OPINION:

The recent remarks about Premier House have unearthed a more profound issue that we, as a nation, seem reluctant to address: the condition of our national assets and the resources accessible to
our government officials.

Is Premier House condemned? I don’t have the answer for that but it is well known that Premier House has long-standing maintenance issues. A detailed report on these matters was handed over to former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, and it’s noteworthy that Dame Jacinda Ardern, his predecessor, chose not to proceed with the recommended renovations. According to Grant Robertson, she was “not someone who likes to spend money on herself”.

One would think that given the security threats faced by then Prime Minister Ardern, investing in the very facilities designed to safeguard the Prime Minister would have been entirely justified.

Instead, the decision to avoid investing in Premier House under the guise of personal frugality seems to miss the broader point: Premier House is not about the personal comfort of a single prime minister or a particular administration.

Ensuring our government officials have access to appropriate facilities should be a fundamental expectation, not a luxury.

Growing up in Sweden, my own observations align with this perspective. There was a period when the Prime Minister was presumed to lead a life similar to that of any other individual, making use of public transport, flying on commercial aircraft, and mingling casually with the public.

However, this expectation was dramatically shattered by the assassination of popular Prime Minister Olof Palme, and later by the killing of Anna Lindh, a politician thought to be a potential prime minister.

The ramifications of these events were profound, leading to a significant shift in public attitudes and the security arrangements for public figures. The once commonplace notion of prime ministers using public transport swiftly became outdated, giving way to more secure modes of transportation and heightened security measures.

In New Zealand, frequent technical issues with aircraft and helicopters earmarked for official use not only serve as a national embarrassment but also amplify the risks associated with public service.

These recurrent malfunctions not only disrupt the schedules, productivity, and safety of our officials but also pose a potential risk to the general public. While the idea of sharing a commercial flight with the Prime Minister might seem charmingly democratic, it masks the considerable security implications these circumstances carry.

This reality hit close to home during the election campaign when my children found themselves on the same flight as then Opposition leader, now Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon. Given the shift in his position, it’s an encounter I would prefer not to repeat in today’s context.

Given the apparent dilapidation of Premier House and the frequent malfunctions of planes and helicopters used by our officials, it is clear that a comprehensive update of the Government’s facilities and transportation systems is long overdue.

This matter goes beyond the conveniences or preferences of any current or future prime ministers; it concerns the critical need to safeguard the well-being and operational effectiveness of our nation’s leaders.

However, with the prevailing cost of living crisis, advocating for such investments demands courage from our leaders. Nevertheless, the need for this investment remains critical, not only to prevent national embarrassment but also to mitigate risks to all future governments and the general public.

To this point, New Zealand requires a carefully planned investment strategy into the assets at the disposal of the Government, one that rises above political allegiances and individual biases.

A pragmatic approach is crucial, guaranteeing the security of our key Government figures and the continual upkeep and improvement of governmental infrastructure for the years to come.

Cecilia Robinson is a founder and co-CEO of primary care provider Tend Health.