Reforming Public Services

ACT New Zealand MP and former Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas today addressed British business leaders, economists, policy makers and political commentators at UK think-tank Reform's policy conference on reducing Government deficit and reforming public services.

Press Release by Hon Sir Roger Douglas, ACT New Zealand
Thursday, July 8 2010.

Sir Roger was invited to speak about the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the Government, and the fundamental changes that must occur to keep Government spending in check.

"The UK and New Zealand are similar in that we both have become accustomed to State funded healthcare, superannuation, education and welfare," Sir Roger said.

"However, looking to the future, the rapidly aging population and the debt incurred through massive fiscal stimulus packages will expose the current system for what it is – a giant ponzi scheme.

"The global financial crisis has seen ballooning government debt around the world as countries scramble to keep their economies afloat. Meanwhile, ever-increasing demands on public heath sectors and government super schemes will see taxpayers facing some tough decisions.

"No Government has an endless supply of cash. Taxpayers will either have to pay for services through substantial tax increases, or dramatically revise their expectations of the services they will receive.

"In New Zealand the only way forward is to move from the current 'pay as you go' system to one in which individuals have the freedom to take more control over these areas of their lives," Sir Roger said.

ENDS

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Unemployed Youth the Bane of Waikato

By Steve Baron.

Unemployed teenagers walk down the streets of every town in the Waikato, spray cans hidden under their hoodies, usually looking for trouble.

I sat there listening to their derogatory comments as the local Senior Sargent drove past in an unmarked car. They knew who he was and he knew who they were, as he glanced sideways with a glaring eye. Teenagers have an unemployment rate over three times that of the entire work force. With an economic downturn fewer jobs are available, making them more vulnerable to unemployment. This is because of their lack of skills and work experience. Maori and Pacific Island youth face even higher unemployment rates and its a serious problem we need to confront.

Many years ago I found myself in a similar situation, unemployed and looking for a job to
keep me out of trouble. I walked into the Department of Social Welfare. I didn't want the dole, just help to find a job. I was interviewed by this scruffy slob of a bloke who got me to fill out a form, which amongst other things asked me what jobs I preferred. I listed Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, trying to show a sense of humor and motivation. He ripped the form apart and stormed out of the room in disgust. I yelled a few obscene words at him like... Quantitative Easing, Dead Weight Loss & Fiscal Deficit. This bought a gasp from the lady behind the counter who was amazed at my comprehension of economic language!

Well our esteemed Minister of Finance has just increased GST and is now considering
increasing the minimum wage. This gives me great cause for concern. Increasing the
minimum wage, or even having one at all, creates what economists call a 'dead weight
loss', which leads to unemployment. Such academic insights are learned in Economics
101. Raising the minimum wage is great for those who currently have a job but it adversely affects the uneducated unemployed trying to get a job. Put it this way, I'd rather see my child earning less than the current minimum wage, than being on the dole earning just over $100 a week and walking the streets looking for trouble.

There will always be those who argue everyone including teenagers are entitled to a
minimum wage so they can maintain a minimum standard of living. The reality is that these demands keep our youth, particularly those uneducated youth, out of work. They roam around with too much time on their hands and usually end up creating more than their fair share of crime. The government has offered some incentive for employers, by subsidising the wage of youth workers. Youth workers are abundant though and those who need work to keep themselves out of trouble rarely find it under these schemes. Political pressure almost guarantees the government will never remove minimum wage rates. This then falls on the local community, perhaps in association with Police, to find a way around the problem of unemployed youth. One way or another it will cost us, whether we do or don't find them employment.

Steve Baron is an author, freelance journalist and Founder of Better Democracy NZ.

steve@betterdemocracy.co.nz

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

The Conceit of the Anointed

By Dr Muriel Newman

All too often something odd seems to happen to people elected to public office. Instead of being a conduit for the opinion of those they represent as promised in their election campaigns many morph into autocrats, convinced they know better than us how we should live our lives.

Election promises and pledges are conveniently forgotten as the more ‘relevant’ issues of governance demand their judgment.

In his book “The Vision of the Anointed”, renowned US economist and author Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, described the dynamics of this phenomenon. He explained that the ruling elite believe that they are smarter than the rest of us - why else would we have elected them? They are convinced that they are the only ones with solutions to the problems we face – notwithstanding the fact that their so-called solutions are not voluntary, but are imposed by force using the coercive power of the state. In other words, irrespective of the reality, the ruling elite firmly believe that the government (but only when they are the government!) knows best.

We saw that conceit in Helen Clark’s Labour Government. For nine years the country was ruled by socialists who believed the public could not be trusted to make good decisions. Trust was instead placed in a bigger and omnipresent government to rule over every aspect of our lives. With unbridled access to the treasury and the powers of compulsion, the state sector eventually ballooned out of control, further strangling the economic freedom upon which prosperity is based.

When the 2008 general election delivered a change in the government, voters quite reasonably expected John Key to be different. In his speech from the throne at the opening of the new Parliament, the Prime Minister explained that he intended to honour the individual: “My Government will be guided by the principle of individual freedom and a belief in the capacity and right of individuals to shape and improve their own lives. My Government will not seek to involve itself in decisions that are best made by New Zealanders within their own homes and their own communities. The new Government's vision is not to dictate the way in which New Zealanders should live their lives, but instead to ensure they have the opportunities they need to make the best choices for themselves.”[1]

In light of that promise, John Key’s response to the citizens initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law last year came as a shock. In spite of 87.6 percent of the population agreeing that a smack should not be a criminal offence in New Zealand, the Prime Minister dismissed their view, claiming to know better than the public how parents should raise children in this country.

The reality of course was that their polling had showed National that they might lose some support amongst women if they agreed to change the law on smacking. Obviously being popular with women voters was more important to the Prime Minister than the promise he made to the New Zealand public that they should be free to live their lives without state interference. Political convenience won over political principle.

Ignoring that unequivocal referendum result was a shock to many, more so because it was the National Party who introduced the Citizens-initiated Referendum Act in 1993 and at the time considered making such referenda binding! It reminded us that while a regime change at the general election might alter the name and the ‘hue’ of the coalition parties, New Zealand continues to be governed by a ruling elite rather than being a genuine democracy where individuals as a collective feel they have true representation.

This state of affairs is quite different from the situation in a country like Switzerland where the public are regarded as sovereign decision makers, with the government there to serve them. The difference of course, is that in Switzerland it is the public that have the final say on how their country is run. They do this through their referenda process. If voters disagree with a new law that has been passed by their Parliament, they can force a binding referendum on it if they can gather 50,000 signatures within the first 100 days. If a simple majority of people vote against the new law in the referendum, it is thrown out. In other words, in Switzerland (as well as in a number of other jurisdictions around the world that make extensive use of binding referenda) the wisdom of the public is highly regarded and trusted. There is no ruling elite - politicians are the servants of the people. This is surely the shape of true democracy!

Under a Swiss-style system, Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law would have been challenged within the first 100 days and subjected to a binding referendum, and no doubt thrown out. It would not have mattered how many “know-it-all” politicians tried to argue that banning smacking was right and that the public were wrong on this issue. The politicians would have suffered a massive defeat with nanny state effectively being tossed out of the family home, leaving parents free to bring up their children without interference from radical activists like Sue Bradford.

There is a related matter that is also a cause of huge concern here in New Zealand, and that is the ostrich like denial that occurs when politicians get things wrong. Instead of changing their mind if new information becomes available (as epitomised in that famous quote by economist John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”), they protect their image of divine-like judgment and consequently perpetuate the damaging effects of their own poor decision making.

Again, if New Zealand had a Swiss-style 100 day law, we would be protected from such political self-preservation. As it is, we must bear the cost and consequences of legislation that should never have been enacted in the first place.

A case in point is National’s lame duck Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). To get it passed through Parliament ahead of the failed climate change summit in Copenhagen last December, they had to offer what was in effect a massive taxpayer-funded bribe to the mates of the Maori Party. Now, National’s ETS, which was designed to align with Australia’s scheme so that neither country could seek to gain a competitive advantage by taking a softer line on carbon emissions - is ready to be enacted on July 1st even though Australia is unlikely to pass their scheme. Given there are only a few weeks until the scheme is due to begin, businesses and lobby groups alike are contacting the government to have the scheme suspended at least until the next international climate negotiations take place in Mexico in December. By then it is likely to be abundantly clear to even the most one-eyed politician that carbon markets are destined to collapse when the Kyoto protocol expires in two years time, and our ETS scheme will become a case study in political stupidity.

http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly221.htm

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

A Political Love Affair

By Steve Baron.

Once upon a time I fell madly in love. She was the most gorgeous, intelligent and
successful woman I had ever met, she changed...

my life forever. Unfortunately she went back to the devil she knew rather than the devil she didn't. Obviously she wasn't happy in her previous relationship, just as many voters aren't always happy with the previous government. Like this woman, we get tired of being dominated, controlled, manipulated, threatened and cheated on, so we flirt with something else to fill that empty chasm. In New Zealand politics there have been numerous third parties like Social Credit and New Zealand First. These flirtations have all come and gone but ultimately we keep returning to one of the two major parties. We keep going back for more punishment election after election. Every election they beg and plead with us and always promise to change their ways... but they rarely do. Alas, even though we know we can't really trust them anymore and our love for them is not the same it once was, we give them yet another chance. Our
memories are very short. Over the years parliament has become a den of iniquity, full of broken election promises, ignored referendums, abuse of taxpayer money, fraud, racism, physical violence and arrogance. Just like some marriages I guess. Falling voter turnout only goes to prove the lack of trust New Zealanders have in their political system and their politicians. We complain, moan and groan but mostly we grin and bear it. Will we ever move on from this or are we destined to keep repeating history ad infinitum? What can we do about it anyway, this is our lot and we just have to accept it don't we? Well no we don't. We need to be prepared to make a stand, take back the control we have abdicated, become more aware, and more outspoken. We must become as some academics have referred to as the gladiators of society. The politically active and motivated who are not prepared to let politicians do all the thinking for them. For me, I've moved on, I no longer have a blind faith for any one political party. They all have their good and bad points. I
want more say on issues that can profoundly affect my life. I haven't given up on love, or politics. I will continue to comment, provoke and suggest new ideas, but I will refuse to vote any longer (as do twenty percent of the population). Some will argue that if I'm not prepared to vote then I can't complain. However, like workers who can withhold their labour when they are being unjustly treated, I can withhold my vote. Just like in a marriage, sexual favors can be withheld, so sorry, not tonight, not even next election my dear politicians, I have a headache.

ENDS

This article first appeared in the Cambridge News 18/01/2010

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Anti Democratic Elitist Thought

By Steve Baron

One of my first university lecturers suggested the best advice he could offer was to challenge everything he said, and to come to my own conclusions. In other words,

don't believe everything you are told, even by an esteemed university professor. These words flooded back to me when I heard Raymond Miller, an Auckland University political scientist and media commentator, calling for the 1993 Citizens Initiated Referenda Act, to be repealed on the Paul Holmes Q&A television show. Former Prime Minister and law professor, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, has often suggested the same. In his 1997 book Bridled Power he said, “the Act should be repealed. It appears to offer a chance for citizens to influence policy, but in substance that opportunity is like a mirage in the desert. Referenda should be reserved for those few and important issues of constitution and conscience that should be bound by the people's voice.”

Given the huge number of conscience votes in Parliament over the last decade on extremely polarizing issues, I for one would have loved to hear Sir Geoffrey calling for citizens to decide these outcomes in a referendum... where were you when we needed you Sir Geoffrey? If referendums are a mirage, then what of representative democracy? Does it not also give citizens the illusion they can influence policy, because they get to vote once every three years at an election? Yet the day after an election a government can break every promise it has made, and often has. Perhaps we could also repeal representative democracy?

The weakness of representative democracy is that once a government is elected, there are few checks and balances between elections. The public is basically excluded. While proportional representation and coalition governments may have slowed Cabinet government to some extent, voters generally have to accept whatever the government decides it wants, even if the majority of citizens disagree as they did in the 2009 smacking referendum and even if the government of the day represent only 36.78% of those illegible to vote, as was the case with the 2008 National/Act Party government. Yet they rule 100% of the people.

It would seem strange that academics like these would be making calls to repeal the CIR Act. Surely what New Zealanders seek is a strong and robust society, where there is a true exchange of information between the elected and the electorate, not the “thin” representative democracy that Benjamin Barber refers to in his book Strong Democracy. A democracy controlled by political elitists and influenced by academic elitists who have little respect for the will and collective wisdom of voters is surely undesirable.

There is no doubt that the CIR Act needs to be made more robust to ensure referendum questions are not bias, misleading or ambiguous. More effort also needs to be placed on supplying voters with balanced information, giving the pros and cons of the referendum in question via an official referendum pamphlet and website.

US President Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves”. Words that our visiting Chinese officials might indeed heed when faced with Russell Norman, Co-Leader of the Green Party, protesting against China's treatment of Tibet.

Steve Baron is an author, Founder of Better Democracy NZ, and a regular contributor to publications throughout New Zealand. steve@betterdemocracy.co.nz www.betterdemocracy.co.nz

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Economic Prostitution

By Steve Baron

Many years ago I walked into the Dept of Social Welfare. I didn't want the dole, just help to find a job.

I was interviewed by this scruffy slob of a bloke who got me to fill out a form
which also asked what jobs I would prefer. I listed Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, trying to show a sense of humor and motivation. He ripped the form apart and stormed out of the room in disgust. I yelled a few obscene words at him like... Quantitative Easing, Dead Weight Loss & Fiscal Deficit. This bought a gasp from the lady behind the counter who was amazed at my comprehension of economic language!

Well I certainly wouldn't want to be PM but Minister of Finance still appeals. I often wonder what English and his predecessor Cullen dream about at night, perhaps Margaret Thatcher? Cullen was so tight he needed an anal stretch and English so greedy he would charge his own Mother rent if she came to visit.

It hasn't been easy for English, the way the world economy has gone. Its not easy striking a balance between spending and debt. An increase to GST and the minimum wage is currently being mooted. GST is certainly a more equitable tax system, but as for increasing the minimum wage I can't agree. It creates what economists call a 'dead weight loss' which leads to unemployment. Raising the minimum wage is great for those who currently have a job but it adversely affects the uneducated unemployed trying to get a job. Put it this way, I'd rather see my child earning less than the current minimum wage, than being on the dole earning just over $100 a week.

One of the main problems challenging our economy is compounding debt. This happens because our money supply is created and owned by foreign financial institutions and then gets lent into our system at interest. We must make huge interest payments and pay twice over for infrastructure, health and education which society needs to improve our standard of living. Compounding debt cheats society.

If society needs more money to expand then an independent National Credit Authority should oversee the supply of it, not borrow it from overseas. Of course there has to be a happy medium. Supply too much and you get hyperinflation like Hitlers Nazi Germany. Supply too little money and the consequences are no more favorable. The
principal and the concept are important here.

The problem of compounding debt must be fixed before overseas financial institutions hang us by our antipodes. As Thomas Edison once said,

“If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency.”

Anything else is economic prostitution. Henry Ford added,

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Steve Baron is an author, Founder of Better Democracy NZ, and a
regular contributor to publications throughout New Zealand. He
resides in Cambridge. steve@betterdemocracy.co.nz
www.betterdemocracy.co.nz

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

MMP: To Disembowel or Develop?

By Steve Baron

It was Winston Churchill who said, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Like the names of loves long lost, we often forget, and so it is with

politics. Politicians hungry for power often pray on this weakness of human nature and give us the opportunity to make the same mistakes over again. Yes indeed, we do have short memories, especially on political matters. At the next election voters will decide whether or not to keep MMP or replace it with something else.

So what does history tell us about our voting system and why did we change to MMP? For a start, in 1978 and 1981, the Labour Party received more votes than the National Party but National remained the government, because they held more electorate seats. That is how First Past the Post (FPP) works. In 1978 the Social Credit Party (now Democrats for Social Credit) received sixteen percent of the vote, but only one seat in Parliament, then twenty one percent of the vote in 1981 which gave them only two seats in Parliament. In 1984 the New Zealand Party received twelve percent of the vote, but no Members of Parliament. These results, along with a growing distrust of politicians due to many broken election promises, and New Zealander's innate belief in fairness, led to calls for a Royal Commission, and change.

As one of the many New Zealanders who got to vote for the first time in my life as an eighteen year old, in 1978, it just didn't seem fair that the party that got the most votes didn't become the government, and the votes received by third parties did not reflect that vote in Parliament. In other words many votes were 'wasted votes'.

Even as far back as 1979 there were calls for change, Professor Geoffrey Palmer, later to become Prime Minister in a Labour government wrote,
New Zealand passes too many laws and it passes them too quickly. Legislative overload is not unique to New Zealand, although it is more pronounced here
than in most other countries.
As a proponent of MMP, Professor Palmer saw this as an opportunity to slow this process.

I also remember Garry Knapp, leader of the Democratic Party (formerly Social Credit and now Democrats for Social Credit) and a number of supporters barricading themselves into one of Parliaments Select Committee rooms, as a protest to highlight the unfairness of FPP. They remained there for a number of days, even taking a porta-loo in with them. Knapp was seen on the six o'clock news waving from the balcony in defiance, after requests from the Speaker of the House and Police to remove themselves.

National won the 1990 election and a date was set in 1992 to hold a non-binding referendum to decide if the existing system of FPP was to be retained or if it should be replaced with a new voting system which was to be decided in a later binding referendum. An overwhelming 84.5% of voters wanted the system to changed.

After this, battle lines were drawn and all hell broke loose. All sorts of organisations and lobby groups were set up either to support MMP or to denounce it, leading up to the 1993 general election where the second referendum would take place. The Electoral Reform Coalition was the main advocate for MMP. It was organised by Phil Saxby, a Labour Party member, along with many other individuals, as well as members of many of the smaller political parties who joined together on a shoestring budget to bring about change. Political Scientists also entered the frey saying greater representation of minorities, furthermore, has been shown to lead to greater trust in government on the part of minority citizens.

On the other side of the battle lines was the Coalition for Better Government who opposed MMP. It was organised by wealthy businessman Peter Shirtcliffe, chairman of Telecom New Zealand. He was quoted as saying MMP "would bring chaos". They ran full page adverts in major newspapers at great expense. Some newspapers at the time estimated they spent over $1.5m. Australian academic, Malcolm McKerras, was invited to New Zealand to put his case against MMP. In 1988 McKerras had said the Royal Commission's recommendation was, "so radical that it had virtually no prospect of popular endorsement at a referendum", and following the 1992 referendum, had condemned MMP as "a rat bag scheme". The Green Party later made the comment, “From our point of view McKerras became our secret weapon with his arrogance tipping the swinging voters in our direction.”

Journalist Graeme Hunt was also an opponent of MMP. He claimed it would be the “electoral disaster of the century”. He also argued that the Royal Commission had been “stacked” with a Royal Commission in favour of MMP by Geoffrey Palmer (an MMP supporter) who by then was Minister of Justice and responsible for deciding who would be on the Royal Commission. Hunt also argued that MMP would elect “political greenhorns to positions of power” and would allow the “tail to wag the dog” as minor parties would get too much power. Many opponents also claimed that MMP would cause unstable governments. National Cabinet Minister Bill Birch said MMP would be "a catastrophic disaster for democracy". Former National Party Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson, said MMP "would bring economic ruin". In effect they were trying to convince the public that we could trust them, and that our faith should be put in them, and not some new political system that would limit their powers.

The first MMP election in 1996 produced a more diverse representation as expected. A record number of women were elected, along with an increase in the number of Maori and Pacific Island MPs. A lot of water has passed under the political bridge, as there have now been a number of MMP elections. The economy has not gone to ruin as predicted. Neither has it been a catastrophe for democracy and governments have been extremely stable after an initial settling in period. Perhaps one could argue that from time to time the tail has wagged the dog, however, the alternative to that is the undesirability of absolute power in the hands of just one political party.

There are also calls to change MMP to another voting system. The main options being Approval Voting (AV), Preferential Vote (PR), Single Transferable Vote (STV), and the Borda Count (BC)

AV is a simple and easy to understand system, as well as simple to implement with little change needed to ballot papers. It was first formulated in 1971 by Robert J. Weber who in 1977 also wrote a book called "Comparison of Voting Systems". AV became popular in the 1980's when a group of academics started to promote it for use in the American elections. It was never adopted there, but is used by the United Nations to elect the Secretary General. According to proponents, a major virtue of AV compared to conventional voting systems is its greater 'honesty' in the sense that it encourages sincere voting and is less vulnerable to strategic manipulation. Also, AV does not violate monotonicity. Having non-monotonicity means that getting more votes may actually stop a person from being elected. Rather a strange consequence, but evidently mathematically probable. So therefore, if it is good enough for the United Nations, is it good enough for New Zealand? Here's what outspoken AV proponent Professor Steven Brams has to say.
While AV is a strikingly simple election reform for finding consensus choices
in single-winner elections, in elections with more than one winner - such as
for a council or a legislature - AV would not be desirable if the goal is to
mirror a diversity of views, especially of minorities; for this purpose, other
voting systems should be considered.
Given these comments above it is hard to choose AV as an option.

Some, like Peter Shirtcliffe, prefer Preferential Voting (PV). This is certainly a better option than FPP, because it will stop the most unpopular candidate from winning (as can happen under FPP). However, PV allows popular candidates to be eliminated too early making it an unappealing aspect of this system. PV is also susceptible to insincere voting as well as bullet voting. This is a tactic where even though a voter can select more than one candidate, they only tick their first preference. If enough people do this, the system effectively reverts to FPP, which is undesirable. However, rules can be imposed to penalise this tactic, although this could possibly result in high numbers of spoiled ballots.

One system that has an almost cult following is STV. It has grown in popularity and was even considered by the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Thomas Wright Hill first came up with the concept of the transferable vote in 1821, but it was never used. Then in 1855 Carl Andrae promoted using it for Denmark elections. Most people credit Englishman Thomas Hare with the concept however, as he became well known in Australia where it has been used. In Australia STV is known as the Hare-Clark proportional method. STV is used in Ireland, the Australian and South African Senate, Malta, Tasmania and even in a number of local body elections in New Zealand. The down side to STV is that very few people understand how it works. STV was rejected by the Plant Committee, which reported to the British Labour Party, because of non-monotonicity. STV is also susceptible to insincere voting. However, STV certainly achieves more diverse representation by allowing more minorities to be elected.

Another option is the Border Count (BC). This election system was developed by Frenchman Jean-Charles de Borda, in 1770. A little known fact is that the BC is successfully used on two Pacific Islands being the Republic of Nauru, the Republic of Kiribati and also Slovenia. The idea of BC is to take all voter preferences into account. This is a desirable feature, because a candidate is unable to lose by 'doing better' as can happen under other systems. Samuel Merrill conducted a study of seven voting systems, which showed the BC was the most likely procedure to select both a Condorcet winner (round robin against all candidates) and the candidate with the highest social utility. However, the BC can be susceptible to insincere voting and small changes to choices can make an immense difference. BC determines the winner of an election by giving each candidate a certain number of points corresponding to the position in which he or she is ranked by each voter. Once all votes have been counted the candidate with the most points is the winner. Some feel this is more favourable than a simple majority because it often elects a candidate more broadly acceptable to voters. It is considered more consensus orientated.

While there is no “perfect” system I can't help but feel the current MMP system is reasonably fair and reasonably understood by New Zealanders. There is some controversy over the fact that NZ First received more votes than the ACT Party for example, but failed to meet the five percent threshold and therefore did not receive any seats in Parliament, whereas ACT (with less votes than NZ First) got a number of MPs elected because Rodney Hide won the seat of Epsom. Perhaps this needs to be addressed by lowering the threshold to less than five percent or simply doing away with the ruling that allows a party to get seats in Parliament based on the percentage of votes received, if it can get just one Member of Parliament elected.

In my opinion, MMP has certainly been a step forward in our democracy and any consideration to changing the current system should be taken carefully and slowly for such an important constitutional type issue. MMP may not have given us as much control as some would have liked, but that is unlikely to happen until New Zealanders get to experience what 190 million people in Switzerland, Italy, Liechtenstein and twenty three States in the USA now embrace, the referendum system. This experience has proved how successful binding referendums can be at empowering nations, deciding national issues of importance and giving voters more control over issues that directly affect their lives. The Swiss have used direct democracy for over one hundred and thirty years through the Veto, Recall (which would allow us to remove unwanted List MPs) and Citizens Initiated referendum. All of which are binding on the government.

So, now the debate starts all over again, but does New Zealand really want to go back to the days when Labour got more votes than National, but National remained the government even with a minority vote? Or have a return to the old two party club and the fastest law makers in the west, as Geoffrey Palmer referred to New Zealand? Disembowelling our electoral system by returning to FPP would be a step backward. Let us improve on what we have and step forward into a better democracy. Only time will tell what we decide, but at least we all get to participate in the debate.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

What are elections for?

From the Club Troppo blog: Politics, economics, law and life from a 'radical centrist' perspective, defined by Noel Pearson as "the intense resolution of the tensions between opposing principles"

What are elections for?
Posted by Richard Green on Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Here’s a quote I read today.

"It’s how PR (Proportional Representation) systems are meant to operate, and is far preferable to a minority government. It’s a mature and sensible approach, and a step away from the pathologies of winner-takes all so common to Westminster systems with single member electorates. The result will be the representation of the will of a larger proportion of the electorate, and it’s hard to see how that’s anything other than a positive.."

There’s nothing particular about the source or its context (Tasmania) I want to note, but its a sentiment I’ve heard many times and it happens to trouble me.
The positive in this instance seems to be that the government will be made up of politicians elected by a greater proportion. Likewise proportional representation is desirable because it increases a chance that an elector will have a politician in parliament to call their own.

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it implicitly supposes the reason we have elections is to have politicians, and that I guess the point of politicians is giving viewpoints in parliament and arguing.

Are politicians really the end goal of democracy?

As far as I see it, politicians are only the means to an end: governance – which I’ll start calling policy. The identity of and colours flown by the people implementing the policy may be of great importance to political tragics (who should get football teams), but it’s what they do that counts more than whom they are.
[I'll put in an apology here to any political scientists whose grass I am ignorantly cutting]

And we can’t make policy proportional. Under one government, there can be, at any given time, only one basket of policy. We can’t have an ETS that runs only for Labor voters and a restriction on immigration only for Liberal voters, a legalisation of drugs and guns for LDP voters, gay marriage and forests for Greens voters and massive cash payments for clearing paddocks for Nationals voters.

No matter how a government is constituted as a single party or a dizzyingly diverse coalition, there will only be one policy basket. Whilst there is diversity in the electorate this policy basket isn’t going to satisfy everyone no matter how we structure the voting system.

So then what? If the policy basket by nature will be singular, maybe then the only real choice is to find a singular voter that is still shaped by all of the electorate. The mythical average voter. Any one person’s changing opinions will affect in some way the average, so a electoral system in which the winner is s/he who espouses the policy most attractive to the average may well be as democratic as we can get in a practical sense.

Of course, this is just the Median Voter Theorem transformed into a normative statement. It’s not a very good description of most winner take all electoral systems, but I think the unusual combination of compulsory preferential voting gets us closer than we might otherwise be, since there is no virtue in playing to the base.

In a winner takes all parliament, quite apart from matters of stability, the vote that gives a majority is less likely to come from a party playing to the edge. Since major parties dislike dealing with each other (since it helps their greatest adversaries) they will prefer a coalition with the smaller parties whom play to the fringe, which can only pull policy away from the average. A parliament that looks less representative by its members may produce more representative policy.

By all means, if someone wants to vote for a minor party, let them (I do). Finding the median relies on everyone acting normally. If they’re fortunate they’ll shift the median voter

It’s just that I don’t think the best outcome of voting is getting a personal ideological champion’s words inscribed in the hansard. It’s about getting a policy mix acceptable to the electorate collectively, if not as a mass of individuals.

From the Club Troppo blog: Politics, economics, law and life from a 'radical centrist' perspective, defined by Noel Pearson as "the intense resolution of the tensions between opposing principles"
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/04/13/what-are-elections-for/

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Guest articles/posts welcome

If you have a topic or article you would like us to consider posting here please contact Steve on 07 827-0511 or email steve@betterdemocracy.co.nz We are always looking for new contributors with something of value to add to the Better Democracy NZ blog.
Read more...

Democracy or Dictatorship?

By Larry Baldock

This is an article by Larry Baldock, organiser of the Campagn4Democracy, petition organiser and former MP. Married for 33 years to Barbara, 3 children 5 grandchildren. Former Tauranga City Councillor, Member of Parliament 2002-2005. Leader of the Kiwi Party. Larry recently rented out his family home for the next twelve months to focus his life on collecting enough signatures for his Citizens Initiative. Now that's commitment!

Do you think we live in a democracy?

Recently a radio interviewer asked me, “Why call it a Campaign4Democracy, when we already live in a democracy?”

Well, it’s because more and more New Zealanders are coming to the conclusion that our democracy now consists of just having the privilege of electing a new dictator every three years! In our system of representative democracy if those we elect are not listening to and carrying out the wishes of those that have elected them, then what democracy do we have?

The Prime Minister in New Zealand controls the Executive and Legislative branches of our Government and the Attorney General, (with approval from the PM of course), appoints our Supreme Court Judges. Add to that the fact that the Queen, as our Head of State, appoints the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and the Governor General then acts only upon the recommendations of the Prime Minister, and you can begin to understand the extent of the abuse of power that can occur.

I have no doubt in my mind that if the National Party caucus members had been given the opportunity to vote in a secret ballot on the repeal of the anti-smacking law after the referendum, it would have been tossed out ‘by lunchtime’. After all, many of them, with John Key’s sanction, had helped me collect signatures to make the Anti-smacking referendum a reality!

It would no doubt come as a surprise to many that MPs crossing the floor to vote against party lines is much more common in healthy overseas democracies than here in NZ where, party loyalty, particularly in National and Labour, has become paramount.

Look at how much work President Obama had to do to get the votes of his democratic party colleagues in Congress to pass his health care reform, or how often backbench MPs threaten to vote against their party in Westminster. When was the last time an MP in our House of Representatives had the courage of their convictions to represent their constituents, and crossed the floor against the wishes of their party? It is a rare event indeed and has usually resulted in the party turning on the MP with vindictive reprisals.

In fact, I think most voters would be very concerned to learn that democratic votes seldom happen within a party caucus in Parliament, and when they do, anyone with a different opinion from the leader, must raise their hand in a brave, career damaging move. The secret ballot is a very important foundation of our electoral system yet within political parties it almost never occurs.

New Zealand is the only nation, as far as I am aware, that has neither a written constitution to clearly define the boundaries of constitutional power, nor a second chamber such as a Senate or House of Lords which must vet and pass all legislation before it becomes law. Added to this weakness we now have an MMP electoral system in which party leaders hold considerable additional power over their MPs concerned about their rankings on the party list at the next election.

No matter how likeable our political leaders are at any time, we need to remember that the ‘separation of powers’ principle is for their protection as well as ours. As Lord Acton said “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. To all intents and purposes our Prime Ministers can assume dictatorial powers and use them to their detriment and that of the nation.

To address this serious issue the Campaign4Democracy is collecting 350,000 signatures on a petition that will force a referendum on the question of whether Parliament should be bound to implement the results of any Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) in the future.

Otherwise there is little sense in spending our taxpayer dollars to hold a referendum just to have Parliament insult the electors by ignoring the result.

This new petition is not the Anti-smacking referendum mark two! That referendum was just the most recent, and the most blatant example of Parliament’s disregard for true democracy. There are many examples.

The removal of appeal to the Privy Council; the Prostitution Law reform (passed on one abstention); the Electoral Finance Act (passed on a small majority rather than the consensus of both sides of the house as previously accepted); the Anti-smacking law (passed despite 80% public opposition); the Emissions Trading Scheme (passed with the support of the Maori party in what is increasingly looking like a very expensive deal); the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Recently signed in a secretive way by the government) - the list could go on! Add to this the loss of the tradition of genuine conscience voting in the House of Representatives and we should all be very concerned.

After the Muldoon years and the turmoil of the 4th Labour Government the National party sensed the growing public dissatisfaction with politicians ignoring the people. As an election promise in 1990 they pledged to introduce a system of Citizens Initiated Referenda and in 1993 they passed the CIR Act that allowed for non-binding referenda. The minister in charge of the passage of the bill into law, Sir Doug Graham, said, “It is my belief that we will rarely witness by Parliament the rejection of a referendum result”.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->

He has of course lived to witness Parliament reject the results of the only four CIRs that have managed to clear the very high threshold needed to force a referendum. Sir Doug went on to say “the intention is to review the use of citizens-initiated referenda after a period of 5 years, and it may well be then appropriate to consider a change to the law to make referenda binding at that time”.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->

Surely it is now time for that review!

On the 10 March 1992 the Hon Murray McCully said in his speech on the first reading of the CIR Bill that the new Act would “profoundly change the way in which we conduct our democracy in this country.”

The reason for change in his opinion was because “our system permits the executive to have too much power. The Executive is too easily able to dominate Parliament and that Parliament has become the puppet rather than the master of cabinet.” <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->

Well now ‘ain’t that the truth’!

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> Hon Sir Doug Graham First reading CIR Bill 10 March 1992



<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Hon Sir Doug Graham Second reading CIR Bill 14 Sept 1993

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--> Hon M McCully First reading CIR Bill 10 March 1992

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Direct Democracy Presentation at Waikato

Just recently I was asked by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences (Professor Dan Zirker) at Waikato University to give a two hour presentation to a group of Honors and Ph.D students.

I gave the presentation yesterday (5th May)and really enjoyed the experience. There was lots of interesting debate and I felt they came away understanding another perspective of what Direct Democracy, Initiatives and Referendums were all about.

It was an honor to have been asked and also pleasing that a university felt it was important enough for their students to become informed on the subject.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Vote over republic falls at first hurdle

NZH: A bill setting up a referendum on republicanism was defeated in Parliament last night at its first reading, 68 votes to 53.

The Head of State Referenda Bill in the name of Green MP Keith Locke provided for a referendum with three options on how New Zealand should select its head of state.

The three options were the status quo of the British monarch being the head of state, a New Zealand head of state determined by a 75 per cent majority in Parliament or a head of state directly elected by the people under a preferential system.

The bill allowed for a second referendum if none of the three options got 50 per cent of the vote.

The two top options would have had a run-off referendum.

Mr Locke said the debate was about national identity, not like or dislike of the Queen or the royal family.

"The present Queen has been competent in the performance of her duties and she turns 84 this very day. I wish her a happy birthday."

But he pointed to the inherent conflict of interest in the Queen being head of state of two independent countries which had different foreign policies.

"When Britain sent troops into Iraq, the Queen, as Queen of Great Britain, went down to the barracks in military dress to support the soldiers.

"That was in conflict with her role as Queen of New Zealand - a country which opposed that same war."

He said it was important to have a head of state who could operate with true independence under MMP.

National's Tauranga MP, Simon Bridges, said he had been "chuffed" to see Prince William have a barbecue and beer with the Prime Minister recently, but who was New Zealand's head of state was not an issue with which he concerned himself.

Labour supported the bill, MP Charles Chauvel saying New Zealand could be an independent country and stay in the Commonwealth.

VOTING

For
* Greens
* Labour
* Progressive
* United Future

Against
* National
* Maori
* Act
* Progressives

By Audrey Young | Email Audrey
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10640002&ref=rss

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

MMP Bill passes first reading

Press Release: New Zealand Government
MMP bill passes first reading with unanimous support

Thursday, 22 April 2010, 5:00 pm


The Electoral Referendum Bill passed its first reading unanimously in Parliament today and has been referred to a special select committee.

The Electoral Legislation Committee has been established to consider the MMP bill and the upcoming electoral finance reform bill. All parliamentary parties are represented on the committee.

“I’m pleased all parties have agreed to the special select committee, and I look forward to seeing constructive work on this important democratic issue,” Justice Minister Simon Power said.

The bill empowers the referendum on MMP to be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election.

“The referendum fulfils one of the Government’s pre-election promises to reassess how MMP is working after five general elections under the voting system.”

The bill sets out the two questions to be asked of voters: first, whether they wish to retain the MMP voting system, and secondly, what alternative voting system they would prefer from four options, regardless of how they voted in the first question.

The Government is committed to holding a second binding referendum in conjunction with the 2014 general election if there is a vote for change. That referendum would be a run-off between MMP and the most preferred alternative.

The bill provides that if more than 50 per cent of voters opt to retain MMP, the new Electoral Commission will undertake a review to consider whether changes are necessary or desirable, and report back to the Minister of Justice by 31 October 2010.

The bill also sets out the conduct for the referendum, including rules around advertising.

Further information on the referendum, including previous announcements, can be found here.

Information on how to make a submission to the select committee can be found click here

ENDS

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Central bank ‘quantitative easing’ isn’t inflationary

An interesting article about inflation originally published in the Melbourne Age, April 21, 2010.

Central bank ‘quantitative easing’ isn’t inflationary

One of the sillier propositions which has been propagated on the internet and in a range of investment newsletters over the past couple of years is the idea that the ‘quantitative easing’ strategies pursued by central banks such as the US Federal Reserve or the Bank of England in response to the financial crisis amount to ‘printing money’ in order to finance mushrooming budget deficits, and must inevitably lead not merely to higher inflation at some point in the future, but (in the more extreme variants) to the sort of hyper-inflation experienced in Weimar Germany in 1923, or more recently in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.

It’s certainly true that central banks in most of the major advanced economies have pursued a variety of unorthodox strategies since the onset of the financial crisis in order to provide liquidity to the banking system, to support particular financial institutions or markets, and to get around the problem created by the inability to reduce interest rates below zero. These strategies have generally entailed central banks making loans or purchasing securities that they ordinarily would not, in much larger amounts than they ordinarily would, and for longer periods than they usually do.

Before the onset of the financial crisis, the US Federal Reserve’s balance sheet was of a size in the order of about US$900 billion, with the vast majority of its liabilities comprised of US dollar notes on issue, and most of its assets being holdings of US Treasury securities (that is, debt issued by the US Federal Government). After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, however, the Fed’s balance sheet expanded rapidly, to around US$2¼ trillion (US$2,250 billion), by November 2008, and has remained at around that level ever since.

At no time since the collapse of Lehman Brothers has the Fed had more US Treasury securities on its balance sheet than the US$790 billion it had in mid-2007, when the financial crisis initially erupted. As of early this month, its holdings of US Government debt stood at just under US$777 billion. Thus, it is simply not true to say that the Fed has financed, or ‘monetized’, any part of the increase in the US Budget deficit since the onset of the financial crisis.

Rather, the money ‘created’ electronically by the Fed has gone largely to provide liquidity to parts of the US or global financial system that were critically short of it. For example, beginning shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers it provided as much as US$500billion worth of US dollars through swap facilities with foreign central banks (including the Reserve Bank of Australia). These facilities have now closed. The Fed provided liquidity to the US banking system and to various markets within the broader US financial system (such as that for commercial paper) in excess of US$1,000 billion on several occasions late in 2008. This support is now down to less than US$60 billion. It also provided over US$100 billion for the bail-outs of Bear Stearns and AIG; most of this is still outstanding.
Beginning early in 2009, and especially since the middle of last year, the money created by the Fed has been directed towards propping up the American mortgage market. As of early this month, the Fed holds over US$ 1 trillion of mortgage-backed securities, as well as almost US$170 billion of debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant US mortgage insurers now officially in what, in Australian parlance, would be called ‘administration’. Prior to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it held not a dollar of either; they now account for almost half the assets on the Fed’s balance sheet.
Without this support, the mortgage market would have been in even more difficulty than it was, and American house prices would presumably have fallen by even more than the 30% which they did from their peak in mid-2006 to their trough in June last year.

The increase in the Fed’s holdings of mortgage-backed securities and debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is matched, almost exactly, by an increase in the cash held by the commercial banks in their accounts at the Fed, from typically less than US$10 billion prior to the collapse of Lehmans to over US$1 trillion since last October.

What happened, in other words, is that the Fed has injected over US$1 trillion into the market for mortgage-backed securities; the sellers of those securities deposited the proceeds, directly or indirectly, with their banks; and those banks have held the cash on deposit with the Federal Reserve (as opposed to lending it out again).

There’s simply no way that this can be inflationary. Inflation would only become a risk if the Fed failed to unwind the expansion in its balance sheet once the banks start to lend out the funds which they are currently holding as reserve balances with the Fed. But the Fed has made it very clear that they are aware of this risk, and have both the inclination and the means to deal with it when it arises.

Meanwhile, the burgeoning US budget deficit has been financed – rather smoothly, judging by the absence of sustained upward pressure on US government bond yields or downward pressure on the US dollar – by sales of Treasury notes and bonds to households, who have been saving more and borrowing less since the onset of the financial crisis (and whose direct holdings of US Treasury securities have risen by almost US$400 billion since the collapse of Lehmans); to American banks (whose holdings of Treasuries have risen by some US$300 billion since the collapse of Lehmans); and especially foreigners (whose holdings of US government securities have risen by more than $1,000 billions since the collapse of Lehmans).

The US Federal Reserve hasn’t been the only central bank pursuing these ‘unorthodox’ strategies. The Bank of England, in particular, has expanded its balance sheet by slightly more (relative to the size of the British economy), than the Federal Reserve. And the balance sheets of both the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are larger, relative to their respective economies, than those of either the Fed or the Bank of England.

Japan’s experience is particularly instructive in this regard. The Bank of Japan has been consciously trying to engineer a positive inflation rate for the best part of a decade: and yet in only one year of the past ten has Japan’s ‘core’ inflation rate not been negative.

The example of Japan shows that, in circumstances where supply exceeds demand by a wide margin – as is the case in most of the major advanced economies at this time – creating inflation is actually quite difficult.

This is the exact opposite of the examples commonly cited by those drawing analogies with Weimar Germany or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. In those and other instances (including Nationalist China under Chiang Kai-Shek, Germany and Hungary immediately after World War II, many Latin American economies in the past five decades, and much of the former Soviet empire after 1989), the ‘supply side’ of the economy had collapsed as a result of enemy occupation, wartime destruction, institutional collapse or years of egregious economic mismanagement. And in those circumstances, copious money-printing by the central bank in an attempt to sustain demand inevitably led to massive inflation. But those circumstances are a world away from those confronting the world’s major advanced economies today. And the parallels which are sometimes drawn with them are utterly spurious.
(Saul Eslake is a Program Director at the Grattan Institute. The views expressed here are however his own). http://www.theage.com.au/business/hyperinflation-is-a-hollow-threat-20100420-srsy.html

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

US Ambassador Anti Direct Democracy

I had the opportunity today to meet with and listen to an address by the US Ambassador to New Zealand, David Huebner, at Waikato University.

He gave an extremely honest, down to earth, and entertaining speech. I would highly recommend you taking the opportunity to do so yourselves if you ever get the chance.

I posed the question... "Given America's long history with the use of the Initiative and Referendum, and given that the USA is one of only three countries in the world who have never held a national referendum, do you see the possibility of using the the referendum on a national issue like the health insurance debate in America?".

Given he is from California, a state with the highest use of referendums, I was somewhat surprised to hear that he was extremely anti Direct Democracy and even commented that it has ruined the Californian economy. I imagine there is some personal bias here given the current debate in California over gay marriages, and given that David is openly gay.

I had the chance to discuss his comments briefly afterward, before he was whisked away, but I did mention a university study by Californian Professor, John Matsusaka, about the effects of referendums on the Californian economy which empirically argued otherwise. It is titled, Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the California Budget? Below is the studies abstract:

Many observers blame the California budget crisis on a series of voter initiatives that unrealistically appropriated spending while prohibiting tax increases. However, a review of all initiative measures approved by the voters since 1912 shows that no more than 32 percent of appropriations in the 2003-04 budget were locked in by initiatives. Virtually all of the earmarked spending was for education, and would have been appropriated by the legislature even without an initiative mandate. Initiatives placed only minimal constraints on the legislature’s ability to raise revenue. The facts suggest that voter initiatives are not a significant obstacle to balancing the budget in California.

If you would like to read the whole study you can do so by clicking here

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

NZ: Monarchy or Republic?

What's your opinion? Is it time to remove links to England and the Queen? Is it still appropriate to have the Queen as Head of State?

Although it hasn't been in the headlines lately, debate over this issue raises it's head from time to time with many arguments for and against. If we create a Republic what format should it take? All comments welcome.
Read more...

Grey Power pushes Democracy

Residents to vote on Omana road closure Beachlands and Maraetai residents will get to vote on whether or not to close the road through Omana Esplanade.

In an unprecedented decision last Thursday, Manukau City Council agreed to a request by Pohutukawa Coast Grey Power for a referendum on the controversial decision by the Clevedon Community Board to close the roadway.

Grey Power had offered to foot the $10,000 bill for the postal poll but the councillors voted that the council should provide the funding.

It was a close vote: 9-8 in favour.

Voting in favour was Botany- Clevedon councillor Michael Williams along with Daniel Newman, Dick Quax, David Collings, Anne Candy, Jami-Lee Ross, Sylvia Taylor, Bob Wichman, and Sharon Stewart.

Against were Mayor Len Brown, Gary Troup, Alf Filipaina, Efu Koka, Arthur Anae, Colleen Brown, Hugh Graham, Sir John Walker.(SHAME ON YOU ALL)

Botany-Clevedon's other councillor, Maggie Burrill, declared an interest and didn't vote.

Grey Power president Bill Bateman also spoke at the meeting as did resident Paul Johnson representing the Save Omana residents’ group. Bill Bateman says he feared the worst going into the meeting but is now delighted and already looking to the next step. "We will be campaigning to keep the road open and we can do this with very little money. We have already formed a campaign committee," he says. "I am a cautious man and am confident but will be working my butt off to make sure it happens." He says feelings on the issue are high in Maraetai “less so in Beachlands“ and that referenda held by other councils show a higher turnout than with normal local body elections.

The Clevedon Community Board is less impressed and in a statement says the decision "is more about political grandstanding and less about common sense."
Says the statement from chairman Maurice Hinton: "Our decision (to close the road) came after several years of discussions including workshops, consultation with residents and reviewing expert advice“ something the majority of councillors who voted last night were not party to."

Maximising the recreational potential of the reserve and the safety of the users of the reserve, especially children was the Board’s main concern.
"Playgrounds, roads, plus children do not mix“ it is that simple. "We believe that in coming to their decision last night councillors who supported the motion to hold a referendum have undermined the local democratic process and let down future generations of Manukau residents."

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Harshan Kumarasingham from the Institute of Policy Studies was interviewed by Chris Laidlaw on Radio NZ. Very interesting discussion

on constitutional matters. The main theme being the lack of constitutional checks in the form of an upper house in New Zealand. He did make reference to citizens referendums and these being used in some countries after they have moved to a single chamber government.
http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0011/2289908/ideas-20100509-1110-Ideas_for_9_May_2010-m048.asx

Many thanks to Bill Daly for pointing this out.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Referendum advocate for Auckland Mayor

Long time referendum advocate and supporter of Better Democracy NZ, Bill Daly, has decided to put his name forward for Mayor of Auckland. While Bill might not have the notoriety of others standing, and will probably struggle to have any effect on the main rivals, he is to be admired for standing up for the rights of citizens. All power to you Bill.

PRESS RELEASE

26 March 2010

From Bill Daly, 42a Woodglen Rd, Glen Eden. b.daly@woosh.co.nz 09-818 4293 / 0274 20 99 86

Third Candidate for Auckland Mayoralty

“I am completely opposed to the creation of the so-called ‘super city’. It is being done by riding roughshod over the people of Auckland and the surrounding districts, and New Zealanders in general. The politicians doing it have acted arrogantly and without any mandate from the people.

“Its designers have not built into it any effective checks and balances. There are no sanctions for voters to ensure their politicians do what they want.

“It has the potential to become a super mess, leaving ratepayers and taxpayers with huge debts, poor future infrastructure and administration, and ever increasing rates alongside deteriorating services.

“The way it is structured leaves it too open to being dictatorial. Ideally, I’d prefer to see the whole plan scrapped and instead some appropriate checks and balances added to the management of the existing councils.

“We had forced amalgamations of our older smaller councils in the late 1980s. Public feeling was ignored then and it is being ignored again, and most of the promised benefits have not occurred.

“There may be a case for some type of regional or provincial government to handle those affairs that are common to the larger area. But it would need to be completely democratic and only established after much real public discussion and input.

“But a regional government is not a local government. There are numerous reasons why smallish local bodies came about and have existed for so long. A city is not built from the top down. It is built up from people and families and suburbs. People relate more intimately to their own locality before they relate to the wider district or city in which they live. If we are to enjoy healthy communities then people must have reasonable independence or sovereignty to decide on the affairs of their area.

“The people in the surrounding rural areas are being treated appallingly. If they do not want their local affairs to be governed by city politicians then so be it. The decision should be theirs and theirs alone.

“Central government politicians and bureaucrats can all too easily fall into the trap of thinking that big is always best, and that central planning and control is necessary as part of their nationwide plans and schemes. But they are wrong. The belief that bigger is always better has never achieved a better country for anyone. If there was any truth in the idea then Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and Fascist Italy should have become long-standing success stories.

“I do not have lots of money to campaign and I will not be running any expensive fund-raising campaigns. I am contemptuous of those who want to set up governmental structures that are isolated from the people and require lots of money by candidates wanting to stand for public office. This goes against all the traditions of government in New Zealand. It is a slap in the face to most New Zealanders. I will have to think of campaigning methods that are low cost. I will be establishing a website with facilities for people to contact me, and through which I can run polls on whatever issues people are interested in or concerned about.

“I have campaigned for over 20 years for the adoption of binding public referendums to be part of the constitutional arrangements for all levels of government in New Zealand. I absolutely hold that politicians are morally, and should also be legally, obliged to properly represent what the people of their constituency or city want. Politicians or councilors have no right under any circumstances to ignore the public. When they do that they are being little dictators.

“Politicians sometimes like to deliberately complicate things and imply that government affairs are beyond the understanding of lesser mortals. But this is only arrogance and a screen for hiding personal ambitions behind.

“The other mayoral candidates have made promises that they will be firm in holding the CCO’s to account. Good on them, but that is only one part of what is be needed. How will voters hold their mayor and councilors to account?

“Whether I am elected mayor or not is something I will leave to voters and will accept their decision. I am applying for a particular job and the employers, the voters, have the right to accept or reject me. But I will be encouraging voters to only give their vote to candidates for the mayoralty and council who will commit to real democratic principles, and who will give written assurances they will undertake at all times to abide by the majority public feeling on any issue. Modern technology makes it relatively easy and cheap for well-run polls or referendums to be held so that elected public servants have no excuse to not know what their people think or want.

“The Wanganui Council use referendums and the people there seem pretty happy about that. Binding referendums have operated in Switzerland with great success for over 130 years. Some critics make all sorts of false accusations against binding referendums but the Swiss have during this time gone from one of Europe’s poorer countries, to having a higher standard of living than most of their neighbours. It is the only European country where the people express reasonable satisfaction with their governments. And I believe it played a big part in keeping them out of two World Wars.

“I know that Wellington is doing everything it can to setup this so-called “super city” in a way that is designed to circumvent the people and even the elected councilors and mayor if they disagree with the Government over something. And they want to do it elsewhere around New Zealand, without local consultation anywhere. But people can still be a potent force. If central Government was determined to over-rule something that the public clearly showed they wanted, or didn’t want, via a referendum, I’m sure there can be found, always within the law and decent behaviour, ways to make life a little difficult for those trying to implement that.

“I am very uneasy about the way the CCO’s are to be constituted. But if their management is competent, is not wasting money, and act within the bounds of what Aucklanders want, it would have my full support. If any aren’t doing that then its management should have the public and elected councilors campaigning against it, until it gets back to whatever it should be doing.

“I am establishing a web site to make it easier for people to communicate with me and for me to post articles of interest and to run polls so people can tell me how they fell on particular issues.

A few personal views:

* I think political correctness is a disease caused by lack of courage.

* We need some national standards for politicians and political parties.

* Public assets held by governments are the property of citizens. No politician has the right to advocate selling them unless the public have clearly requested that.

* No government should be allowed to raise a loan without the approval of the public.

* Rates should not be subject to GST. That is an unfair tax upon a tax. Nor should any other council revenues be taxable.

* Central Government should own up to it being the primary cause of the leaky homes problem. This is a tragedy for thousands of people. If thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed in an earthquake the money would be made available for reconstruction. It is contemptible that the Government might actually earn a lot of money from expensive leaky home fixes

* City water infrastructure is expensive. If new dams are built the costs will be massive. Wouldn’t it make better sense to heavily encourage greater use of rain water tanks? Widely used these would considerably increase overall water storage. Waitakere Council is to be congratulated for having given some encouragement for this.

* Good quality public transport, especially trains, should have been built decades ago in Auckland. Fortunately something is now being done. It should be extended to the airport. Various ideas have been put forward, including some very innovative suggestions, for improving Auckland’s public transport, and fair consideration must be given to these, and other ideas encouraged and given a fair hearing.

* I detest the dominance of the political party system. It undermines the relationship between voters and their political representatives. Some politicians advocate government departments be more structured along business lines. Well, let them include Parliament in that. It’s impossible even to imagine any company letting its board of directors be split into two or more warring factions.

* The Public Works Act should be only used in the most extreme situations. There needs to always be careful government respect for private property rights.

* I strongly favour retaining New Zealand’s existing flag. It is very symbolic of our nation’s main line of history, culture and heritage. It has proudly draped the coffins of our soldiers who died in battle.

* I believe New Zealand should have an effective and strong military defence. We should closely cooperate with traditional allies and other friendly nations but always retain our independence. Part of a good defence policy should be having the best possible relationship with all other countries, but never ignoring bad behaviour or mistreatment by another government of its people. Helen Clark was right to keep us out of the Iraq war. Our military should always work closely with Civil Defence during natural disasters. There should be adequate opportunities for physically fit New Zealanders, especially young people, if so inclined, to experience some military training.

* I believe in the apprenticeship system. There should be good incentives and support for firms who take on apprentices.

* We should never have allowed our industries to be decimated by unequal overseas competition. There should be better financial and regulatory structures that encourage home based industries.

* New Zealand should be more energy self sufficient. Tax laws should encourage research into cleaner alternatives, including reducing city pollution. Some of the overseas and New Zealand research into improved electric vehicles, fuel from crops and algae and hydrogen is exciting. In the meantime New Zealand could consider building a coal to liquid fuel plant. Even if it wasn’t used but keep in a state of readiness, in case of a disruption to world oil supplies. I don’t know what state the Motunui synthetic petrol is in and if in an emergency it could be quickly recommissioned.

* I think achieving home ownership should be much easier and it be a nationwide policy to facilitate this. Home ownership can increase peoples’ sense of belonging and commitment. Encouraging speculation of houses makes it harder for many to attain ownership and leaves many others unnecessarily indebted for much of their lives.

* I think we should adopt a 4-day working week. Plenty of evidence suggests that productivity levels vary little whether people work 4 or 5 days. It would be a recognition of the increased use of labour-saving technology in the modern world, would improve people’s well-being and probably reduce illness and sickness.

* Government policies and propaganda about future pension uncertainties caused the housing bubble. People who could borrow were encouraged to invest in another house or two, so they may hopefully be a little better off in their retirement.

* I believe serious questions need to be raised about aspects of the economic model and theories that presently dominate the world. It leaves people and communities, farms and businesses loaded with financial debt no matter how hard people work. Every year financial debt increases everywhere, and sometimes even more so during boom times. It creates shortages of money for improved social infrastructures, yet money can always be found for wars, or created to bail out mis-managed banks. It encourages the mass manufacture of wasteful throw-a-way products instead of quality long-lasting items, thus adding to pollution and waste. The free enterprise system is the best the world has ever come up with and the only one that actually works well, but there seems to be something wrong with the management or financial accounting of things.

* I think there should be a trial period for all immigrants, of at least five to ten years. Immigrants must be treated with absolute fairness, equality and decency, but they also have a responsibility to show respect and honour to New Zealand’s existing ways. If any serious crime is committed during the trial period citizenship should be denied and the right to residency withdrawn, along with the right to ever enter New Zealand again.

* I do not believe in a chosen people or race, whether it be the stupid Nazi beliefs, or that of extreme Zionism or any other such claims. Every human being is important and unique. Every single human being naturally shares in a common humanity. I do believe there are racial, cultural and other differing traits between individuals and groups and these should be respected and honoured. But I question the political intentions of some people who go over board in promoting multi-culturalism, which can sometimes lead to unnecessary suffering, as well as various extra social and financial costs. We can all learn from others of different backgrounds. Associating with people of different backgrounds can help to dispel ignorance and increase the width of our life experience. Some peoples of different backgrounds mix more easily than others, but throughout the western world we see the creation of ghettos. These sometimes add to crime statistics and are costly in extra policing and social services. I am proud of my British-European heritage and the political, social and religious influences associated with it. I strongly suspect the motives of some of those who are overly critical of it or want to sever New Zealand’s social and cultural links to our past.

Brief Biography:

- Born in Temuka, 1959.

- Attended Catholic schools in Temuka and Timaru.

- Raised on a family farm in South Canterbury.

- After farm sold moved to Auckland in 1980.

- Was involved for many years with New Zealand League of Rights organization as its National Director, and editor of its publication On Target from 1983 until about 5 years ago.

- Supported keeping the older style smaller councils that existed before 1988.

- Opposed the Muldoon National Government’s Think Big energy plan as wasteful of our natural gas reserves and unnecessarily expensive. Believed we would have been better to use natural gas directly in vehicles and there should have been some development of farm produced motor fuels. Believed then and now that this country should have a policy of achieving energy independence.

- For over 20 years have supported the adoption of binding public referendums for local and central government.

- Operated a printing business at Onehunga from 1988 to 1996, and worked part time in it for a period after that.

- Looked after a small farm near Pukekohe from 1988 to 2000. Spent parts of 2000 and 2001 working for a grain cocky on a large farm in north-east Texas, near the town of Paris.

- Since then have worked, mainly self-employed, doing building/renovation work in West Auckland

- Hobbies include tramping and flying. Have a pilots license and did a little part time flying instructing a few years ago

- Support a more organic approach to farming and have an organic vege garden. Am opposed to genetic engineering of food and most of the claims made by its advocates have proven incorrect. I hate the practice of battery farming.

- Enjoy reading and good quality movies. Favourite movie is the 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. Favourite recent movies are The Lemon Tree and Molokai: the Story of Father Damien.

- Opposed to compulsory mass medication (fluoridation) via drinking water.

- Believe there should be wider cooperation between conventional and complimentary medicine.

- I regard myself as a Christian but seldom attend church. It seems to me the churches have abstracted themselves from some of the realities of life.

Some of the people I quite like or admire, not in any particular order

Mother Theresa

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Shakespeare

Prince Charles

Sir James Goldsmith

Robyn Hood & William Tell

C.S. Lewis

St Francis of Assisi

John A. Lee


CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Changes to the Official Information Act

By Rusty Kane.

Rusty discusses the Law Commission consultion on possible changes to the Official Information Act.

I’ve become a semi-regular user of the Official Information Act, using it to get background papers and reports on policy areas I am interested in. The OIA was one of the best things the Muldoon Government did.

However it doesn’t work as well as it can. A dedicated government agency can delay releasing information for up to a year. You are meant to get it with 20 working days, but agencies can transfer requests (resetting the clock), give themselves a time extension, and also refuse requests forcing you to go to the Ombudsman. They do a good job, but by the time they have investigated, and made a decision, many months can have gone by.

Very rarely an agency will lie – we saw this with the Labour Department under Labour, when the Immigration Service actually lied to the Ombudsman’s Office over the existence of a report. This is incredibly rare.

Anyway a lot of information about what the Government is considering, never comes out under the OIA – because no one asked for it. And you can not ask for information too generally – such as all reports about primary health or all memos from the Ministry of Education. You need to be quite specific.

I propose that for certain high level official information, the onus on release be reversed – that the Government automatically release the information even if not asked for. Now this could not apply to all official information, as there is too much, but it could apply to information that makes Ministerial level.

My proposal would be:

That all papers and reports considered by Cabinet and/or a Cabinet Committee be automatically placed on the Internet within six months.

The specifics would be:

1. By having the cut off at reports that go to a Cabinet or Cabinet Committee, the DPMC could be made responsible for implementing it.

2. By having a set time period, it gives the Government a bit of breathing space to consider reports and make decisions (such as the Budget) before publication. This would not prevent people from applying under the OIA to gain something earlier.

3. Departmental and Ministerial staff would know that their reports are 100% guaranteed to become public, so would take appropriate care with said papers.

4. Parts of reports could still be blacked out under the OIA, but be appeal-able to the Ombudsman.

5. It would provide a unique look at the entire work programme of the Cabinet and its Committees.

6. If a media organisation asks for information under the OIA, they often try and sensationalise any story based on it, as they have to show something for their effort. If the info is automatically made publicly available, then news worthiness will be the main criteria (I hope)

7. It would result in more transparent and open Government .

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

British unrest

The Jury team in England is pushing for mass independent MPs to be elected on a foundation of referendums. Change can happen... even in Mother England!

Step Forward or Stop Complaining

I am writing to let you know about the Jury Team's (www.juryteam.org) progress.

Last weekend we launched our general election campaign. We had advertisements in newspapers and magazines with a circulation of more than 5 million and a readership of more than double that number (see http://tiny.cc/ZLhbt).

Are you happy with the current political parties and politicians? If not then now is the time to stand up and be counted. Step forward and make a difference or stop complaining. If the turkeys (the current MP's and political class) won't vote for us, we need to change the turkeys. Go to www.juryteam.org/become-an-mp.php to sign up as a candidate to be an MP to challenge the politicians you dislike (or even despise).

The British people are fed up with their politicians. The Jury Team is working for the people that the politicians have ignored. We want to give back to people their pride in their country and its institutions. We will let them become the ultimate jury. We can make this country a better place for ourselves and our children. Please help us to do so.

We know that on many issues the current political parties are too weak to provide what the majority of people want. We have a number of key Proposals which the electorate would vote for if they were allowed to. We want to give them that democratic right

The Jury Team advertisements ask whether the British people should have the right to vote on the Jury Team Proposals:

Staying in or leaving the European Union
Setting up an English Parliament for English matters
Reducing the number of MPs by a third (from 650 to 433)
Changing Commons elections to proportional representation
Requiring referendums on petition by 5% of the electorate
Limiting government borrowing to 10% of expenditure
Protecting bank customer deposits from casino banking
Limiting benefits to 80% of the after tax minimum wage
Sentencing violent criminals to 'army style' punishment
Limiting UK troops in Afghanistan to the NATO average

We know from our YouGov polling that all of these policies are very strongly supported by the British people. However we would also like to know whether you think that the electorate should be allowed to vote on whether these Proposals become law.

Go to www.juryteam.org to see the details of our Proposals. If you like the idea of the people having the right to vote on the Proposals, become a candidate for the Jury Team or support us in some other way. Sign up on the website.

We are now inviting principled and independent people with a decent career record to become candidates to be MPs. We will help good candidates to get elected. When elected you will vote for the Jury Team's Proposals but on the basis that these will not become binding until agreed by an authorising referendum. You will otherwise be free to use your best judgment in voting on behalf of the country and your constituents. No party whips.

We are now providing you with an opportunity to make a difference. Please take it. If you cannot become a candidate you can still help. Go to www.juryteam.org and join up or make a donation. Tell your friends about the Jury Team. Forward this email to all of your contacts and colleagues.

Your country needs you to do something (or stop complaining that it is someone else's fault).

Yours very sincerely

The Jury Team

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...