This is the article, but the commentsa re also worth reading:

http://pundit.co.nz/content/policy-by-panic

Policy by Panic
by Brian Easton
In too many areas the government is avoiding taking policy decisions.
When it has to its panic measures are knee-jerk and quick-fix

Just nine years ago, John Key, then leader of the opposition, spoke to
the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Contractors Federation about
housing affordability which he described then as a ‘crisis [which had]
reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to get worse.’

‘We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world. Make no mistake; this
problem has got worse in recent years. ... This problem won’t be
solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it won’t be curbed with one
or two government-sponsored building developments. Instead, we need
government leadership that is prepared to focus on the fundamental
issues driving the crisis. National is ready to provide that
leadership’ and not just ‘rinky-dink schemes.’

A month ago – nine years later – under pressure from the Labour Party
the government had knee-jerk, quick-fix reactions to the continuing deterioration of home affordability. A policy reversal was literally
announced on Twitter. Such was the panic that the Minister for
Business, Steven Joyce, said Labour's policies were very similar to
the government's policies, while the Minister of Finance, Bill
English, said Labour policies would be ineffective. (They may not be disagreeing.)

Another instance of policy panic appears to be the bowel cancer
screening roll-out. The problem – our death rate is much higher than Australia’s, which has long had a screening program – was identified
over a decade ago, and the Labour government instigated pilot
programs. However, when a national roll-out was announced, again under
public pressure, the Treasury grumbled there was no business case.
Probably if it were made, the case would more than justify the
roll-out. The point here is that the government seems, as in the case
of housing, to have no coherent policy development strategy other than
reacting to pressure.

There are many other long-standing policy issues which the government
has not addressed and on which it seems to have no coherent approach.
They include

The aging population, with life expectation rising but no corresponding adjustment to the age of entitlement for New Zealand Superannuation, one consequence of which is that health and
residential services for the aged are underfunded.

Capital gains tax and tax avoidance.

Our response to climate change is promise without delivery
of emissions reductions and neglect to planning on how adapt to the
rising sea levels. .

The lack of a coherent and comprehensive freshwater
strategy that deals with both existing quality and quantity pressures
and prevents them worsening, while giving away precious water to
commercial users.

The very high and rising level of private household debt, reflecting the inadequacy of household savings.

Economic inequality and its impact on social coherence and
our long term economic performance.

Energy sustainability.

The failure to make a public case for the open economy.
Instead, those against it (such as those who oppose the TPPA on
grounds of principle rather than having pragmatic doubts) have led the
public discussion without challenge.

We are still lagging on investment in public urban
transport.

The regulation of the quality of the building industry
remains inadequate despite the problem first appearing (as ‘leaky
buildings’) fifteen years ago. (The most recent example is the
debacles about the quality (and testing) of steel from China and
elsewhere, used to reinforce concrete so that the building (or road
tunnel) is reasonably earthquake proof.)

The failure to build up reserves to meet another global
financial crisis.

Others may add to the list, but these are examples I recall discussing
a decade and more ago. In each case progress since has been, at best,
patchy but very often just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

To be honest, we were grumbling a decade ago because the Labour
Government of the time seemed to be taking its time to address the
issues. But generally, it eventually got around to them without
panicking and there was some progress. In each case such progress has
largely since come to a halt.

What is going on is twofold. First, this is not a government with a
vision – even less than the Clark-Cullen Government. Second, it has
been squeezing resources out of the public service and that, together
with its erratic or quiescent leadership, has meant that the policy
development process has broken down.

Nine years ago John Key identified housing affordability as a major
issue for his government but, apparently when faced with a political
crisis, there was no policy waiting to be proposed and implemented and
all we got was rinky-dink schemes.

I would not want to make exact parallels, but I am reminded of the
Muldoon Government which was so short term, so political, that it
deferred difficult decisions hoping they would go away or they would
be dealt with by the next government (which often got them wrong). I
shant be surprised if future historians judge the Key-English
Government similarly.

PS. I am grateful to Bernard Hickey for reminding us of Key’s 2007
speech.

_________________________

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)