Decisions pending: Make it, take it, fake it

The emphatic use of an imperious “take” where an occasional “make” might suffice, sat uneasy with my editor sensibilities

Prime minister Christopher Luxon last week released his second-quarter Coalition Government Action Plan for New Zealand. It’s a list of 36 actions he wants in place over the next three months now that the Coalition Government’s 100-day plan is done and dusted.

There’s been a lot of media coverage as to the value of such a to-do list. Action point 18, with its call to “raise the energy New Zealand brings to key relationships” with global partners, raised a few eyebrows and possibly concern that Pilates will be forsaken in favour of returning to 1980s jazzercise.

For me, it was the list’s “take, take, take” mantra, as 12 action points called for taking decisions, that created a distraction as I read the points. The emphatic use of an imperious “take” where an occasional “make” might suffice, sat uneasy with my editor sensibilities.

Was I being supersensitive? Why “take” and not “make”?

A quick online search suggested there was a distinction. Making a decision generally refers not only to the moment it is made but also to all the work done leading up to that decision.

Taking a decision, by contrast, is more formal and denotes the moment the decision is taken.

Included in the health-related decisions to be taken in the action plan are:

“Take decisions to streamline the Medsafe approval process.”

“Take decisions to tighten controls on youth vaping.”

“Take decisions on the scope of the extension to the COVID-19 inquiry.”

As every to-do lister knows, you give yourself some easy wins, so some of these action point decisions will have already been made and are just waiting to be taken.

Others could fall hostage to the cuts about to devastate the public services – about $78 million will be taken out of the Ministry of Health budget alone – as the public servants who craft the decisions to be made are taken out of the action plan flowchart. I’m sure there was one.

Which leaves the option of faking it. And it has never been easier to create your own action plan. As the public service diminishes, look no further than the latest, cheapest consultancy service – ChatGPT.

It took less than 20 seconds for ChatGPT to supply me with 10-point action plan to improve the health system of a country with five million people including an indigenous population with poorer health outcomes. Each point was fleshed out with detail but here go the headings, starting with, you guessed it, primary care.

1. Strengthen primary healthcare.
2. Invest in public health infrastructure.
3. Enhance healthcare workforce training and distribution.
4. Incorporate traditional and cultural practices in healthcare.
5. Improve access to medications and health technologies.
6. Implement public health campaigns.
7. Strengthen mental health services.
8. Enhance data collection and research.
9. Foster community engagement and participation.
10. Secure sustainable financing for health.

ChatGPT goes on to advise that implementing its plan “requires strong political will, intersectoral collaboration and ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders, including indigenous communities. It’s a long-term commitment but essential for building a more equitable and effective health system.”

The drilled-down detail supplied by ChatGPT reads like every health strategy I have seen in the past couple of decades – although, give the AI a bit more string to play with and it, too, can get lost. When I asked for an 18-point action plan, its final point was to “establish a health system reform taskforce”!

As to Mr Luxon’s 36-point plan, ChatGPT was not so successful as a replacement for public servants. It did an abysmal job of reducing the 36-point plan to a more manageable 10 points. It simply hacked off the last 26 points.