Underscrutinised Political Agendas
Keith Rankin, 17 November 1999
We have come to view our politicians with a glazed sense of cynicism. We don't trust them, they have agendas, and we cannot be bothered engaging with them. We have become accustomed to post-election surprises.
What will a government of the right throw at us next year?
Act announced on Sunday (14 November) that it would work towards a "low, flat tax of twenty cents" to be funded in part through asset sales. Act's tax policies must be taken seriously. Act's constituency has already panicked Jenny Shipley into promising to flatten the income tax scale. A National-Act coalition will sell public assets to fund tax cuts for the affluent few.
Act proposes to sell property - TVNZ for example - that belongs in part, to me. I am an equal owner of TVNZ. Therefore, if it is sold, I should get an equal share of the proceeds. If TVNZ realises the $1.2 billion that Act anticipates, I should receive over $300 in cash or kind as my share of the proceeds.
At present, New Zealanders grossing less than $39,500 per annum (ie most of us) pay less than the 20% income tax rate that Act proposes. Just 430,000 New Zealanders pay more than 20 cents in the dollar. Act intends to use the sale of TVNZ to help fund a tax "cut" that is actually a tax increase for most of us. The $1.2 billion would be paid in cash to the richest 12%, while the majority of taxpayers would make up for the loss of TVNZ profits by paying extra tax.
Where's the debate about who gets what when public assets are sold?
The next neglected agenda relates to our electoral system. We have a referendum this month about the size of Parliament, but little opportunity to scrutinise the underlying issues because the referendum is concurrent with the election.
Why are we voting for 99 MPs? Apparently it's because 250,000 of us believed that, under FPP, we had a parliament fixed at 99 MPs. In fact, if MMP had been defeated in 1993, we would now be voting for 104 MPs. By 2020, we would have been voting for 125 MPs if we had retained FPP.
The National Government has not encouraged a full public debate on the 99 MP proposal. Further, National wants to circumvent the MMP review process that they legislated for in 1993. I am sure that a reduction in the size of parliament will prove to be the first step of a plan to replace MMP with the rejected SM (Supplementary Member) electoral system.
We should be getting our heads around the SM electoral system now, because SM dovetails very well with a 99 MP mixed member parliament. Indeed, SM would allow the present South Island quota of 16 electorates to be retained.
SM combines the worst features of FPP with the least popular features of MMP. It repoliticises the electorate vote, recreating the "safe seat" system that used to render most votes ineffective. SM, like FPP, is a duopoly system. It gives most of the diminished number of list seats to the dominant two parties, leaving the other parties with just token representation. Whereas under MMP it is hard for unpopular politicians to survive, under SM, the party list is a sinecure for career politicians.
Underscrutinised agendas are by no means confined to the right. The Alliance and Labour don't try to hide their intent to impose a very tight whipping system on MPs of all parties. Jim Anderton says that his top priority is to pass "anti-defection" legislation that will force MPs to resign from parliament if they separate from their parties.
This promise has arisen in the main from the messy Alamein Kopu affair. It is motivated by the same bitterness that characterises any spiteful divorce. The aftermath of the battle of Alamein will be like World War I. Backbench MPs who disobey their party generals will face the firing squad.
Parties are vehicles for getting a diverse range of good people into parliament. Parliament, though structured by party allegiances, has been for centuries a chamber of autonomous representatives. The proposed anti-defection legislation represents the whimpering of representative democracy and the beginning of the dictatorship of the party generals. It would make it very difficult for party caucus members to oppose another Roger Douglas. At the very least, an anti-defection bill requires substantial public debate.
Most possible outcomes of this election leave me uneasy. I fear that an Act-National government will deprive the New Zealand public their rights to the proceeds of asset sales. Further, National has a cunning plan to steer us towards the unlovely Supplementary Member electoral system.
Labour-Alliance on the other hand offer us the political equivalent of Passchendaele. Following the introduction of anti-defection legislation, backbench MPs will have to say "how high?" whenever their leaders say "jump". I just hope that, if a Labour-Alliance government is chosen, it will require the support of the Greens.
If elected, a Labour-Alliance-Green government will, I believe, respect the public's property rights while making it possible for democratic good sense to prevail. I believe that the culture of the Green Party will facilitate a proper respect for the institutions of representative democracy.
© 1999 Keith Rankin