|
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to poll |
Send to a friend
The forthcoming
referendum is a one-shot opportunity to dismiss a voting system which has
been:
 1.
A governance failure, compared to the expectations of it.
Voters may be able to
elect a Parliament of their choice, but it is the MPs themselves
who decide the Government. The concept of the List MP, which is now
so influential in this process, has seriously weakened our
electorate-based democratic tradition and effectiveness, and led to the
MMP-based antics with which we are all familiar. With List MPs in effect
appointed by, and beholden to Party bosses, accountabilities are reduced,
policy making is compromised, and the public can do nothing about it. MMP
fits uncomfortably with the
Westminster
system on which we rely.
You may get two ticks
on your voting paper, but only one vote which affects the make-up
of Parliament. This makes it unduly difficult to “kick the blighters
out”, and a good system should allow you to do just that.
2.
A significant
negative influence on the economy, compared with its potential.
The degree of reliance
on coalition government has prevented common sense driving the major
economic decisions. The distribution of wealth has had priority over
creation of wealth. Retention of MMP will make the present government’s
goal of economic parity with
Australia
by 2025 virtually impossible.
3.
A blight on our
democracy.
There is a big
difference between Parliament and Government. The challenge in any
electoral system is to put bums on seats in a way that works for both. MMP
and First Past the Post are at the extremes, with MMP making Parliament
strong and Government weak, and FPP making Government strong, but
Parliament weak. Kiwis need to find a happy medium, a balanced system with
some proportionality that can retain the advantages of a representative
Parliament, but without the downsides of MMP – imbalance, cost and
contradiction in Government, too many List MPs, party-hopping,
post-election horsetrading and so on. Let’s not forget the political
farces we’ve seen with the likes of Alamein Kopu and friend Winston. The
Supplementary Member system, which received significant support from the
Royal Commission, would provide such
a happy medium. The influence and status of electorate MPs would be
enhanced, the tail would find it much harder to wag the dog, but there
would still be some diversity in the House
The terms of the
referendum, as outlined by the Government, taken together with the Prime
minister’s repeated statements that he “will probably vote for MMP”
add up to a bias in the process towards the retention of MMP. This bias
can be largely removed by:
1.
Holding the second referendum 12 months after the first, so
that implementation of any change happens at Election 2014. The proposed
delay till 2017 will simply turn the public off, and gives opportunity for
political manipulation in the interim.
2.
Voting preferentially on the four options i.e voters should
rank them in order of preference on the ballot paper. The intention is to
have the second referendum as a “run-off” between MMP and the winner
from the first vote. It is quite possible that the winner has only, say
32% of the vote, giving little credibility to the second vote.
3.
Offering a 100-seat Parliament with the four alternatives.
Over 10 years ago there was a Citizens Initiated Referendum which
overwhelmingly endorsed a 99-seat Parliament. Last year I co-funded a poll
which showed continued support for a smaller House, even at the cost of
some proportionality, and the Justice Minister’s dogmatic statement to
me that “the referendum on MMP will not address the number of seats in
the House of Representatives” says it all.
The online
petition to which this article is linked gives you the opportunity to
express support for these changes to the referendum before the authorizing
Bill gets very far in the House.
Reflecting more
generally on the referendum, we need a more principled approach, rather
than the appalling laissez-faire stance exhibited by government. It is
following the path of least resistance, and has shown itself unwilling to
engage in any discussion about possible outcomes. Given the number of List
MPs, this is perhaps hardly surprising, and is symptomatic of the weakness
in MMP. The government should adopt a leadership approach, which it could
do in a way which enhanced its political status.
Finally, it is proposed
that if the public vote to retain MMP, its workings and structure will be
reviewed by the Electoral Commission. This is a mischievous proposal,
since it will appeal to those who want a ready-made excuse not to fret
about the issue. It would put the matter into the hands of a body with
little status or experience. It would be more profitable to read the Royal
Commission’s report. Additionally, the public would not know what it was
voting for, since by the time the Commission was sitting, the referendum
process would be finished. MMP is a frog, and no matter how many times the
princess kisses it, it won’t turn into a prince.
In essence, this is a
matter which should be decided by voters through a fair and unbiased
process, and to date we see that process dominated by a self-interested
Parliament which has a “tick-the box-on-an-election-promise”
mentality.
Please support the petition.
If you
would like to comment on this issue please click
>>>
Skip to top | Skip
to poll
Send to
a friend:
|
