Correction: In this article I have mis-stated the rules around casting a vote in a place other than the electorate in which you are enrolled. Please ignore that paragraph in my column, which is incorrect. Otago Law professor Anrew Geddis has stated the correct position, which can be addressed via a “special vote declaration.” Geddis cites several qualifying grounds for this declaration, including travel and study.
His other faults aside, Christopher Luxon does not appear to have a deep and abiding commitment to democracy. Especially not if it gets in his way, or makes him look bad. The “fast track” powers for instance, enable draft legislation to be passed into law free from normal checks, balances and consents. The unprecedented use of “urgency” powers has enabled the Luxon government to pass 17.4% of its entire legislative agenda devoid of scrutiny by select committees, and without the public getting a chance to make submissions. Previously, Labour had the Covid pandemic to justify its use of urgency, which at its peak was used to pass 15.5% of its agenda. National has had no such excuse.
With even less subtlety, Luxon and his National team are also blatantly stealing votes by scrapping one of the most admirable aspects of our democratic system. Namely, the ability to register and to vote on election day, no matter where you may be in the country at the time. People wishing to cast a valid vote must now have registered two weeks beforehand- and if they happen to be elsewhere than their home electorate on election day (on business, on holiday, or studying) then their electorate vote won’t be counted. There is no valid reason for these outrages.
Reportedly, the changes won’t even speed up the counting process. (They’ve added to the checking required.) It is vote-stealing, pure and simple. The people most likely to be disenfranchised by this gambit are the young, Māori, Pasifika, and those working multiple jobs – all of these being groups that have tended to register late, and to cast their votes disproportionately for the centre-left. These have been the people for whom being able to register and vote on the same day had been a godsend.
Alas, that is only the beginning of the Big Steal. Luxon is also aiming to change the rules of democracy to ensure the public gets to vote less often, and – in his dreams – the public would also be less able to use MMP to frustrate governments from doing whatever it is that they, and their corporate friends, would like to do.
If re-elected, Luxon is promising to hold referendums on how we vote, and how often we get the chance to vote. We are facing a change to a four year term of government, and – if Luxon survives as leader – a costly referendum on the voting system. Is there anyone beyond the extended Luxon family who thinks this is a pressing priority?
Needless to say, these “solutions” are being imposed before any discussion of what the current problems are that require such drastic constitutional changes.
Four year terms of government. Infuriatingly, the change to a four year term of government is being “justified” solely in terms of its convenience for the political parties. Yes, they’d get more time to enact their policies free from scrutiny and/or sanctions by voters. Naturally, they’re all for it. So far, there has been so sign of what, if anything, the public would get in return. Keep in mind that this proposal is coming from centre-right parties that normally rail against the excesses of state power.
We’re already highly vulnerable. Almost uniquely among developed countries, New Zealand has a threadbare system of checks and balances. It has a single chamber of Parliament. It has no written Constitution and no entrenched Bill of Rights, thereby limiting the watchdog role of the courts. At best, the Supreme Court and/or the Attorney General can declare this or that measure “inconsistent” with the Bill of Rights, and the ruling party can and often does, ignore such advice. So much for that “protection.”
Twice before (in 1967 and 1990) and at considerable cost, voters have heavily rejected four year terms. If, out of sheer self-interest, the political parties are going to put this proposal up again, they should foot the bill themselves. The public will want to know (a) why do we need to do it and (b) what concrete concessions the public will receive in return for the change being mooted.
At the very least, the MMP threshold would need to be dropped to say three per cent. Before any other change to the term of government, the Bill of Rights (now 30 years old) would also need to be reviewed and strengthened. And the alleged efficiency gains from a four year term would need to be proven, and not merely asserted by self-interested political parties.
Indeed, we are among the few developed countries to have only a three year parliamentary term. But that’s mainly because we are also among the few developed countries with such paltry checks and balances on the power of the Executive. A three year term is our best protection against political excess. We shouldn’t give it away, for free.
Scrapping MMP Lest we forget, New Zealanders voted for the MMP system to prevent the excesses of the “elected dictatorship” experienced by this country in the 1980s from ever happening again. Those policies have caused lasting, inter-generational harm. If we can take Luxon’s off-the-cuff MMP remark seriously for a moment…if MMP needs fine-tuning (and that’s questionable) the simple yes/no verdict of a national referendum is not the way to go about it.
Arguably, the biggest problem with MMP is the 5% threshold required for parties to enter Parliament. That high hurdle has mainly served to consolidate the grip on power of the two major parties, and has inhibited the range of community voices that can gain meaningful access to Parliament. One reason why Labour and National are still less than adept at managing MMP coalitions is because we’ve lost 30 years of the experience we could have had with more diverse coalitions, if only the entry barrier had been pitched at a lower level.
With that in mind…does Luxon agree with the 1986 Royal Commission that we need a lower MMP threshold to ensure that the public can more readily see its choices reflected in parliamentary representation? No, I didn’t think so. Yet surely, one of the great success stories of MMP is that almost overnight, it made our Parliament far more diverse, and far more representative of the population that it exists to serve.
Allegedly, MMP inhibits governments from “doing anything.” Well, dictatorships get things done, but few people would choose to live in one. There is nothing in the MMP rules to stop parties from promoting rash, socially harmful and unpopular policies – but MMP can stop them from being imposed willy nilly on the public that might otherwise have had to bear the consequences, potentially for decades afterwards. In that sense, MMP continues to function as a necessary safeguard. Occasionally, Peters and Seymour also act as constraints on each other’s worst impulses.
Luxon’s big problem with MMP is that his prior business “experience” has ill-prepared him to manage a coalition, let alone run a country. After all, he was CEO of an airline that enjoyed a neo-monopoly in its domestic market, and benefitted from boom-times in international tourism.
In other words, coping with scarcity and genuine competition is not part of Luxon’s CV. Safe to say, the Air NZ boardroom was not a democratic coalition of bickering rivals. So we shouldn’t be very surprised that Luxon has such limited knowledge of what start-ups and small firms require to flourish, let alone any skill in negotiating consensus positions among his coalition partners. In business, he always rolled from a position of unquestioned strength.
How he must hanker for the good old days before MMP, when FPP governments were comprised only of party subordinates. MMP has brutally exposed Luxon’s lack of the people skills required to promote consensus, and to steer to fruition a balanced set of competing objectives.
Win or lose in November, the National Party will almost certainly dump Luxon as leader at the first real opportunity it gets, post election. If so, the half-baked MMP referendum proposal will go into the dustbin of history alongside him. Unfortunately, this leadership change will probably come after Luxon has “negotiated” another set of policy giveaways to his coalition partners. By wavering pre-election on getting rid of Luxon, National is lumbering itself with him to make the crucial post-election deals. There is no ideal time for a coup. And no good reasons for delaying one.
Footnote: Obviously, the latest fiascos have been the direct result of Peters racist comments to Lawrence Xu-Nan, and Luxon’s subsequent inability to sanction his Foreign Minister without capsizing the government. MMP has copped the blame for Luxon’s decision to treat holding onto power as a higher priority than maintaining decent standards of ministerial behaviour.
Even under MMP though, there is still such a thing as collective Cabinet responsibility across parties. Why doesn’t that include a collective commitment to refrain from the racist denigration of (a) fellow MPs, and (b) of groups within the wider population?
National talks incessantly about the need for Fiscal Responsibility Rules. Most voters would probably prefer to see the Cabinet commit to some racially responsible codes of conduct. If in place, they would have gone a long way to pre-empting Christopher Luxon’s recent problems with Winston Peters.
Revival Time, with Roches
The British rock band Wolf Alice has just released a bunch of B sides and rarities that include this unexpectedly lovely version of the Roches’ 1979 track“ Hammond Song”:
And just by way of comparison, here’s the Roches’playful harmonising on the original: