Skip to comment form | Skip to poll | Send to a friend

The allies imposed proportional representation as a system of democratic governance on a defeated Germany with one purpose in mind. To stop any one political party dominating any future Government. This is the system NZ now endures. Only twice last century did any one political party ever break the 50% threshold and be able to govern on its own under our MMP proportional system. MMP does work, slowly in some Nordic countries where the smaller parties are mature and based on historic principles.

Except for the Greens the smaller parties in NZ represent the frustrated ambitions of individuals who were elected to constituencies under the banner of major parties, then disappointment, vanity and frustration saw them leave their parties and set up new political vehicles for their ambitions. None would ever have been elected initially without their earlier party label.

The system is inherently unstable, that’s its purpose and one of the reasons New Zealanders supported this system, they wanted less power in the hands of politicians, some even thought they would get less politics. Now its not who wins the election but who can stitch together a deal with other parties, after the election. It’s worked reasonably well over the past few elections with a few sordid deals that were not made clear until after the election. In 1996, NZ First leader Winston Peters swore never to join a Conservative government, he did because they offered the key Finance Ministry.

Three years ago Winston said he didn’t want the baubles of office and then took the Foreign Ministry on the fiction that he was not a member of the Government. Anything can happen. Present polling firmly suggests that the Maori Party could hold the balance and determine who forms the Government.

Therefore there is solemn responsibility of the media and the public has the right to ask what this means. Note that all previous coalition deals have been struck when the economy was robust, all were about spending more money and favouring constituencies that the small parties wanted to reward. How a coalition can be stuck when there’s an economic downturn, even crisis, has not been tested under MMP.

No major party dare question the Maori party because they know they will have to do a deal, best save that until later. But what some Maori party leaders have said should be reason for some tough media questions.

For example, when a leader says they want equal representation in a government because its not about numbers, its a partnership, what does that mean? Sorry, democracy is about numbers. I heard a compelling argument on radio that Maori MP’s didn’t want to be in Cabinet but only wanted power over expenditure on Maori people. What does that mean? Does that mean what I think it means, does it mean channelling taxpayers’ money for Maori through Maori institutions, does it cover education, health and what else? 

The claim that the Tuhoe people ought to have their own Government like Scotland went unchallenged, Scotland has its own courts, police, education system and ability to tax. If this is what it means, this is an issue of historic importance that must be argued before an election. Others have suggested an upper house of equal representation, Maori and non Maori, a partnership, that could veto the decisions of the House of Representatives.

These are issues fundamental to the future of NZ. These changes can be bought in by stealth, it begins with a powerless Council of elders and Maori models of parallel development.  Devolution and self-reliance – sounds good?

I sensed the dangers inherent in such political opportunism some years ago and prepared legislation on how, over several election cycles, we could address these many complex issues through a series of constitutional conventions that could eventually give NZ a constitution. Early this year I wrote about this in a series of feature articles and spoke to MP’s in all the parties and corresponded with them. I was overwhelmed in a tidal wave of apathy. 

NZ is changing the nature of its constitutional arrangements by stealth, without an overall coherent vision, and most certainly without a conversation or consensus among the public. The Honours system was abolished, as were rights to go to the Privy Council, what were conventions have been disregarded and the public service’s independence threatened. Recently we abolished the title of Queen’s Counsel as a top legal job, abolished in favour of Special Counsels. Sounds small stuff, but its not.  There’s a pattern. Once changed, these things can not be unchanged. I thought then that all these constitutional issues ought to be folded together rather than be changed so fundamentally bit by bit.

I’m no conservative, but has any one Government the right to make such far-reaching changes without explanation and the will of the people being directly expressed? It’s tough for the journalists  who are bogged down in the trees and thus cannot see the forest.

Politicians seek flexibility through secrecy, and room to manoeuvre.  Just to ask these questions risks being called ‘anti-Maori’. Self-censorship is still censorship. 

I fear, after this election, deals will be struck that will change the nature of our society and democracy, I hope I’m proven wrong.

If you would like to comment on this issue please click >>>

Send to a friend: