logo
An eye on achieving ‘good outcomes'

An eye on achieving ‘good outcomes'

Rangitata MP and Minister for the South Island James Meager. PHOTO: LINDA ROBERTSON
One advantage James Meager has as he embarks upon the challenge of being the first Minister for the South Island — there has never been one before, so he can shape the role how he likes.
"Even if there was an argument, and I don't think there is, that it was a symbolic position, if it's a symbolic position that leads to good outcomes for the South Island, then I would consider that a win anyway," he said.
Mr Meager was speaking just after having made a 20-minute presentation to the National party's Mainland Conference on unlocking the South Island's potential.
Even though he was speaking to a partisan audience which needed little persuasion, Mr Meager's cheeky insertion of "(best)" in between South and Island on his title page would have won over any doubters.
Nor did his explanation that he had missed the morning sessions of the conference because he was duck-shooting on Lake Waihola (complete with photographic evidence) do him any harm. Mr Meager may be a new MP, the first of the class of 2023 to become a minister, but he has found his feet remarkably quickly.
"I think that if you put your energy and resources and time into the right places, you can achieve a lot as an advocate and as a voice," Mr Meager said.
"You don't need a large bureaucracy or a large budget to be able to do that.
"If you can make sure you can draw ministers' attention to the key issues, I think that's important.
"And at the end of the day, if there's not a huge budget attached to it, then what you get is you get an advocate essentially operating for free for you."
As Mr Meager detailed in his exceptional maiden speech to Parliament, he is not your stereotypical National MP.
Of Ngai Tahu descent, raised by a solo mother in straightened circumstances, Mr Meager rose to become dux and head boy of Timaru Boys' High School, before gaining an LLB and BA from the University of Otago.
Serving on the OUSA executive, Mr Meager volunteered for then-Dunedin National list MP Michael Woodhouse, before becoming a solicitor.
The pull of politics was too strong, however, and after working for Paula Bennett, Sir Bill English and Simon Bridges, Mr Meager sought and obtained the National nomination for his hometown seat of Rangitata.
Although historically a safe National seat, Jo Luxton had won it for Labour in 2020 with a 4408 majority so this was not a win Mr Meager could comfortably cost to.
After plenty of hard work he did flip the seat, curiously recording exactly the same majority as Ms Luxton, but in reverse.
Having made an early splash by being nominated as the backbench MP to give the traditional opening speech in the Address In Reply debate, Mr Meager cut his teeth as chairman of the justice select committee before his slightly surprisingly rapid elevation to the executive earlier this year.
Mr Meager is now Minister of Hunting and Fishing, and Youth, and an associate transport minister, as well as his South Island responsibilities.
Feelings remain mixed on whether the South needs its own minister or not, but at least its representative is clearly a man on the rise.
Mr Meager is not in Cabinet — yet — but he said that posed little impediment to having his voice heard advocating for the South at the top table.
"There's kind of like a real false distinction between what being inside and outside Cabinet means," he said.
"The only difference ... is that ministers outside Cabinet don't have to get oversight of every single Cabinet paper, because every Cabinet paper is Cabinet: they get stuff that is in their purview.
"But I get to have input and oversight into anything, any policy, any issue that looks to impact on the South Island, and that's from a specific project perspective or from a general policy perspective.
"So as I grow into the role, I'll be able to go to more and more ministers and say, actually, 'I'm interested in this', or 'we think this is important in the South'."
The closest equivalent post to Minister for the South Island is Minister for Auckland, but the Super City is a distinctive, geographically small, confined area in its own right, whereas the South Island has the same landmass as several small countries but is sparsely populated.
Also, almost every government policy will affect someone in the South Island somehow, something which not necessarily the case for Aucklanders.
"That's actually a really good point because the Auckland issues portfolio is one where it could be more of a policy development space because it's a specific area with fairly similar themes of issues but also fairly similar specific issues," Mr Meager said.
"But you'll know as you go around South Island, the housing challenges in Rolleston, Lincoln and Central Otago are different to the ones in Dunedin and South Canterbury — they're almost the opposite — so you can't treat it as a policy development space.
"It's got to be a real advocacy space."
This has left Mr Meager and his boss, a prime minister who likes a key performance indicator (KPI), to figure out what constitutes success for a Minister for the South Island.
Is it demonstrable wins in a few small areas, having a say on almost everything, or picking a few areas — Mr Meager nominates economic growth, infrastructure, logistics and public services — where his influence can be felt?
"I think for me, the start of that presentation where I looked at what the GDP of the South Island is [22% of New Zealand's GDP], if we can see growth in that space beyond what the national growth is, I would consider that to be a success," Mr Meager said.
"Now how much you can attribute that to the mechanisms of me driving up and down State Highway 1 saying that we've got to invest here and there or support here and there, I'm not too sure.
"But that at least looks like success."
mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Why can't Momoa live here?'
‘Why can't Momoa live here?'

Otago Daily Times

time6 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

‘Why can't Momoa live here?'

Minister for the South Island James Meager. PHOTO: PHILIP CHANDLER The National-led government's South Island minister believes lifting the foreign buyer ban for $5million-plus Queenstown residential properties makes sense. At the last election, National campaigned on a $2m threshold for overseas buyers — currently only Aussies and Singaporeans are exempt from the ban introduced by the previous Labour government in 2018 — but kept the ban on as part of its coalition agreement with New Zealand First. Visiting Queenstown this week, James Meager, the first South Island Minister, agrees high-net-worth foreigners "bring a lot of investment and opportunities, and they don't really have a big physical footprint in terms of, you know, strains on resources or infrastructure". "I'd be very surprised if any of these people are coming here and using the public health system, anything like that. "So we campaigned on the $2m [threshold], couldn't get that across the line." He says Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's "very public" about looking at that. "It's something we continue to work on in government, and I think it's something if we can't get across the line in this government, we will certainly campaign on." Meager says even if it's a higher limit like $5m for places like Queenstown, "I think people will accept that". "Look at the kind of people who are looking to move here. "I mean, [Hollywood actor] Jason Momoa basically lives here, right? "But wouldn't it be fantastic to have him base himself in and out of Queenstown, flies internationally, brings in so much business and marketing and commerce from his movies and his franchises. "I think it makes sense, and you can do it in a way which doesn't put pressure on the housing for the workers and for the people who have lived here for 50 years and actually want to be able to have a home." Meanwhile, Meager's acutely aware of the limitations with Queenstown's current hospital and how, for example, a high proportion of local women give birth out of town — last year, there were 396 births outside Queenstown Lakes/Central Otago. While in Queenstown he visited friends who'd had a baby five weeks ago, who initially went to Invercargill to get ready. Things didn't move as quickly as they thought, so they returned to the resort. "Then all of a sudden away she went, and then it was a helicopter trip to Dunedin because Invercargill's full. "And then that meant [the parents] were actually separated for the birth." Meager says that "brings home the idea that for a place like Queenstown, that's probably not ideal". "There's a very low threshold in the medical profession here for saying, if it even looks like you're going to get in trouble, we'll call a helicopter in, and that's not ideal because it's stressful, it's time, it's costs." Meager says the Health Minister's aware of it and working on it — "I know there are proposals from a couple of entities around bringing private capital in and just getting a hospital up and running and maybe contract everything out to [the] public [system]". "I think we can get some solutions in the next few years." Supports our regional deal James Meager says he supports the proposal for a regional deal the Queenstown Lakes, Central Otago and Otago Regional councils have put to the government, describing it as "very good". Under a regional deal, the government works with councils to improve infrastructure, which can include public transport and health facilities — in this case a mass transit Queenstown cable car and a base hospital. The government's yet to approve any, but in the South Island "Queenstown and West Coast seem to be well on track", Meager says.

Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill
Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill

Newsroom

time21 hours ago

  • Newsroom

Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill

Opinion: The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) is a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints. In a number of respects, it expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy. First, it lacks a strong democratic mandate. At the last election, Act was the only party to put forward such a proposal, and it won only 8.6 percent of the vote; 91.4 percent of voters did not support that party. This bill cannot remotely be taken to express 'the will of the people.' Second, the majority party, National, agreed behind doors – despite its prior opposition for almost two decades – to support this proposal from a fringe party during coalition negotiations. Like the Treaty Principles Bill, this undermines the principles of proportionality and accountability to the electorate on which the MMP electoral system is based. That, in turn, corrodes trust in democratic arrangements in New Zealand. Third, the bill seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested. These principles focus on individual rights and private property while ignoring collective rights and responsibilities and values such as minimising harm to human beings and the wider environment. Fourth, this legislation is to be applied retrospectively, applying to all existing laws as well as most new laws and regulations. Rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them. Fifth, the structures and processes this bill seeks to put in place are profoundly undemocratic. It aims to establish a 'Regulatory Standards Board' selected by the Minister for Regulation, the Act leader, and accountable to him, with the legal right to initiate inquiries into all laws and regulations, past and present, that offend against Act's libertarian ideas. This attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. Such an arrangement is repugnant to democracy, and must not be allowed to proceed. Sixth, as the minister's own officials and many others have pointed out, this bill is unnecessary. Structures and processes to monitor and enhance the quality of laws and regulations already exist. These are accountable to Parliament, not to a particular minister, as is right and proper. They may be strengthened, as required, and must remain rigorously independent from any particular political party. Seventh, there is little reason to trust the integrity of Act's professed intentions in relation to this bill. Although it is claimed the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to promote robust debate, rigorous scrutiny and sound democratic processes in law making in New Zealand, in practice, Act ignores these at will. The retrospective changes to pay equity legislation it promoted is a recent case in point. Eighth, New Zealand already has too few checks and balances on executive power. The fact this bill, with its anti-democratic aspects and lack of an electoral mandate, is in front of a select committee demonstrates why constitutional reform to protect citizens from executive overreach is urgently needed. Ninth, and perhaps worst, the practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise. As many experts have pointed out, under such an arrangement, taxpayers may be required to compensate tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits by seeking to minimise the negative health and economic impacts of smoking; mining, industrial forestry and other extractive industries for regulations that seek to minimise environmental harm and damage to communities; and many other activities in which capital seeks to profit at the expense of others. The accumulation of wealth and power by the few at the expense of the many is precisely what is undermining other democracies around the world. It is inimical to the very idea of democracy as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people,' in which governments are supposed to serve the interests of citizens, not of capital or corporations. As social cohesion is undermined by radical inequality and an over-emphasis on private property and individual rights, the danger is that it tips over into anarchy; and by removing limits on the right to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of others, into oligarchy. We are seeing something like this in the United States at present. Around the world, democracies that were once strong are collapsing. It is the responsibility of our Parliament to ensure that this does not happen here. Act's attempt to paint this bill as an innocuous attempt to promote good law-making in the interests of citizens is disingenuous, and should be recognised as such. Rather, this is a dangerous bill that attacks the fundamental rights of New Zealanders, and democratic principles. It must not be allowed to pass.

Luxon secures Xi Jinping meeting in China
Luxon secures Xi Jinping meeting in China

Otago Daily Times

time2 days ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Luxon secures Xi Jinping meeting in China

As he faces criticism at home for weakening ties with Beijing, Prime Minister Chris Luxon has booked a meeting with China President Xi Jinping next week. The National Party leader has announced the longest international trip of his tenure, spending four days in China and five in Europe in a stretch also taking in the NATO Summit in the Netherlands. Since taking office in late 2023, Mr Luxon has also continued a shift in New Zealand's foreign outlook - begun by Jacinda Ardern's Labour government in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - to more closely align with Australia and the United States. This has not been uncontroversial. Last week, former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer headed an open letter arguing New Zealand was" risking its sovereignty" by strategic alignment and integration with Australia, and it should not antagonise Beijing, for fear of losing a critical trade relationship. "We do believe that a military relationship with the United States directed against China has many risks for New Zealand," the letter stated. "That is especially true in a situation where the United States itself has recently become more ambivalent about its defence relationships with traditional partners. "Your forthcoming visit to Beijing is a vital opportunity to make it clear at the highest level that New Zealand retains its bipartisan commitment to its strategic partnership with China in the interests of a peaceful and prosperous region and world." Foreign Minister Winston Peters has dismissed their arguments, saying the letter was written by "various former politicians/officials who appear to be suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome". In a statement announcing his travel, Mr Luxon said time spent in Shanghai and Beijing would be focused on bilateral trade, measured at $NZ37 billion last year, calling China "a vital part of our economic story". "New Zealand is a trusted supplier of safe, high-quality food and beverage products to Chinese consumers. It is an important market, and I look forward to doing what I can to support Kiwi businesses to thrive," Mr Luxon said. A key promise of the National-led coalition has been to double the value of Kiwi exports in the next decade. Coaxing Chinese students back to New Zealand's education system is also likely to be feature in government-to-government discussions, with enrolments running at just over half their pre-pandemic peak. Accompanying Mr Luxon will be a delegation of business leaders, and a group of Maori performers. National kapa haka champions Te Kapa Haka o Ngati Whakaue will travel on the NZDF plane to China, despite the government's troubled relationship with Maoridom. On the second leg of his trip, Mr Luxon will broaden his focus to include security, meeting with EU leaders in Brussels, and then NATO nations in The Hague. "Prosperity is only possible with security, and our discussions will focus on connections between the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security environments," he said. Like Australia, New Zealand is invited to annual NATO gatherings as part of the "Indo-Pacific Four" grouping, which also includes Japan and South Korea.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store