the new mantras on sensitive topics. Local and central government bureaucracies appear complicit, as does the media.
This is not a contadict the points made by Bryce about income inequality and people worried about their life chances. They are real for many, and will be a good part of the story. But it is not the whole story, and a turn-around in trust and confidence will not happen if reform is not made to core institutions.
Sincere thanks, Bryce, this is compelling reading and very timely.
Barometers tell you about the weather; Edelman has been a reliable one for at least 20 years, and this insight about NZ's 'crisis of trust' is spot on. And, as you also imply, if there were a high level of trust reported right now, we might be far more worried.
Democracy here has become so dysfunctional that I think we need an orchestrated Movement for Democratic Change (sic). The news yesterday that many of the hard-worked submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill appear to be destined for the bin leaves me feeling helpless, as does the news of the carbon credit deal with Rio Tinto - - but these are no more than the tip of an iceberg, and as someone smart said, there's no point going around chopping the tips off icebergs. We need to focus more deeply.
The notion of grievance politics is a double-edged sword for sure - - recalling that ‘ain’t they awful’ is one of the classic scripts of the victim or the helpless child. Yet injustice is real, and to take action against it is I think an accountability that the notion of ‘citizenship’ requires.
I printed this off to read: the margins are now full of my scrawls, and indeed, so much here points to the seeming relegation of New Zealanders to the margins. Decisions are being made daily by government, yet in reality, who is deciding? Each decision I see appears to enable deregulation or privatisation, both of which put my wellbeing at risk. Yes, lobbying influence is well out of control, yes we have lost personal agency, and concerns about real corruption are very real.
Considering trust, and its two key constituents, transparency and accountability: right now, we dearly need both. Trust: it’s interesting to ask, ‘Trust to . . . what?’ Trust you with my car keys? Trust you not to harm me? Trust you to be competent?’ Above all of these I feel a sense that we trust those who have a moral compass. We trust genuineness; we trust integrity, trust those whose words are not crafted out of a hidden agenda, folks who stick to the genuine meaning of words - not double-speak - where words such as freedom or equality do not mean indulgence for the ‘haves’ and inequity for the rest.
(I am interested that commenters do not trust Te Pati Maori. Funnily, I don’t know anyone who does not, but then one must ask, ‘Trust to . . . what?’ I wouldn’t trust them to always be moderate!)
Media: let’s call this 'information' - the way that people understand their world. Yes it’s vital that citizens are vigilant, scrutinise sources, identify the ‘spin’; favour alternative journos. Yet only a certain proportion of any community is equipped to do this. It is not snobbery to say that critical thinking skills are not evenly distributed: psychometrics databases show huge variances across populations. And why should we not believe what we read or see on the 6.00 news? Only renegades question what nobody else around them doubts.
I wonder how a street poll would report the answers to questions such as: Do you believe that NZ cannot fully fund a welfare state because of Labour’s disastrous economic management? Do you believe that Maori enjoy unfair advantages and that we need to level the playing field? Do you believe that a capital gains tax would impoverish those who create the wealth that enriches us all? Do you believe that as a naïve, tiny player, we need to persuade big multinationals to rescue us, by packaging enough benefits to satisfy them?
What arises for me is that change management needs strategy. Analysis of where we are; understanding of the key attributes of where we need to be; evaluation of the systems – the ‘infrastructure’ – that need to transform; a tally of the assets and resources that we have among us to carry things forward; awareness of the risks and threats; a genuine movement to make it happen. I think this is beyond any single platform. It needs us all.
Bowing, and apologies for writing an essay🙂
Susie
The problem of distrust has been well canvassed in Bryce's article but are the suggested solutions adequate to recreate trust in the political and business systems?
Simply saying that politicians and business people should become more trustworthy will not cut the mustard. Of course they should, but they are not doing that. They are heading in the opposite direction at a rate of knots.
So what should we do and what should the rest of the western world do? We should put in place structural reforms which address the failings of the present system. In politics, the open ballot, continuous election, and voter defined constituencies would cut to the heart of the causes of distrust. Of course the politicians won't want to go down that route because while they would like to be trusted, the last thing they want is a system which would compel them to be honest.
In business, we have to get rid of the monopolies to allow genuine competition wherever that is possible, and nationalize those industries in which genuine competition is not possible.
A very good start Bryce. Keep it up. The debate for change must not be led by politicians, or political parties, as they live in eco chambers chatting amongst those who agree with them. I was a Labour member, activist and local body representative for more than 4 decades. When the Party just cocked up, in their last term of government, beyond my tolerance point, I resigned. Any subsequent attempt to engage over policy matters has been dismissed as "he-left-us-and-is-therefore-the-enemy" and my ideas, and those of my extensive networks, are generally treated with indifference. I have friends from a range of political parties who have had the same experiences, so Labour isn't on its own with this behavior. My observation, having left the Party, is that I can see how the distrust of politicians and their institutions is felt by those outside the "in groups". I've joined them myself. I'm now on the outside looking in. The politicians and their Institutions have become tone deaf.
No one I know trusts the press but when trust in the government is discussed, as the government is made up off various parities with various agendas, then trust is broken down into which party can be trusted rather than the "government"
No one I know trusts the Maori party, some trust the Labour party, trust in the Greens seems scarce, National seems trusted more than NZF while the ACT party is trusted for it clear positions and adherence to them.
It is a very subjective topic as distinct from the trust in the press issue for which there is ample hard evidence for its demise
I find the comments about trust in business unusual. There are so many requirements for business to adhere to in H&S, Employment issues, and in commercial law that I find it hard to see why trust in business is lacking. Examples of real world problems experienced under business umbrella would be helpful to understand this issue.
Despite the old addage, the statistics do not lie. In general people do not trust politicians and they do not trust "business". Of course not every politician is distrusted by every citizen, but to provide a list of politicians who you personally happen to trust is not a satisfactory way of responding to the problem articulated by Bryce Edwards.
Neither is it adequate to point to regulatory and legal requirements which suggest to you that business should be trusted, even though it clearly is not.
If you want "examples of real world problems experienced under business umbrella" look no further than the New Zealand electricity industry which has failed to do what an electricity industry should do (produce enough electricity to meet demand at an affordable price) and has instead taken the rent seeker's option of increasing fixed charges by several hundred percent. Or consider the banks which make excessive profits from the suffering of mortgagees, or the supermarkets which abuse their monopoly powers to extract abnormally high rates of profit. Take the real estate industry ... do I need to go on?
If you don't understand why New Zealanders distrust politicians and business then you are probably part of the problem.
It’d be helpful to know how these attitudes were measured. From conversation in my community nobody trusts the media or the Maori Party but I’ve never heard anyone comment about “business” adversely.
This analysis gives me hope of a better future for our little country - providing those concerned by the erosion of democracy and growing inequity make their voices heard.
So useful. 100% behind you.
Good stuff. There's a lot going on here. I'd say housing and food affordability have to be very big factors but other factors that have undermined trust but I don't think are sufficiently recognised is the Covid response. In hindsight it's hard to see it was other than disastrous as much as people like Michael Baker and others argue to the contrary. This event shocked at least 33% of the population at the easy slip into totalitarianism and now lost it'll take a generation to regain trust (if the right thing is done which is to acknowledge it but there is no sign it will be) so in short we are f..... Time to align with BRICS and get closer to China and drop Europe, UK and the USA I say.
We have suffered nothing less than an aggressive foreign corporate take over orchestrated by the senior-most privately owned investment banks of Europe and America using an increasing paced incremental attack plan.
First, encumbering us with more debt than they knew was good for us by not widely known means by which they create money at the time of making loans rather than being dependent upon already existing money deposited with them, then putting you into bankruptcy receivership to drive you into the hands of corporations they also own.
This video details step by step how it has been done here in New Zealand, but more importantly, what other reputable nations have done to free themselves from this scam:
New Zealand Financial System Madness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0hh34MAPos