Do we really need a Minister of booze? 

Back in the good old days, they were all Ministers of booze. The whole cabinet. Especially Robert Muldoon. 

But the idea that we need a Minister responsible for Alcohol is well-intentioned, like all 80-odd portfolios that reviews and recommendations have created. 

This one is a recommendation from the Hospitality Sector Regulatory Review. 

The review was done by the Ministry for Regulation. 

That was created to cut red tape and make government less complicated. 

It's recommended creating a new agency and a new Ministerial responsibility. 

It was announced by the Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, who's role was also set up to cut red tape. 

Can you see the problem here? 

There are no doubt good reasons to make rules simpler and get rid of regulations. 

But creating a new Minister and ministry who then does a review and recommends creating another agency and another Ministerial job just sounds backwards. 

It's like a bacterial. Bureaucratic bacteria. They multiply and spread everywhere. 

One minute it's a single cell, the next minute it's split into two. Next minute there's four. It goes on and on. 

We need fewer jobs in Wellington, not more. 

Remember, Ireland, Norway, Singapore and Finland who are similar size to us, they all have fewer than 20 Ministerial roles. The UK, Canada, United States and Korea have fewer than 30. 

The saving grace is that no decisions on the review have been made. Why not just cut the red tape and send the pollies for a beer at Bellamys.

Do we really need a Minister of booze?&nbsp;
Back in the good old days, they were all Ministers of booze. The whole cabinet. Especially Robert Muldoon.&nbsp;
But the idea that we need a Minister responsible for Alcohol is well-intentioned, like all 80-odd portfolios that reviews and recommendations have created.&nbsp;
This one is a recommendation from the Hospitality Sector Regulatory Review.&nbsp;
The review was done by the Ministry for Regulation.&nbsp;
That was created to cut red tape and make government less complicated.&nbsp;
It's recommended creating a new agency and a new Ministerial responsibility.&nbsp;
It was announced by the Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, who's role was also set up to cut red tape.&nbsp;
Can you see the problem here?&nbsp;
There are no doubt good reasons to make rules simpler and get rid of regulations.&nbsp;
But creating a new Minister and ministry who then does a review and recommends creating another agency and another Ministerial job just sounds backwards.&nbsp;
It's like a bacterial. Bureaucratic bacteria. They multiply and spread everywhere.&nbsp;
One minute it's a single cell, the next minute it's split into two. Next minute there's four. It goes on and on.&nbsp;
We need fewer jobs in Wellington, not more.&nbsp;
Remember, Ireland, Norway, Singapore and Finland who are similar size to us, they all have fewer than 20 Ministerial roles. The UK, Canada, United States and Korea have fewer than 30.&nbsp;
The saving grace is that no decisions on the review have been made. Why not just cut the red tape and send the pollies for a beer at Bellamys.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

Early Edition with Ryan Bridge

Ryan Bridge: Cutting red tape by adding complexity

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7dcd6660-15ed-4f51-9c0c-b4c0012b818a/transcript