The Proportional Representation Fallacy

MMP is supposedly a proportional representation system of Government. Supposedly we elect a Government that is proportionally representative of the views in society. So explain to me why the Government is made up of Labour, the Progressives, the Greens, United Future and New Zealand First?

According to official election results the National Party received 39% of the vote. Note: I am not singling out the 2005 election for any partisan reasons, and the National Party did the same thing previously). Instead of a Government being formed in proportion to the wishes of the people, the party with the largest number of votes stitched together agreements with "minority" parties to get over a 50% threshold in order to govern. This effectively relegated the wishes of those who voted for ACT, the Maori Party and National to the opposition benches. Clearly the wishes of the people were not listened to.

This has resulted, as I have pointed out previously, in a situation where we have the minority parties setting an agenda out of proportion to the views they represent in society. We can have a party that represents the views of only 5% of the population, getting support for legislation, when a party that has 39% support does not get to put forward policies it had in its manifesto. This is the phenomenon of "the tail wagging the dog".

Hopefully this immoral and unrepresentative electoral system will be overturned. Given the level of disenchantment I hear from people I associate with I think a referendum would show people support ditching the system.

However, I suspect that if the final decision is left to the politicians then they are not going to back the majority view of the people, but will try to make the system more palatable. The corporations they work for (i.e. the political parties - they are just businesses in my view) are not going to want to lose their grip on power.

Here are some suggestions for how MMP could be made more palatable:

1. Axe it (well as I said that is about as likely as hell freezing over)
2. Abolish the Westminster Parliamentary System (chances about the same as MMP being abolished)
3. Change the percentage requirement for a vote to pass in Parliament from 50% to 75%

If the threshold for a vote to pass in Parliament was increased from 50% to 75% then the major political parties would have to be more accommodating of each other (the idea of the Grand Coalition). Immediately following a general election those parties that represent the majority views of the people would have to work out a way to work together on issues, and establish a much more collaborative approach. The political minorities would be relegated to supporting or opposing legislation in proportion to their representation in society.

The Electoral Commission needs to look into this. If the threshold is raised to 75% then the matter of how an election is run, first past the post or some form of proportional representation, is largely irrelevant. 50% is too low a threshold for making decisions with regard to a country.

Paying and Paying Again

This just typifies the plight of this current generation of workers! When I heard it reported that Winston Peters had told Grey Power
"And you have a right to this because of your contribution to society.
Let’s face it, New Zealand was a better place when you were running it!"
I was horrified.

The current generation of Superannuitants had an extremely 'cushy' time of it when they were in the workforce, while they were raising their families and while they were buying their homes. Let's reflect on what they had:

• 3% interest rate home loans under the State Advances,
• free doctors visits and no prescription surcharges - I never once remember my mother paying for a visit to the Doctor or for the medicines prescribed,
• free education for their children - my parents paid a pittance for my Primary and Secondary education. By the time I reached University user pays was just starting to "kick in" and I had to fund quite a lot of my Tertiary education,
• Family Benefit of $6 per child per week, which could be capitalised to provide a deposit on a home.

I could go on! But my point is that with all those advantages, if the current generation of retirees did not make provision for their own retirement years then that is not my generation's problem.

My generation is now in a situation where we are having to:

• pay higher interest rates on our mortgages, or any borrowings for that matter
  
• pay a significantly higher cost for our offspring's education
• make do without receiving assistance from Government similar to the Family Benefit
• make our own provisions for retirement, and
• pay much higher tax by way of Income Tax, GST and other levies and rates that are hidden in the costs of many goods and services that we consume (most often the essentials we consume).

In addition to paying for the rearing of the offspring that I have fathered responsibly, I am also paying for numerous children who have been irresponsibly conceived or have been born into families who abuse or mistreat them. And Winston Peters wants me to "feather bed" Grey Power as well.

Let's look for a moment at what our society is like. 50 years ago there were two murders a year in New Zealand. This year we would hear of two murders a week. That increase in offending is not due to population increase. Population has doubled in those 50 years but murders have increased by 4000%. We hear daily of family violence and many other crimes. Some would want us to believe that it is a matter of better reporting or a change in society's attitudes to this kind of offending that is bringing it to light.

I say that the reason is that the current generation of Superannuitants did a pretty bad job of raising their children! (This is a blog and that is a gross generalisation). In the 1950's and 1960's New Zealand enjoyed a great deal of prosperity. However, there was a loosening of morals and the adoption of more liberal views. Although they didn't grow their hair, smoke dope and 'drop acid' many Kiwi's attitudes were affected by the hippie culture and the philosophies that spawn such a sub-culture. Most people of that era did not openly or knowingly adopt those views but they were influenced by them.

As a result we have now in New Zealand a generation who were raised in such a liberal environment, who are now the parents of children who are running amok.

New Zealand may have been a better place when the current retirees were running it, but they squandered the opportunities. They started the break down of the family unit. They sowed the seeds of the society we now live in where there is such an upsurge in lawlessness and an attitude that you don't need to raise your own kids, (leave that to the state) and you don't need to work (draw a benefit).

My generation is paying for the short sightedness of my parent's generation. [However, thanks Mum and Dad for instilling in me the values that enable me to raise my family with 2 parents, and to have had education that enables me to earn enough to help support numerous beneficiaries (and a few extra MPs and bureaucrats) in New Zealand.]

During the 1950's and 1960's those people with the attitudes I am decrying here were in the minority. Only a small percentage of the population were responsible for the break down that we are seeing now. It only goes to show though in what a short span of time a few people can take a country in such a disastrous and negative direction.

A Referendum on MMP

National has picked up on the sentiment of the people. I have to agree that a referendum is at the very least the voters deserve. It was, in my view, promised by previous Governments and is now long overdue. However, the cynical side of me wonders whether there will be any point in participating.

Any debate on electoral reform in New Zealand centres around the basic assumption of the continuation of political parties. You have read my views, (if not, then read some of my back issues) on political parties. I cannot state it strongly enough - they are basically undemocratic.

Political reform that delivers platonic representation and accountability can only be achieved through the abolition of political parties.

For this debate to result in something that is going to result in democracy becoming a reality in New Zealand, it must not fall into the hands of the parties. Party people will only want to advocate a system that delivers them power, control and prestige. This debate must be had by those who are truly vested in the interests of New Zealand - individual New Zealanders.

No doubt there will be debate, maybe even Select Committees, on political reform in the years to come. Whatever happens a higher weighting must be given to the views of individual New Zealanders than to the collective views of political interest groups. (In fact the views of interest groups should be totally disregarded.)

Part of this debate should be on the merits of the Westminster Parliamentary system. In my view there are few to be seen. We need to devise and adopt a Parliamentary system that is more collaborative and less combative than this relic from our colonial heritage.

Don't let the Politicians and Political Parties hijack this opportunity to introduce true democracy.

Doing the decent thing...

This lady deserves a New Year's honour. She has done more for making New Zealand a decent society than all the politicians and all the public servants in this country put together. Persuading her own son to turn himself in to Police is an example that could be emulated by more in society.

It seems that some laws are more rigorously enforced than others. Harbouring a criminal is not an offense that comes up in the court pages very often, but I suspect that there are numerous people living everyday, knowing the offender in a particular crime, and not coming forward.

Another point that readers may have missed is that the son in this case was 18. When I talk with people about parental responsibility I get the impression that the majority of people think their parenting stops as soon as their child turns 16 and is old enough to leave school. (Some people give up even sooner.) My kids know that they live by my rules while they live in my house, so if they are here till they turn 20 then they will not get away with anti-social, larakin behaviour.

I've expressed my view on the debate about raising the driving age. Nothing needs to change in law, but parents need to step up and be responsible. This article just proves that. All the socialist thinking in New Zealand causes people to bleat on about the Government needing to change the laws. Utter rubbish! They should enforce the law. And then, in the case of learner drivers, parents should "man up" and take responsibility for their own children's actions (whether it is driving, firing bb guns out car windows or drinking at parties).

Somehow New Zealand has to reverse the damage done by the last 2 or 3 generations who have been raised in a socialist environment. It is patently obvious that Governments are powerless to make change at an individual level. And the more ink they waste on legislation and then waste money on the bureaucracy to administer the unworkable regulations, only to have to draft some more unnecessary legislation to patch up the first, the worse it gets.

Being a decent society comes down to individuals doing the decent thing. They don't need a pile of laws to tell them what to do. But it is the cumulative actions of every individual and not the collective 'relative inaction' of Governments and their supporting bureaucracy that make New Zealand a decent society.

This anonymous woman deserves recognition for the huge contribution she has made to making New Zealand a more decent society, and the example she is to all parents.

Another sacred cow up for homekill...

You could easily say that I am just being negative. However, I am really trying to be provocative - trying to add some creative thinking into New Zealand politics. (some would argue that any thinking would be a start).

Having questioned the the sacred cow of universal suffrage, I will now move on to my next slow moving target - Compulsory Education.

New Zealand used to offer all its citizens access to Primary and Secondary education for free. University education came with a price tag that was borne directly by the student, though very heavily subsidised. In reality, it was not "free education", as it had to be funded, and that funding came from taxation.

I am definitely a beneficiary of this education system. I used my entire allocation of primary, secondary and tertiary education. I have a Masters degree and a postgraduate diploma on top of that. So, I have done pretty well out of the system. My parents fared even better, as they had all 5 of their children educated through to tertiary level. I am now in the position where I am putting my children through school. On top of the exorbitant rate of taxation I am paying, I am constantly being tapped for more funds for their compulsory education.

In stage one economics I first heard the maxim "Without abstinence there is no investment.". I observed that this was true. Those contemporaries of mine who went through university on a full bursary were "by and large" less studious than those of us who were paying our own way.

Similarly, compulsion does not encourage scholastic achievement. I think a lot of people would agree that schools seem to have become baby sitting centres. Kids must attend until the age of 15, regardless of whether they achieve anything academically.

Now, I think I gave the tax payer pretty good value for money. I spent a long time in the education system, but I passed everything, every year (except for a couple of papers in my first year at University). Since leaving University I have been in paid employment within New Zealand, working for tax paying companies.

What I see now is that while there is compulsion for children to attend school, there is no compulsion for them to actually learn. As taxpayers this should outrage us. We should demand value for money. Our employers appraise us to ensure we represent value for money. Show me the cost:benefit ratio of the state education system in New Zealand. Show me the cost:benefit ratio of each tax payer funded pupil in the school system.

Some day I will give readers the benefit of my insights in to the National Certificate in Educational Achievement (NCEA).

So what am I about?

What are you going to learn from me? Hopefully quite a lot.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing politics, especially of the Kiwi variety. I have some ideas that will rattle some cages. My views on politics include such things as eligibility of voters, the type or electoral system, the number of MPs, the value of MPs... The list goes on.

I hope to be even handed and not expose political bias. I have never been a member of a political party. My interest does not lie in entering into politics myself. I have many other important things to do.

Hopefully, these posts will not be "mud slinging" from the sidelines, but a spur to people thinking differently (and since these are my views, correctly) about politics.