[disordinary]

New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help.

Therefore, they'll help set policy for what needs to be taken down, but a politician will not be able to take down content, they may request the censor office does this, but they won't be able to force them or do it themselves.

NZ is an outlier in the world, but it is a very strong liberal democracy. It has very low levels of corruption, very high levels of public confidence in government, very transparent ways of operating, and very strong media and public participation to hold the public sector to account.

Other countries might abuse this system, but I doubt New Zealand is.

[chrisseaton]

> they can't tell defence what to do

The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.

[cormacrelf]

Yes, it's a bit of a stretch. The whole idea is that ministers do in fact make decisions so that somebody can be held democratically accountable for them. But sometimes we limit their decisions to appointments, i.e. choosing who to delegate power to. If that person messes up then we hold the minister accountable for putting their faith in the wrong person. The comment was pushing back on the idea that politicians are the ones doing the censoring. In that sense they are largely correct -- censorship is one of those powers you do not want to give directly to the politicians. And you can set it up so they don't get it. That's all.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help.

Seems like it is less a democracy than rule by a professional elite with a thin veneer of elections to keep the people happy.

[disordinary]

No, there is a lot of transparency and oversight, including to any member of the public, and ultimately the government sets policy. I can just request any document, and in fact I used to work in the public service where a coworker would frequently request any correspondence about him by staff or managers under the official information act. He was paranoid but had the ability to do it.

An example is during covid, the government set policy around what could be done but the police were ultimately in charge with how they enforced it. Additionally New Zealand has a culture of egalitarianism and community. While there is growing inequality, there isn't an elite yet.

The government provides checks on the public service and the public service provides checks on the government.

Another example is the treasury prevents the government going into debt unless there are extreme circumstances and a plan to get back into surplus. The government can't just cut taxes and up borrowing to buy votes, they need to be fiscally responsible and that's controlled by the treasury.

Ultimately New Zealand has a reasonably direct, accessable, and transparent form of government which represents the community that it serves, it is rated top in the democracy list for a reason.

[caf]

It's come a long way since the days when it was known as "the only command economy in the OECD", then!

[osigurdson]

Do Ardern’s political opponents feel the same way?