Why does accountability in NZ seem to work only one way?
This morning I drove past police officers literally standing on the side of the road watching drivers to see who was using a phone or committing a traffic offence. Now, I do understand road safety and distracted driving can kill people. I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to drive dangerously.
What frustrates me is the massive difference in accountability between ordinary people and the government.
If I use my phone while driving, I can get an immediate fine.But if a traffic signal isn't working and wastes everyone's time, does the government compensate us?
If rubbish that we've paid rates for isn't collected on time, do we get money back?
If a government infrastructure project runs months or years behind schedule and causes disruption, do the affected taxpayers get compensated?
If a government department misses its own timelines, does it automatically pay the person who has been waiting?
Usually, no.
Meanwhile unemployment is around 5.6%, taxpayers are funding an enormous amount of government expenditure, and many private landlords are effectively part of the housing safety net as well. I'm experiencing that personally. I own a house that I can't currently live in, but I still have the mortgage, rates, insurance, maintenance and all the other costs. A large proportion of the rental applications I'm receiving involve some form of government assistance. I'm paying taxes that help fund the system, while also relying on renting my own property to cover the mortgage. It feels like ordinary working people and property owners are carrying risk from every direction. And then on the way to work you see police resources being used for enforcement that can generate immediate financial penalties. To be clear, I'm not blaming people who genuinely need assistance, and I'm not saying traffic laws shouldn't be enforced.
My question is about the system:
Why is financial accountability so immediate when an ordinary person breaks a government rule, but when the government fails to deliver something we've already paid for, there is rarely an equivalent automatic financial consequence? If fines are supposed to create accountability and change behaviour, why shouldn't government agencies face meaningful and measurable consequences when they repeatedly fail their own service standards? I'd like to hear the argument for why accountability should work differently depending on which side of the equation you're on
Edited
This country is becoming unimaginably fucking expensive. Power bills now have ridiculous daily fixed charges just or being connected. Rates keep climbing. Insurance, fuel, groceries, everything is going up. Then you've got ridiculously expensive fines on top of it. And what really pissed me off this morning was seeing about five police officers standing on the road watching commuters, looking for someone speeding or using their phone.
But why the fuck do you need five officers standing there for that? Think about how ridiculous this feels as a taxpayer. I pay taxes that fund the police, their salaries, their vehicles and the enforcement equipment. Then those resources are used to stand on the roadside and collect even more money from the same people going to work and paying those taxes. Where i like we constantly hear about burglaries, car thefts, retail crime and other offences where people are asking for more police presence.
If police resources are genuinely limited, is having five officers standing together watching morning commuters really the best use of them? At some point it starts feeling less like public service and more like: you pay for the machine, you pay the person operating the machine, and then you pay again when that machine catches you.
Fuck that