The Maori seats
May 30th, 2008 at 11:34 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald reports on a paper by Canterbury University law professor Philip Joseph (a leading constitutional expert) on the Maori seats, calling for them to be abolished:
Professor Joseph said putting aside the seven Maori seats, the 15 other Maori representatives in Parliament put it a little under 2 per cent short of reflecting the 14 per cent national population.
However, with the Maori seats the current parliamentary representation equated to 22 per cent.
In response Matt McCarten says:
Political commentator Matt McCarten said Professor Joseph’s argument was “ignorantly racist” because it seemed to suggest there was a strict quota of Maori MPs acceptable in Parliament.
“You didn’t see a report when rich, white men were over-represented in Parliament. Now, it’s suddenly become a concern because Maori might soon wield real influence.”
Matt misses or avoids the point though. If there were no dedicated race based seats, then “over-representation” would not be an issue. I would not be at all concerned if New Zealanders elected a Parliament that had a particular demographic over-represented. Absolutely there should be no maximum quota of acceptability.
But the issue is that the rationale for having dedicated race based seats is justifiably called into question when that demographic is over-represented, not under-represented, in Parliament.
In a way it is similiar to the immigration issue. If there are no country based quotas in immigration (which I prefer) then I don’t care at all about the nationality or origin of our immigrants. But if there is a country based quota, it is legitimate to debate whether that quota is necessary or desirable.
There are reasons one can argue in favour of the Maori seats, beyond Maori being under-represented in Parliament (which has not been true for some time). Likewise there are arguments against the Maori seats (and my fear is the longer we retain them, the more we develop a Fiji type constitution). However taking the seats away, without fairly broad agreement from Maoridom is not necessarily a constructive thing to do. There are no easy answers, but it is an issue which won’t go away.
I think the best solution is that of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which proposed they be abolished, but that the special status of Maori as tangata whenua be recognised by having no threshold (so getting around 0.7% of the vote should ensure representation) for Maori political parties. This would also solve the issue of the Maori seats causing overhang in Parliament which can distort the proportional result you are meant to have under MMP. This could be a big factor in 2008.
Before people react kneejerk, can I suggest people read the excellent Chapter 3 of the Royal Commission report which goes into the pros and cons and history of the seats.
One advantage of abolishing the Maori seats but having no threshold for Maori political parties is you could get more diverse Maori representation in Parliament. The main parties would still I am sure have Maori MPs, but you might have three or four different Maori parties all gaining one or two MPs. There might be a radical activist party for the Hone Harawiras. A urban Maori party for the John Tamiheres. A Iwi rights party for Ngai Tahu and supporters. Having no threshold for Maori Parties would encourage more diverse representation and in my opinion be a more effective way of guaranteeing Maori representation in Parliament without the negatives of having separate rolls and separate seats.
Related posts:
- Sir Douglas Graham on Maori seats and overhang
- Barton on Maori Seats
- Maori Seats on Auckland Council
- Maori Seats in Waikato
May 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
You cannot argue the position of the Maori seats as race based favourtism. Maori are a treaty partner and the representation of Maori in our parliament is a much bigger question than arguing it in race terms. If we abolish the seats then we will be forced to consider whether there should be a separate Maori Parliament. Don Brash did the National Party a disservice by taking such a narrow approach to the issue and damaging our relationships with the other Treaty Partner. The National Party should simply drop the whole idea of abolishing the seats least they open up a big can of worms regarding a Maori Parliament.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
David, why is it okay to complain about an over representation Maori in Parliament but not complain about an over representation of homosexuals?
[DPF: Because there are no reserved seats for homosexuals. I made the exact point that I have no problem with a demographic being over-represented unless it it by way of some special quota or seats]
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Why don’t you say this work was sponsored by the Business Roundtable? The Herald article does, in its headline and the first paragraph. Surely it is relevant?
The way you’ve reported it, it looks like the professor has simply come out and stated this off his own bat.
Nor does the Rountable hide their involvement. It is the top item on their website:
http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/publications/Maori%20Seats%20in%20Parliament.pdf
[DPF: I've linked to the article that mentions it. I prefer to concentrate on the quality of the arguments. I looked for the report to link to but it was not online when I blogged this earlier today.]
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Chuck Bird – Could it be because there’s no legislated minimum on anything other than Maori representation?
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
tim
“You cannot argue the position of the Maori seats as race based favourtism”
Of course you bloody can, what is it about seats reserved for Maori that you do not find racist?
“If we abolish the seats then we will be forced to consider whether there should be a separate Maori Parliament”
Why would we be forced to consider a Maori Parliament?, there is already one set up to represent ALL the peoples of New Zealand, there is no justification for Maori Parliament at all.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“Could it be because there’s no legislated minimum on anything other than Maori representation?”
That could change if Labour and the Greens are in power.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Yes its omission is relevant. It allows people who have been taught to disregard anything that comes from the business roundtable to look at the content of Jospeh’s paper without having tired socialist prejudice cloud their initial reading. Those interested can look further – ie at the author, the research method, the backing etc.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Perhaps someone should tell Matt the property qualification (which pretty effectively disenfranchised poor people) was abolished a very long time ago, in so small part due to a reform movement. We even let women vote and sit in Parliament nowadays, nor do I notice any prohibition on off-white people standing for Parliament.
I don’t know if Matt is racist, but he’s sure ignorant about the history of electoral reform in this country.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Seems that one is simply not allowed to research anything to do with races other than the ‘white’ race.
First we had people calling that researcher who dared to look at ‘pacific island’ peoples current state racist.
Now we have McCarten calling this researcher who dares to look at ‘maori’ representation in parliament ‘ignortantly racist’.
Two classic examples in a week of the pot calling the kettle black. It is precisely this sort of name-calling by McCarten that turns people off.
I was called racist on this site by that PhilU for daring to bring up racism against the ‘white’ race.
It is quite clear that a very large portion of the population, mostly the so-called liberal left, consider discussion by ‘whites’ of anything to do with race racist in itself. ha ha ha ha, what a joke. zero credibility.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
David, the report is a total waste of time because it fails to take into account the political reality that any party advocting abolition will be forever consigned to opposition. The Maori seats will not go until the majority of Maori people fell comfortable with their going. That is the challenge facing the National Party. Not pontificating about some damn fool report.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Bloody hell, Adolf, by that logic we shouldn’t have allowed women to vote unless a majority of men “felt comfortable” with losing their monopoly on the franchise — which certainly wasn’t the case. (Women’s suffrage was passed by a a majority of an all-male Parliament, not a binding referendum only open to women BTW.) And I really don’t see how you win a (to my mind) pretty basic matter of principle when you’re too spineless to even start making the argument because ignorant numpties like McCarten start playing the racist card.
As I’ve said above, if McCarten is so attached to the electoral norms of the mid-19th century someone should ask him how he’d feel about the franchise being restricted to men over the age of 21, who happened to meet property and income qualification that disenfranchised the poor with brutal efficiency.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Well Chuck, if you count the National MPs who are in the closet, I think it’d be about proportional.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Wait, a small minority weilding too much power in parliament? Shock horror!
If New Zealanders were really against this sort of thing, we wouldnt have MMP, would we?
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“The Maori seats will not go until the majority of Maori people feel comfortable with their going.”
Which party represents the “majority of maori people”? I assume this is political chiper for something that means the complete opposite of what it looks like, within a group of people I don’t associate with.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Discrimination based on race is wrong in any context, but discrimination based on geographical location is not much better and that’s how we would otherwise define electorates. Without the overhang, the distinction would be close to irrelevant because it wouldn’t affect the distribution of seats among parties.
However the overhang changes everything because it violates the principle of one person, one vote. This is a much bigger deal than how we divide up the electorates. Our crazy electoral system gives people in the Maori electorates or Anderton’s one two votes that affect the makeup of Parliament while the rest of us only have one. That is the real problem – not the racial discrimination.
[DPF: Last time I checked it was fairly easy to choose where to live and somewhat harder to choose your race]
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Allocating parliamentary seats by culture or race is just racist. Racism is bad. It should be eliminated now, not some time in the future. It’s as simple as that and doesn’t need pages or even paragraphs of explanation.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Craig, put aside lofty theory for a moment and ask yourself this question.
“What would I do if I were in power and I wanted to dispense with the Maori seats?”
Then ask yourself “What set of conditions might allow the removal of those seats without arousing the disapproval of ‘Maori’ electors?
Your answer has to include a formula which will ensure your party is not thrown out on its arse at the next election.
I suggest an examination of the political system on Mauritius might give a clue.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
It’s a pity no one has actually argued on the pros and cons a having no threshold for Maori parties against having Maori seats. That is the debate that interests me more than the usual rhetoric of “The seats are racist” vs “It is racist to do away with the seats”.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
One advantage of abolishing the Maori seats but having no threshold for Maori political parties is you could get more diverse Maori representation in Parliament.
One disadvantage – Winston Peters.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
>It’s a pity no one has actually argued on the pros and cons a having no threshold for Maori parties against having Maori seats.
Having different thresholds for “Maori” and general parties is racist. It would inevitably lead to a situation where a “Maori” party is in parliament with fewer votes than was gained by another party who failed to make it in to parliament. I can’t see how that could possibly be a democratic thing, and therefore a good thing if you agree that democracy is good.
Neither system is needed or desirable. Basing NZ’s electoral system around the imperatives of 19th century tribalism is as bad as the UK basing theirs on 13th century feudalism. But the hereditary component of the UK’s House of Lords has been seen as an anachronism for a long time and is on its way out. Whereas Maori seats were a feature of NZ’s electoral system even after it was completely revised in the 1990s.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
One advantage of abolishing the Maori seats but having no threshold for Maori political parties is you could get more diverse Maori representation in Parliament.
Second disadvantage – it preferentially favors by race Maori voters over non-Maori by providing them with greater freedom of representation.
…would also solve the issue of the Maori seats causing overhang in Parliament which can distort the proportional result you are meant to have under MMP.
It would not because all the voters for Libz, SWP, Legalise Cannabis, Kiwi Party, Destiny, etc. would still be disenfranchised and their proportion of the vote would not be reflected in parliament. The Maori race would be granted a guaranteed over-representation in Parliament, because their votes whilst being of similar numbers would be worth more (because of their race) than these folks.
And whilst on the subject the overhang is not “caused” by the Maori seats. It is the result of an electoral strategy that the Maori Party have chosen to employ and which any other party could choose to employ if they wished to.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Why continue to discriminate along racial lines by saying “Maori” parties had no threshold while others did? Wouldn’t every minor party suddenly discover that many of their members actually have Maori ancestry they hadn’t known about before, and reregister as Maori parties to avoid the threshold? This is very easy to do, to register on the Maori roll you just tick a box, no-one checks your ancestry. How do you define a Maori party?
It would be simpler to just abolish the 5% threshold, or take it down to 1-2%. This would help Maori parties in the same way, without discriminating against others.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
DPF- It’s a pity no one has actually argued on the pros and cons a having no threshold for Maori parties against having Maori seats. That is the debate that interests me more than the usual rhetoric of “The seats are racist” vs “It is racist to do away with the seats”.
How do you decide if a party is a ‘Maori party’? I could set up a party with a few token Maoris (to qualify as a ‘Maori party’), fund a few bill boards, jump on a couple of political bandwagons to get noticed (law and order, anti-smacking, reduce the petrol tax etc) even call myself the ‘Lower Tax on Petrol Maori Party’ and scratch together 0.7% of the vote, then wham bang I would have a seat in parliament!
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
>>It’s a pity no one has actually argued on the pros and cons a having no threshold for Maori parties against having Maori seats
How do you define what is a Maori Party?
Vote:If ACT renamed itself the ACT Maori Party would it qualify?
May 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Try asking yourself this question: How do you win an argument when you’re even going to start making your case.
Reality check for you, Adolf: Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, and colour me surprised that the usual suspects who are doing very well out of the status quo thanks muchly, aren’t going to take kindly to any change. No matter how you drag it up, no matter how much you dance around the point or play elaborate semantic games.
Make your argument, leave it alone entirely or go to the track and have a bob each way there.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
big bruv
The concept of a Maori Parliament is not so undesireable as it may at first glance seem.
Back in the 70s there was similar consideration given in Canada, to a French-Canadian parliament. Using some of the arguments that were explored there would lead to the following thoughts
1. All residents of New Zealand must elect which parliament they will ascribe to; however, residents with 4 generations of pure Maori ancestors MUST register for the Maori Parliament.
2. The Maori Parliament will be able to tax Maori people and Maori owned businesses. Businesses where the majority of shares are owned by Maori registered people will be taxed by the Maori Parliament, all others will be taxed by the New Zealand parliament
3. The Parliament with the greatest number of residents registered as goverrned by it (the majority parliament) shall control areas of common benefit to the two populations, this to include licences to operate and use, as well as physical assets and resources. The ‘other’ parliament shall pay to the majority parliament a tax, calculated based on the number of registered members able to vote in a general parliamentary election (a poll tax) to pay for the use of those resources.
4. All welfare, medical, school, etc., entitlements and benefits shall be provided by the parliament that the benficiary (or their parent or guardian in the case of a beneficiary under the legal voting age,) is registered with.
I remember the gist of these ’4 rules to separate by’ but not the exact wording (and I’m clearly not a lawyer), but I think you get the idea.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Craig, so tell me, how do you propose to do away with the Maori seats?
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Dave
I assume you are taking the piss?
The scenario you outline is a bloody nightmare, even it if were not there is one good reason not to introduce it…….we would have twice as many civil servants.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
With respect to the comments of McCarten the wisdom of Bill OREILLY (The Factor) last evening commenting on OBAMA seems relevant….”I am not at all worried about the colour of his skin. I am really worried by the thinness of it.”
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Big Bruv
M8
No way would I extract your urine
And we would not be paying for all the new Public Servants anyway – look at the fun though.
This was actually discussed in Canada while I was living there. It was brilliant in concept, as there were these geezers who wanted to stay in the confederation while at the same time being independent of it. The PM at the time had a wife who was trying to pursuade the Rolling Stones to share Mars Bars with her, or something, and so got really focused on this stuff (as he did again later when there was a set of negotiations prior to a referendum on UDI by Quebec. In that latter case, he said “go ahead and separate”, the parti Quebecoise asked how much of the railways, airline, phone company, etc they would get control of, and his reoply was ‘nothing’, you become indeopendent, you are indep[endednt, Air Canada, Canadian National Railways, etc., etc., belong to Canada and always will, if you declare independence we will establish firm borders, send in the Canadian Armed Forces, remove our property, and leave you to get on with it.
It should be noted that this Prime Minister – Pierre Trudeau – was a French Canadian!
As with all these issues, there are lessons in History in how to deal with them, this is just one. I remember being told a story once, when I was knee high to an adult, about a group of senior public servants sitting in a bar in a conference hotel discussing business. An Australian was asking a POHM (that’s the correct spelling by the way,) how they were going to deal with Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). The reply was along the lines of ‘in the fullness of time, the challenge will be reduced to the archives of history and our position will be properly reestablished. An American from the Department of State responded ‘well, you didn’t manage to get away with that when we declared independence, what make you think you can do it with Ian Smith?. To which the POHM responded ‘listen here youngster, it took us 400 years to teach the French their lesson, we’ll get round to you when we’re good and ready!”.
The lesson? Never presume that what is done is done, and that what is proposed will be done, because that which is done can be undone, and that which is proosed may never be disposed, and if it is, it can cause significant pain.
Bye the bye, After the Quebecoise – Canadian Government ‘negotiations were made public (good old Pierre had had the entire session taped and played it on public radio) the referendum was held; the vote was overwhealmingly to stay as part of the Canadian Confederation! I wonder if we had a vote tomorrow of all Maori on creation of a separate parliament, with the ‘rules’ I postulated properly communicated today, what the result would be. ANyone want to hazard a guess?
Good day all,have a most pleasant Celebration of our Queen’s birthday.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
As I have stated the preofessor is not discussing representation, he is discussing effective representation. Yet he does not define what “effective representation” actually is. Is it a Maori bum on a Parliamentary seat? If so, how do we know whether that Maori identifies with the Maori constituency – for example Clem Simich, perhaps; or is effective – think Alamein Kopu.
Nor is he clear on the basis of the Maori seats..
In terms of DPFs view on abolishing the seats and having no Maori thresshold, that would not be acceptable to Maori as there will be no Maori constituency to select the MPs , and therefore no effective Maori representation as such.
It would be simpler to just abolish the 5% threshold, or take it down to 1-2%. This would help Maori parties in the same way, without discriminating against others. If the Maori seats were not abolished, that argument is irrelevant. If they were scrapped, Maori are stil favoured, but not because of indigenity – and some people could have 2 or more constituent MPs, neither which are elected by a Maori constituency, therefore that representation would not be effective..
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I’m with Mr Dennis. Get rid of the threshold on all parties. This would increase the choice of coalition parties and reduce the power of each individual minor party.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
and dropping the thresshold does discriminate agains others – namely all minor parties who get the same list vote as a Maori party but dont get into Parliament
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Groan, another millstone around NZ’s neck. Race base representation, but only for some.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
We all get stuck into the Maori seats because they were represented by trough-snuffling dropkicks until the Maori Party turned up (yes, Mahara and Parekura, that’s you).
I have no problem with the Maori seats, so long as they are staffed by MPs who give a shit and care about their constituents. Okeroa and Horomia (unless there’s something in it for them) are the odd ones out.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
New Zealand is now multicultural.
Vote:People from all over the world are now live here and have the same rights as a New Zealand Citizen.
No matter where they come from, French, Somalia, Russia, Greece, China, India, Norway, Chile.
Yet there is something special about Maori.
Why do Maori think they are so special?
In history all land has been won by conquest.
Let us not forget that Moari won this land by conquering.
So, why do the desendants of those who came to a new land have to keep paying for Maori?
They already have over representation in Government without special Moari seats, compared with the Maori population.
I ask again, what is so special?
May 30th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Fer fuck’s sake.
Vote:I’m a Maori.
I think it is good to have Maori seats – SO LONG AS THE FUCKERS ARE ADVOCATING FOR MAORI. Advocating for solutions that don’t involve special treatment.
That means being kaitiaki of the things key to Maori without adversely affecting our economy or environment. Last century, I heard of a council that had to kill a plan to turn sewage sludge into biofuel because a local iwi felt that turning something that had menstruation in it into a sustainable, renewable fuel was wrong. That’s fucking stupid and backward (eat shit and die, Tenths Trust and Atiawa).
But advocating for solutions to the high rate of Maori diabetes isn’t stupid.
Advocating for sensible management of our fisheries isn’t stupid.
Advocating for protection of Maori culture and heritage isn’t stupid (unless they’re complaining about Robbie Williams’ tattoos).
But to have to watch wasters like Okeroa (“another kina, Mr Creosote?”) and Horomia (“I haven’t seen my penis since 1976″) pretend they are working in the best interests of all iwi and hapu is bullshit.
I was dubious about Turia. Sharples has made a few faux pas too. Hone is just Hone, for better or worse.
But the Maori Party might just be the rational side the Nats need post-election.
Abolishing the Maori seats based on the fact we have more Chinese or Africans here is a flawed argument based on a backwards-looking gaze at the walking fuckup Maori representation has been in the past.
While I despair at the shithouse post-colonial crap my kids are taught about the Treaty at school, I draw the line at abolishing the representation for the acknowledged tangata whenua. Give them (the Maori Party and maybe other iwi-based parties) a go.
Don’t blame them for the pocket-stuffing antics of a few ex-public service/union Maoris in the Labour Party.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
PS don’t put me in the same liberal basket as that sandal-wearer Poneke. I’m so far right I could be Roger Douglas. I’m just looking to fix what’s ailing folks…
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I don’t care what anyone says. Any system that allows a Party with 2% of the vote to take 7 seats, and thereby create an overhang and potentially hold the balance of power, is wrong.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
It is ironic that such a paternalistic colonialist concept (the Maori seats) is so desperately clung to by so many who despise everything else the colonial oppressors delivered.
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 12:01 am
I’m on the phone to the Perth Ngai Tahus at the moment – all voting National electorate, Maori party…
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Poneke, I don’t care who sponsored the research, it could have been any person or organisation. That isn’t the point. The overall problem is that some people think it is good we force representation of one race out of fairness for equality and yet ignore other minorities because it isn’t important. I look forward to seeing compulsory sears for Aussies/Poms and European migrants. Fairs fair.
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 5:56 am
New Zealand is not South Africa circa pre-1990.
The Maori seats are an embarrassment to New Zealand. If the country were in anyway forward looking the Maori seats would be gone. Unfortunately New Zealand acts just as rest of the world perceives it. That being England in the 1950’s with bugger all people living in it. Peter Jackson chose well when he decided New Zealand was the living embodiment of Middle Earth.
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
DPF said;
You are absolutely correct but you are dismissing the point that electorate (geographical boundaries) are a reasonable proxy for socioeconomic boundaries. Safe seats of either camp illustrate this very well. How would John Key get on standing in south Dunedin?
Therefore people who are misplaced in a socioeconomic vs electorate way will have only one effective vote, their party vote. Their ‘unlikely’ neighbours of course have their party vote and elect a ‘safe’ member to parliament as well.
A full proportional system solves this distortion.
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
clintheine
I look forward to an Asian quota for the All Blacks. You don’t see many Asian All Blacks and surely we should address that imbalance as well.
The Maori seats were what would be expected from the way these things were dealt with at the time, today we live in a different world. We don’t need to have a single ‘ruling party’ one large opposition and a few noisy ‘protest votes’ or ‘quota seats’ tacked off to one side for our parliament. We can choose to vote for more than ‘more of the same under a different colour’ and we should be able to expect our politicians to work together for better outcomes for the country. This will never be achieved as long as we allow some inflexible mandate from 1868 to determine the shape of parliament rather than the will of the voters.
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“I look forward to an Asian quota for the All Blacks.”
burt – I look forward to watching the Mao Blacks preform
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The debate is settled. Time to move on. The Tyrant has told the Professor to shut up and butt out.
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Well I never, Ngai Tahu is a Maori Iwi, looking at the majority
Vote:of them that old song a whiter shade of pale comes to mind.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
It’s simply maths really, if all people who feel strongly about Maori representation cast their party vote for the Maori party then the Maori roll will look exactly like what it is – an outdated back bench stuffing device for the major parties. Imagine 20 MP’s in for the Maori party.. Now who’s got a driving seat in the coalition negotiations?
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
DPF said:
[DPF: Last time I checked it was fairly easy to choose where to live and somewhat harder to choose your race]
Actually, in NZ it is far easier to choose your race than your location. Choosing your race involves ticking one box on the electoral enrollment form. Choosing your location involves actually moving house.
Vote:May 31st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll get on my soap box again now.
Under FPP we had the electorate vote only. We still have that under MMP. So the party vote is a bonus, cast it for the party that you think best represents your ideologies and aspirations for NZ. Cast your electorate vote for the MP that you think best serves your electorate.
It would be possible to elect 30% Maori, 30% Green, 30% ACT, 5% National, 5% Labour if we don’t all act like muppets and follow the “Two ticks [major-party-name-here]” instructions form the major parties in an attempt to keep the two party FPP system alive as long as possible.
Vote:June 1st, 2008 at 7:18 am
I don’t like the Business Roandtable for the same reason I don’t like the EPMU and the CTU. They both, to these eyes appear as mirror-images of each other, ideologically entrenched, overly influential, and devious in their tactics. One stands for conservatism, the other for socialism, and both should be either allowed free reign or be curtailed by legislation when it comes to how they spend their time, cash and effort in the political process. Exactly how? well, that’s another can of worms…..
Don’t get me wrong. I like Trade Unionism. I am myself a small (rapidly diminishing) business man, so I understand the appeal of each ideology for personal reasons. I just don’t like political ambition dressed up as altruism when it clearly isn’t.
In this spirit I enjoyed reading Matt McCartens Herald article today:
“It would have been devastated when John Key, a moderate, took out Don Brash as leader. Therefore it had to resort to a Plan B and coax decrepit Douglas out of retirement. With the support of his Roundtable cronies, Douglas is now effectively co-leader of the Act Party. I’m wary of political ideologues who claim our economic and social ills can only be cured if we adopt their plan. Apparently, Douglas and Act have a new 20-point plan. Most of us are probably tempted to roll our eyes about this nuttiness. But don’t think they are harmless fruitcakes.”
Reading between the lines here, McCarten is actually endorsing John Key as a moderate!
The Business Roundtable should be exposed for its role. Now, wouldn’t it be great to see a similar article about how the EPMU and CTU regularly bails out Labour with donations, man-power, leaflets and parallel campaigning at election time? It’s like Matt says:
“So watch for the drip feed of so-called academic research. It is just politics masquerading as research. After all, it is election year.”
Lee – (Monkeys With Typewriters)
Vote: