Originally Posted by
Baa_Baa
Well that is correct, they don't "just" lower the targets. As a previous policy analyst you will know that those policy folks in government very closely research, in great detail, before and after developing policy (and law), to see if it's working, or not.
In this case like so many others under 5 years of ambitious government, the policies set targets that turn out to be overly optimistic and ambitious, and it is the policy analysts that see and realise that first. Some inane policies end up being framed in law with legislated 'go live' dates, many of which are patently unachievable, hence delays in implementing, or reduced scopes, or outright failures of what is being implemented.
Then they, the policy people, at their own initiative, write up elaborate papers with all sorts of justifications, for the Minister, to choose one of their recommended options. Again, in this case the Minister will have chosen the option to reduce the targets, and not to reduce the efforts implementing the remedies and treatments.
I see it every day, that 5 years of ambitious government, that has put Agencies under enormous pressures to deliver in unreasonable timeframes, what turned out to be overly optimistic and ambitious policy and laws, even when they lobbied the Minister that the implementation would be unachievable in the timeframe.
The Agencies tasked with implementing the policies and law, are the first to realise when things aren't working out, and it is them who are way-ahead of the Ministers in re-writing policy, be it to alter regulations, adjust implementation times, change measures, alter targets; and only then to they lobby the Minister to approve one of the options they present.
Very rarely have I seen the reverse, where the Minister, out of the blue, leans on the Agencies to 'change' things, especially when it makes them look like back-peddling and exposed to reputational risk. Except in those infrequent occasions where the media cried fowl and force the Ministers hand to do something.
Usually the policy people are many months or years ahead of their Minister, and quite aware of whether their work/laws are achieving what they set out to achieve. Remember as well, Ministers change a lot more frequently than the collective IP of an Agency or Ministry policy department(s), that is enduring.
Also perhaps worth pointing out, more often than not, Ministers having been elected by the public, are often far less knowledgeable about things than their Agencies or Ministries policy people, such as the subject matter itself, how practical and long it takes to implement things, and what measures to put in place to check whether the policies/laws are working.
So, in summary, it is the MoT who are primarily responsible for the policies in this particular case, whereas NZTA and Police are the implementers. The monitoring and measuring by MoT, NZTA, Police found out that the targets were not and could not be met, and the policy people put a range of options to the Minister, of which reducing the targets is clearly the chosen option. In this case, it hasn't required a change in law, whereas many other cases do.
This is not confined to "Road to Zero", it is prevalent across all of the government agencies that have endured 5 years of overly ambitious and optimistic government, emissions, climate, transport, health, housing, policing, corrections ... and on and on.