Marc My Words. 25 May 2007

Time to rethink MMP

There's been a lot of whinging about MMP of late. Some of it is simply a frustration that despite what a majority, or at least a sizeable minority, want from our government, we rarely get it. Whereas most New Zealanders used to presume that, despite the odd political hiccup, governments generally try to satisfy the public itch on issues (if only to stay in power), much has changed since 1999. Remember the Norm Withers referendum? In spite of a whopping 92% result clamouring for a re-jigging of our criminal justice system, we got butt-kiss. That's right, nothing.

Despite the rhetoric of the incoming Labour regime during the election campaign, we've had eight years of little more than baby steps in a couple of areas (Victim's Rights Act 2002 - which for once gave victims some expectation of being heard) and a complete back-down in others (Prisoner and victim's compensation Act 2005 - which continues to allow offenders to gain monetary awards against the wishes of victims).

Since then we've had a raft of ideological initiatives that were never demanded by the public - the latest travesty being the hugely unpopular Anti-smacking legislation. That it took National's John Key to at least blunt the intent, it nevertheless was a sham to imagine that parliament should be so abused that it now rams through feel-good propaganda masquerading as law. The content of the law aside, the real damage was wrought on our jury system. And here's why: there were only seven cases brought to the courts in regard to the parental defence of reasonable force - of which three cases delivered questionable outcomes.

The government didn't like those outcomes and, using Sue Bradford as the obliging mule, brought to parliament a private member bill to 'send a message'. Well, we heard the message all right. It was nothing less than to cut parent rights over their own children and to undermine the jury system.

In both cases the real effect of the law was to challenge and emasculate any authority that stands in the way of the state. Parents are an obvious target simply because it's the family that has first crack at socialising the future citizens. The jury system however, is another thing all together because it represents an entrenched safeguard against the power of the state. The most tyrannical regimes have always done away with juries to interpret the law and, in its place, enforce outcomes in line with its ideological fervour. Its hard not to conclude that the three cases we may not have been pleased about in terms of their verdicts led to a heavy-handed jackboot on the independence of our trial system.

It does get worse though because despite polls showing 80% were not in favour of the law change, it took only 42,000 signatures for the government to extend daylight saving. I can't help wondering what the threshold would be for, say, legalising cannabis? What was is for civil unions or did nobody bother?

The hit to our democratic ideals has been perpetuated and encouraged by our MMP process. It's difficult to imagine any major party being able to govern on their own. That means accommodations have to be made with smaller parties that, in all reality, often amount to one or two people representing an infinitesimal proportion of the public. List members, which are the mainstay of these diminutive political factions, exert an unwarranted and disproportionate power to demand trophy policies far in excess of what they merit.

I think it's ridiculous to allow a inequitable exploitation of our democracy by political minnows whose sole influence isn't due to any brilliance or expertise, but the serendipitous numbers game which affords the final few parliamentary votes with more weight to secure a majority. The current Labour regime owes its tenure of the treasury benches by ceding to Winston Peter's his demands for the baubles of office; the United Party's philosophically distinct appetites, and now, more than ever, the Greens abstention on matters of supply and confidence. Given the departure of Taito Phillip Field and the 'toys out of the cot' histrionics of Gordon Copeland, the significance of the Greens has simply increased and gained them an importance due more to kismet than the wishes of the voting public.

Its worth noting that while Taito Phillip Field's exodus hurt Labour in the parliamentary numbers game, Gordon Copeland's resignation from his former party probably had the exact opposite effect if only because from Labour's point of view, the remaining two United votes just went up in value (not only in the current relationship with Labour but, in ridding itself of the distinctly untalented, also in future negotiations with National). It also put Copeland onto the fastest trajectory to political oblivion possible - and let's face it, he didn't really need much help.

While MMP has distinct disadvantages, it also brings some rewards. It is now possible to ring in some genuine talent that may not have all the requisite qualities to be a traditional door-knocking political animal. A number of current MP's fit that mould nicely. Tim Groser (who has an extraordinary international trade background) is one such example. So too was Don Brash. There are also good reasons why ministers with particularly onerous obligations should be a list rather than electorate MP. As foreign minister, Winston Peters is fortunate, having been 'released' from his former Tauranga electorate, so he can flit about eating and drinking for his country without the rigours of finding excuses to avoid his constituent obligations.

Unfortunately along with the good we also get Alamein Kopu, Ashraf Choudry, and Gordon Copeland. Still.parliament is meant to be representative so I suppose having a few duds is the price we must all be willing to accept. What we should not accept however is that those MP's not directly answerable to the people should not enjoy the same rights in terms of voting on supply and confidence. In a sense they presently get a free ride to determine government based solely on what they can get out of it. If we want to avoid the fringe parties from anything other than their policy contributions then why not remove from them the right to vote on all supply and confidence issues. That way they can present their views, have a constructive impact in Select Committees, and yet not be able to undermine the principle of direct representation from the voting public.

Had such a system played out in the current parliament the results would have yielded the following directly elected MP's able to vote on supply and confidence motions:

National 31
Labour 29
Maori 4
Progressives 1
United 1
Act 1
Greens -
NZ First -

The result is that we probably would have had a National led government with minimal requirement for indulging the very much smaller players. It would also force the likes of the Greens to start recognising that the need to start representing a mix of real people rather than an aggregate of lonely voices that are geographically as thin on the ground as their grasp of reality.

The other big change that's worth a look is to lower the threshold for holding referenda plus the level of support which might justify making its outcome binding on government. Of course governments of all hues have resisted any encroachment on their power.

Often the argument is put forward that the public does have a binding referendum called an election every three years. Well maybe, but usually weighted by the lolly scramble which blinds many to the long-term interests of the country and which are crowded out by the heat of glib advertising slogans, scare-mongering, and of course, the corrupt miss-use of taxpayers money (vintage Labour 2005).

The upside to holding referendums is to gauge not only public sentiment but also hold governments to account. Failure to deliver will impose its own penalty by forcing errant governments to explain why they failed or, why they chose to pursue contrary policies. A list of ten tickable issues would also make for a great report card on performance. The opportunity to veto stupid laws would also curtail the more ideological aspects of certain governments. Having a threshold of say, seventy percent to make referenda binding would have the benefit of ensuring widespread support which, if I'm not mistaken, would be a level most governments would dream of carrying.

In the end this is really about making governments take stock of what the public really expect from them. After all we do pay their salaries and they are there to work for us. Instead of hoping that unpopular and contentious issues get dealt with in plenty of time for the public to forget before the next election, why not force them to listen to us and give us what we pay them for. Isn't that really the aim of democracy anyway?

ENDS

© Scoop Media