}

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Here we go…

The National-led Government has announced the questions for the referendum on New Zealand’s voting system. The first referendum will be held at the 2011 elections, and will ask first: “Should the current MMP voting system be retained?” Voters will have two possible choices: “I vote to retain the MMP voting system” or, obviously, “I vote to change to another voting system.” The referendum will cost an estimated $11 million and will include a public education campaign so voters can intelligently answer Part B on the same referendum: “Regardless of how you voted under part A, if there was a change to another voting system, which voting system would you choose?” The choices are: “I would choose the First Past the Past system,” or “I would choose the Preferential Voting system,” or “I would choose the Single Transferable Vote system,” or “I would choose the Supplementary Member system.” Most of the National Party hates MMP with an unsurpassed passion. The mainstream of the party has what’s been called a “born to rule” attitude, and with reason: They really think they’re the only ones who ought to rule New Zealand and they despise the more democratic and representative democracy that MMP has brought to New Zealand. Under the old “first past the post” (FPP) system, National could comfortably count on ruling more often than not. The one thing I can guarantee right now is that there is now way, no how that I’ll vote to support FPP. It’s old fashioned, anti-democratic and rewards privilege. It is, in short, the opposite of everything I believe in. The final wording of the question may change, but this is only a first step. If MMP loses Part A in the 2011 referendum, then the top option in Part B will go to a second referendum against MMP in 2014. If there is a change, the first election will be in 2017—a very long time, in other words. One thing’s certain: This will not be the last time I post about this.

6 comments:

toujoursdan said...

Most of the National Party hates MMP with an unsurpassed passion. The mainstream of the party has what’s been called a “born to rule” attitude, and with reason: They really think they’re the only ones who ought to rule New Zealand and they despise the more democratic and representative democracy that MMP has brought to New Zealand.

Same thing can be said for the Conservative Party of Canada and the U.S. Republicans. It shows how authoritarian the extreme mindset is, and how that has take control of right-wing parties in several countries.

(At least yours hasn't shut down Parliament for several months to avoid embarrassing questions.)

Arthur Schenck said...

It's also true that our Tories, the National Party, don't seem to quite as conservative as the Conservative Party in Canada—and they're positively liberal compared to the US' Republican Party!

I don't even know that the New Zealand Prime Minister CAN shut down Parliament like Stephen Harper did. I hope not!

Mark from Slap said...

I don't even know that the New Zealand Prime Minister CAN shut down Parliament like Stephen Harper did. I hope not!

Despite not knowing exactly how New Zealand's parliament differs from Canada's, I would assume that John Key could shut down parliament just like Harper did, if he really wanted to. (Well, more correctly, he'd request that the Governor General prorogue parliament---and if New Zealand is anything like Canada, it would be very unusual for the GG to ever deny a sitting prime minister's request.)

Prorogation is such an obscure technicality... I don't think anyone would have thought it could be used as a tool to escape responsible government, especially considering it's the only check that the parliament system has on its executive branch. I'm actually quite worried!

Arthur Schenck said...

I had to look it up…

Under the "Standing Orders of the House of Representatives" a sitting of the House (and our Parliament only has the one chamber) can be adjourned for a maximum of one month in the event of an emergency (such as for management of "a serious outbreak of a disease affecting people", like influenza). If the Prime Minister believes the emergency situation requires a longer postponement, then—with the agreement of the leaders of all other parties in Parliament (Rule 53 (5b)), the sitting can be postponed for longer than a month.

In New Zealand, the Speaker alone determines when sittings are suspended or adjourned, in accordance with the Standing Orders and law (some laws may require Parliament to sit at certain times).

I can't find anything that gives the NZ Prime Minister a way to prorogue Parliament. In NZ, the GG opens Parliament and dissolves it (they call elections), but they don't determine sittings; scheduling of sittings is done solely by the Speaker in accordance with Standing Orders and other laws.

So, it looks like we may be safe. Whew!

toujoursdan said...

Well, if anything should warn you against re-adopting FPP it should be the Canadian experience. In the last election 72% of the electorate voted for left-of-centre parties, yet we ended up with a right-wing government that can stack the Senate with party hacks (as they're appointed) and prorogue.

The Conservative Party's predecessor, the Progressive Conservatives used to be pretty moderate. "Red Toryism" which supported social institutions, small business and was against big business and neo-liberal economics guided their philosophy. But once the Alberta Reform Party took over it went downhill from there.

Arthur Schenck said...

I sincerely hope that FPP loses—I'll certainly work on the campaign to defeat it, should it become an option in the 2014 election.

In the last Canadian election, I read that Harper was called an apostle of George W. Bush. Now I understand a bit why they said that.

Oh, I should also add a clarification: Parliament rises in December, before Christmas, and doesn't return until February (I believe the first Tuesday after Waitangi Day).