The Muldoon era provoked withering confidence in the New Zealand Government, and led the Labour Party to campaign in both 1981 and 1984 on a commitment to review our electoral system. Winning in 1984, the Fourth Labour Government kept their election promise, and set up a Royal Commission on the Electoral System in early 1985.

The Royal Commission recommended New Zealand switch to the German-style MMP system. However, despite remaining at the forefront of subsequent election campaigns, little action was taken on the recommendation. By the early 1990s when the National Government finally agreed to hold an indicative referendum, the public had endured ‘elective dictatorship’ not only under both Muldoon and the blitzkrieg structural adjustments of the Fourth Labour Government, but also under the Bolger administration, whose first term was characterised by a raft of broken election promises.

While only 55 per cent of voters took part in this first indicative referendum, 85 per cent of those voted for change, with MMP emerging as the preferred system. Labour leader Mike Moore commented at the time: “The people didn’t speak on Saturday. They screamed.”

The second, binding referendum was held in conjunction with the 1993 general election, and following a bitter campaign, the election saw an 85 per cent turnout, with MMP narrowly emerging as the favoured system for future elections.

Despite the ‘politics-free zone’ mandated by the Rugby World Cup, the lead-up to the November 26 referendum is likely to be characterized by an equally bitter campaign.
The arguments for and against MMP were fleshed out in the previous issue of Salient. However, the referendum asks two questions of voters and while last week’s discussion might help you to determine whether you think we should retain MMP or not, the second question offers four alternatives to choose between whether or not you think MMP should be replaced.

First Past The Post

Under FPP, voters choose only between candidates for their own electorate. The benefit of this is that all MPs are directly accountable to a geographic community, and represent their interests in Parliament.
Third parties, who enjoy even distribution of support across geographical constituencies, but lack majority support in any particular electorate are thus under-represented. This was clearly evident in the 1981 election where the Social Credit Party won over 20 per cent of the popular vote, but only saw a 2.2 per cent share of the seats in Parliament.
Moreover, because candidates are elected by a plurality, this can lead to discrepancies in resulting representation from the major parties. Indeed, again in 1981 the National Party won the election having been rewarded with 51.1 percent of the seats in Parliament, for 38.8 percent of the vote, while the Labour Party who had received over four thousand more votes than National, was disproportionately awarded only 46.7 per cent of the seats.

Thus, while the FPP system makes for strong and efficient government in that a single party usually has majority control of Parliament, the legitimacy of the government is undermined as the ruling party may only enjoy minority support. More concerning is an electoral system that results in majority Government under the Westminster model’s fusion of the executive and the legislature. With no effective checks on executive power, this led to a situation whereby Muldoon recognized he could dream up a policy in the morning, draw it up in the afternoon, and have it passed into law that evening. A return to FPP with no alternative checks and balances would see the same result.

Finally, FPP leads to seriously disproportionate representation from a demographic standpoint. As Dr Jon Johansson points out, since 1996 MMP has indisputably led to a far more representative Parliament. “In our last FPP parliament only seven of its members were Maori and some 22 per cent females. After the 2008 election 14.75 per cent of parliament’s members are Maori, and women, for the second consecutive election, represent 32 per cent of House members—not a perfect fit with our demographics, but considerable progress.”

Preferential Voting

Preferential voting (PV), otherwise known as the Alternative-Vote (AV), is the system currently used to elect the Australia House of Representatives. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, rather than just voting for one. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the candidate with the least number of first preferences is eliminated, and the votes for that candidate are redistributed according to the voter’s second preference, until one candidate emerges with a majority.

The system is seen as fairer than the FPP system, because even though Parliament is still elected wholly via constituencies, the issue around wasted votes is largely rectified. However, while somewhat ameliorating the level of distortion that sees a party awarded a disproportionate number of seats in Parliament relative to their share of the popular vote under the FPP system, under PV this would endure, albeit to a lesser degree. Of course, the focus solely on electorate representation that would mean that minor party representation would be minimal. For example, despite currently being the third-largest party in Parliament, The Greens as they stand would fail to gain any representation under PV.

Supplementary Member

Supplementary Member (SM) is a semi-proportional system. The system works much the same way as MMP, but with significantly less proportionate results. Ninety seats are contestable via single member constituencies as in FPP, and the remaining thirty would be elected via party lists.

Professors Stephen Levine and Nigel Roberts have analysed election data, and have determined that based on the last five elections, SM would have see a disproportionality of 9.54 per cent. This figure is much closer to the 13.56 per cent that would have resulted under FPP than it is to the very proportional MMP system, which has a disproportionality index of only 2.98 per cent across those elections. Thus, despite being marketed as a middle-ground system, the disproportionality of SM puts it much closer to the majoritarian FPP system.

The key problem with the system, is that despite retaining a level of proportionality, the overwhelming electorate-focus of SM is likely to sideline most minor parties, running the risk of seeing a single-party majority, or a solitary minor party that wags the dog to a far greater extent than any of the current minor parties do.

Single Transferable Vote

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) offers the best alternative to MMP in terms of proportionality, although it can still only be defined as semi-proportional. Under STV, a candidate must achieve an established quota of votes to be elected. Candidates are eliminated sequentially and their votes are transferred to other candidates, with the candidate eliminated at each stage generally being the one with the fewest current votes.

While the STV system does see minor party representation, it’s preferential nature means it remains less proportional than MMP. Furthermore, under STV, each electorate has more than one MP. A key flaw in this is that the system sees candidates from the same party competing for votes, and as such, personal interests can undermine the stability and cohesion of political parties. Nevertheless, STV is the most preferable option after MMP, in terms of retaining a check on executive power.

Strategy in 2011

It’s should be obvious by now that I am a staunch advocate for retaining MMP, and for those of us committed to MMP, it is important to consider a strategic vote in the referendum.

At present, opposition to MMP is split into two camps: older voters who reminisce over the ‘good old days’ of FPP, and those who champion SM. Those who vote to retain MMP would be best served by a vote for STV out of the four alternatives. With opinion split between FPP and SM among those voting for change, even if change is narrowly favoured, if all those who support MMP choose STV, then that option could potentially beat out the far less proportional FPP and SM options. Therefore, in a second binding referendum where MMP was pitted against STV, it would at least be a proportional system versus a (slightly less) proportional system, meaning that the benefits of MMP would not be lost with change. Moreover, if STV was the alternative, the concerns of the anti-MMP crowd wouldn’t be addressed anyway, and their campaign would likely wither.

Whether or not your support MMP or one of the alternative options, the referendum on the electoral system is the most important decision New Zealanders have faced in 18 years. Even if you’re entirely ambivalent toward the General Election result, which already seems a foregone conclusion, every eligible student on this campus should research the electoral system options, make a decision and vote in 2011 referendum.

However, rather than following Russell Norman’s cue in focusing on economic strategy, Brash instead turned his focus towards something that not even the Greens are prepared to discuss this year, demonstrating his lack of political instinct by blundering his way into the cannabis debate.

The move was plainly one made in desperation. Having taken the ACT leadership with optimistic projections of taking 15 per cent of the party vote, the Brash-led incarnation has consistently polled around 2 per cent; a figure that without the lifeline thrown to them in Epsom by National, would see the flailing Party delivered into the jaws of oblivion.
Then, after releasing the party list with its conspicuous third-place vacancy, deputy leader John Boscawen announces he’s out, apparently “to spend more time with his family”; time with whom he was willing to sacrifice just over a month ago when he accepted a place on the list.

So, there’s a deputy leader who has presumably seen the figures, done the maths, and fled; a consequent additional vacant spot at number two to accompany number three; and a Party that retains not one of its current MPs.

So Brash turns to weed.

To be sure, Brash clearly stated his intention when he took the leadership reins, to move ACT back towards its founding principles, of which individual freedom is paramount. Decriminalisation of cannabis, while reeking of populism, is certainly indicative of Brash pursuing that agenda. However, when such a policy comes out of the blue as it has, and is so at odds with Rodney Hide’s ‘tough on law and order’ approach that has come to define the ACT Party, one can only conclude that Brash momentarily forgot there was an election looming.

The fact is, ACT’s support isn’t based primarily in libertarian thought, at least as far as social policy is concerned. ACT the brand appealed to socially conservative and economic liberal right-wingers, and in this election at least, was best poised to siphon off that section of the National vote who felt the Government hadn’t gone far enough on the economy, law-and-order, and to a lesser extent, race.

And then there’s the fact that Brash failed to reveal his plans to John Banks; the manifestation of the leader’s only chance of getting back into Parliament this November. Banks, a strong social conservative and a more instinctual politician, was quick to repudiate the proposal realising that Epsom won’t buy into any policy that is ‘soft on drugs’ despite the arguments to be made for decriminalisation. The result has been an inconsistency in message that indicates ACT 2011 2.0 continues to be characterised by the same factionalism as the current parliamentary cohort.

There’s not one benefit to be had from Brash’s announcement. The Epsom crowd now see Brash as a supporter of decriminalisation. On the flipside, the libertarian crowd also won’t be fooled into believing that ACT would actually advocate decriminalisation in Parliament, especially an ACT Party with John Banks in it.

Is it all over then? There’s little chance in reviving the party under Brash now, and more than likely the way forward is now for Banks to roll Brash. Two leadership transitions in a year would be damaging for any party, but Banks still has the profile to win Epsom, and will be aided by that dirty little deal with National. Either way, ACT seems to be effectively finished. Banks is National in all but name and will no doubt fall in line with the rest of that party’s faithful.

The upshot is of course that New Zealand politics may now finally find itself entirely free of that intellectually bankrupt neoliberal septuagenarian cohort.

Although he succeeded in ending the awarding of British Honours in New Zealand in 1996, and firmly advocated replacing the Privy Council as the country’s highest appellate Court—successfully executed by the subsequent Clark Government—17 years later Mrs Windsor remains the symbolic head of state.

Writing in the 1940s, the foundation Professor of Political Science at Victoria, Leslie Lipson observed of New Zealand’s political culture: “abstractions, theories, ideals—these are of little account or interest unless they can be immediately applied. Utility is the national yardstick.” The cultural pragmatism Lipson recognised endures, and goes a long way towards explaining why Bolger’s push for full and final independence remains unfulfilled. The question persists: Why, when New Zealand is already a de-facto republic, do we need to officially cut ties with the monarchy?

With the Government having initiated a review of our constitution, it is with deference to the aforementioned cultural reality that I advocate the prospect of a ‘soft’ republic.
The soft republic approach would see New Zealand’s system of government move to a parliamentary republic, with the current hereditary head-of-state replaced with a New Zealander chosen by New Zealanders, whether by direct election, or the more likely option of parliamentary appointment. Under the parliamentary republic model, this new head-of-state would retain the same powers, functions and responsibilities of the current Governor-General, but would symbolically reflect New Zealand, rather than Mother England.

As Victoria University law lecturer, Dean Knight argues, under this system we would have a head-of-state who retains the valued ceremonial and community functions of the current Governor-General, but would better represent and reflect the values of multi-cultural Aotearoa, and that’s the crux of the argument.

“The Royal Family do not represent us. They represent something different, and whether they be pop-stars, or champions of goodness, they lack the essential Kiwiness. While the office of the Governor-General has evolved to manifest many of these Kiwi values, there is a limit to which it can continue to evolve when it is a subordinate role anchored abroad in London.”

Often submitted as an obstacle to achieving full independence by way of its essence as an agreement between iwi and hapu on one side and Queen Victoria on the other, the Treaty of Waitangi need not be an insurmountable hurdle. As it stands, the New Zealand Executive has long assumed responsibility for meeting Treaty obligations (to varying degrees, of course). Essentially, a soft republic would retain the status quo, with the transition to a republic, initiated largely independent of wider constitutional reform.

Of course, an optimistic—or less-soft—view of the potential surrounding republicanism, is that it would allow, and facilitate a wider debate resolving the future role and place of the Treaty. This, as part of, and along side, the codification of New Zealand’s Constitution, would be a more ambitious approach to be sure, but an approach that would benefit the nation as a whole.

Assuredly, advocates of republicanism are unlikely to be beneficiaries of the current constitutional review. Bill English, while accepting that the panel will review the republican debate, has explicitly stated that the Government “is not advancing the prospect of a republic.” This is hardly surprising when the current Prime Minister seems to hold an unusual affinity for the monarchy, working to strengthen the old symbolic ties to the extent that he reintroduced knighthoods to the New Zealand Honours system.

However, the republican question is shrouded in inevitability—something even Mr Key will admit, even if he’s happy to leave it for the Sixth Labour Government to address. As Victoria’s Dr. Jon Johansson argues, “It’s a natural rite of passage that our history has inexorably been leading us towards.

“Britain, the old ‘Mother Country’ (for fewer and fewer of us), abandoned us several decades ago, to better put its own house in order (or at least to pursue its own perceived self-interest, which didn’t include providing continued guaranteed access for our protein-based products), so it is time we simply acknowledged this reality and did the same.”

Developing skills in reading, writing and mathematics are essential for a child’s success as they progress beyond Year 8, and in many cases, into tertiary education. Providing teachers, and in particular parents, with an indication of where a child is at, consistent with the subsequent expectations of secondary schools and tertiary institutions, logically allows specific gaps to be filled and problem-areas to be ironed out in each child.

However, in 2009, following passage of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill, academics from Auckland, Waikato and Otago Universities wrote an open letter to the Minister of Education entitled ‘Warning about the new National Standards system’. At least one of the authors—Auckland University’s Professor John Hattie—was an initial supporter of the idea. The Prime Minister has said it was Professor Hattie who introduced the idea of a standards-based system to him in the first place.
In the letter, while the intended goals behind the program were resoundingly affirmed, the authors outlined that the “flaws in the new system are so serious that full implementation of the intended National Standards system…is likely to be unsuccessful.”

Those flaws include:
• A lack of focus on progress, and the wrongful assumption that children are ‘failing’ if they do not meet the National Standards. With this is an associated concern that this assumption of ‘failing’ can become self-fulfilling, turning children off education rather than helping them to achieve higher;
• The distortion and impoverishment of “the culture of teaching and learning and assessment within schools”, leading to a limited and far less stimulating primary experience, as evidenced by the international experience of the public reporting of national testing; and
• That the descriptions and examples of the standards are so vague as to be ineffective in many cases.

Of course, this discussion has been thrashed out time and again throughout National’s first term in office, but I raise it here once more in the wake of Labour’s announcement that they would ditch National Standards in all primary schools if elected this year.

In its place, Labour’s Education spokesperson, Sue Moroney has outlined that the Party would institute a new set of assessment tools according to the following five-point plan, which would:

• Determine the curriculum level a child is achieving;
• Show a child’s rate of progress between reports over the course of a year;
• Identify children not achieving within curriculum levels;
• Decide and report the next learning steps; and
• Report information in plain language to parents at least twice a year.

This is a plan that, on the face of it, is essentially aimed at achieving the exact same ends, and appears to address the concerns above.
Of course, what this all comes back to is that National Standards—a good idea at its inception—has been just one victim of National’s prolific use of urgency this term. The National Government pushed through 17 laws in its first two years without allowing public submissions, compared with the four or five in each of the previous Labour Government’s terms.

Arguably, had National Standards been subject to the consultation process that they deserved, the primary sector might have been faced with a policy that addressed the outlined concerns, and would have been welcomed with overwhelming support, rather than being plagued by the overwhelming opposition that has ensued.
It’s great that Moroney has made an attempt to initiate debate over the scheme as people evaluate the Government’s performance. It’s clear, regardless of whether tweedle dum or tweedle dee win this year’s election, that National Standards as it stands is in dire need of review; a review complete with the consultation process it should have been afforded in the first place, and a review resulting in a system—whether continuing under the ‘National Standards’ tag, or some other less tainted moniker—that has the backing of those who have to implement them.

Even though some complain of complacency, National are clearly onto a winning formula at this point, and as the old adage goes, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Despite that, there are a couple of elements to the rankings that warrant analysis.

Current National list MP Tau Henare is the big loser on the list, dropping from 26 to 40. Granted the drop is likely not enough to see the incumbent turfed out, but is a pretty clear indication from Key and the Party hacks that they’re less than impressed with his performance over the past three years. As Key hinted, “there’s a message there”, although at the same time the Prime Minister said he wouldn’t be drawn into “performance discussions” with the media.

The other significant drop is likely to have more profound consequences for its unlucky recipient. Paul Quinn, dropping to a rank of 56, now relies on National capturing approximately 48 per cent of the Party Vote to secure a seat in the next Parliament. That just might happen, but with iPredict currently forecasting slightly less (47.1 per cent), it might be time for Mr Quinn to update the old CV quick smart.

Speaker Lockwood Smith, on the other hand, has jumped from twelfth to third place, a consequence of his vacating the seat of Rodney due to the constraints he faces in his role as Speaker. Another apparent winner, new candidate Paul Goldsmith, was awarded number 39 to guarantee him backdoor entry after he agreed to stand in the (relatively) safe Act electorate: Epsom.

The two real surprises come with Auckland University lecturer Jian Yang and Pastor Alfred Ngaro at 35 and 36 respectively; neither of whom we’ve heard anything about until now, and selections that reflect an effort to ensure ethnic diversity in the National caucus. The former is a particularly important selection in maintaining National’s links with the Chinese community following Pansy Wong’s exit late last year.

As David Farrar extrapolates, National is doing fairly well in the ethnicity stakes. “At 48%, National would have seven MPs of Maori descent, which would be 12 per cent of Caucus. This is equal to adult Maori population, which is 12 per cent of the country. There would also be two Pacific MPs and three Asian MPs.”

While they might be succeeding in achieving ethnic diversity, gender diversity continues to lag; a problem that has always, and clearly continues to plague National. Female candidates comprise only one-quarter of the Party’s list, despite the fact the fairer sex make up more than 50 per cent of the country’s population.

The New Zealand Herald has reported that Key has been explicit in wanting to see more women represented under the National banner, and even though a number of current women MPs have been promoted, including Paula Bennett (up to 14 from 41), Hekia Parata (18 from 36), and Amy Adams (28 from 52), only two of the top ten positions are occupied by female candidates: Judith Collins (7), and Anne Tolley (8), with only a further three rounding out the top 20.

By comparison, alongside Annette King as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, the opposition have three further women represented in their top 10, and a total of eight in their top 20.

Perhaps it’s not such a surprise. For, at the same time as the Party releases a list that largely maintains National’s inherent male conservatism, the Prime Minister is promoting a change to our electoral system, despite the fact that MMP has seen the percentage of woman in Parliament rise from 14.4 per cent at the beginning of 1990s to 33.6 per cent in 2010. The Supplementary Member alternative Key advocates will not help the cause; more than likely turning back the clock instead.

Therefore, for all the rhetoric, Key and the National Party must start actively approaching and pushing woman candidates to stand in safe National seats thus pushing up the Party’s gender diversity. Granted, it wouldn’t have made a difference in this election, but with any drop in popularity for the Party leader among female constituents, National could be looking down a very different barrel in 2014.

Despite the imminence of the election however, Labour continue to languish in doldrums. The latest Herald-DigiPoll survey has the opposition party at its lowest levels of support so far this term (31.5 per cent), with a Fairfax Media-Research International poll recording a far more significant slip to 25.7 per cent. Unsurprisingly the cracks in the Labour façade are beginning to widen.

In a thinly veiled acceptance of the near-impossibility of defeating National, Goff suggested it would take something along the lines of “Ruth Richardson running the finance portfolio” to bring down the Key Government in 2011.

Moreover, while bemoaning that “people aren’t focused on the issues”, Goff has had to once again reassert to media, with uncharacteristic irritability, that he will indeed be leading Labour into the next election.

“I’m the leader of the Labour Party. I’ll be taking the Labour Party into the next election. You all know that. It’s about time people stop flogging that dead horse and just accept the fact.”

The media’s inquiries derived from a leak that Phil Goff had offered to step down at a meeting with his front bench. Although as the NZ Herald’s Audrey Young has explained, apparently it wasn’t so much a case of fatigued concession.Rather, Goff had asserted that if anyone on the front bench had concerns with his leadership they should speak up.
It’s clear that most, if not all the front bench accept the inevitability of a National victory in November, and those who harbour leadership ambitions are already working to position themselves for a post-election leadership contest. As John Armstrong argues, “The only motive for the leak would be to undermine Goff before the election campaign to ensure he loses.”

In an interview on The Nation, Shane Jones, who has been clear about his own aspirations, appeared to level the blame squarely with Labour’s finance spokesperson, David Cunliffe, pointing out that perhaps Cunliffe isn’t anything like the team player he professes to be.

Denying the leak, Goff has asserted there is a price to pay for such behaviour: “Everybody in caucus knows that there is a rule of confidentiality. Somebody broke that rule. His name was Chris Carter, and he was expelled immediately.”

However, I suspect that if the leak were found to have come from Cunliffe and Goff tried to eject him from the Shadow Cabinet, Labour would be looking down the barrel of a situation reminiscent of the Lange-Douglas power struggle of 1988-89, where Lange impelled Roger Douglas to resign his ministerial positions, only to have the Labour caucus subsequently vote to return the Finance Minister to Cabinet.

As such, even with the Carter-saga warning, Goff will no doubt see any concerns over caucus disloyalty swept under the rug this time around.

Meanwhile, way across on the other side of the political spectrum, ACT are also in a state of stagnation, despite some media interest surrounding the release of the ACT Party list, with its mysteriously unnamed third-place holder. Former ACT Party president Catherine Isaac is tipped to have had the seat held for her, but meanwhile, the lack of surety has come off as amateurish.

More confusingly, sitting MP Hilary Calvert has been left off the list, which features only seven names from the 2008 list. Calvert has accepted this with an air of nonchalance—uncommon for an ACT Party MP—and a show of loyalty ACT doesn’t deserve, especially considering it was Calvert’s vote that clinched the leadership for Brash.
Of course, based on current polls, even Brash doesn’t look like he’s going to cut it. With the party’s continuing abysmal performance, John Banks would be ACT’s sole MP post-Election, and only if he wins Epsom. Even in the party’s electoral stronghold, surely voters are starting to question the party’s validity, looking instead toward National.

We can only hope.

Then there was the subsequent announcement from international credit ratings agency Standard & Poors (S&P), reducing the credit rating of the world’s largest economy from AAA to AA+. Furthermore, accompanying the credit downgrade, the US has been put on a negative outlook, increasing the likelihood of further downgrades.

As the old adage goes: When America sneezes, the world catches a cold.

So, where does this leave New Zealand, and more specifically, the Government?

In the wake of the NZ sharemarket plummeting to an 11-month low last Monday, both John Key, and his Minister of Finance Bill English are stressing the country is well placed to weather this kind of economic storm. The same international credit rating agency that downgraded the US, isn’t so sure though.

S&P have identified NZ’s balance sheet as continuing to bear “the scars of the recent downturn,” recognising that the country is significantly vulnerable in the wake of the current strife in the financial markets.

This is primarily because NZ’s reliance on foreign debt means the country might find it hard to roll over current debt, and that the country could face further weakening demand for exports. This of course, is a strain that has been felt for weeks now, as a result of the high value of the New Zealand Dollar that had reached above 88 US cents before dropping back again last week.

S&P already put NZ on a negative outlook at the end of last year, warning of a potential downgrade in the country’s credit rating. If this were to happen, the cost of borrowing would increase across the economy, severely hindering economic recovery. The fact Bill English has managed to stave this off, despite the $380 million a week the Government was borrowing until recently, is a credit to his economic management, and there’s the crux.

This election will be fought and won on one platform only. To borrow Bill Clinton’s laboured catch phrase from the 1992 US Presidential Election: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Voters will reward in November that party who they deem most fit to manage the country’s economy. Global economic events notwithstanding, one might expect, therefore, that National would be punished for pulling the economy into a deficit, which by the Government’s current projections, won’t be dealt with until 2015.

But, as political journalist Ian Llewellyn explains, “The problem for National’s opponents is that most voters don’t seem to hold them responsible for the economic conditions, and polls indicate that (people think) National are better managers, even if they don’t entirely agree with their prescription.”

People trust Bill English. They trust John Key, and the success the Prime Minister has had in labelling Labour as the party of ‘tax and spend’, has only served to strengthen voter loyalty.

That’s not to say Labour doesn’t have any good ideas. The proposal of a capital gains tax is long overdue, and is an eventual inevitability in NZ. It’s just that the voters don’t find Goff & Co. to be a credible option in terms of economic management in 2011.

One of the most noteworthy political effects of the current market woes has been on National’s controversial asset sales policy. The state of the international financial markets has helped Phil Goff gain some traction on his opposition to the proposal. As he points out, assets can only be sold once, and the prospect of selling them in a depressed market simply adds further flaws to the proposal.

However, while Key has admitted there may be a delay of a few months, the Government’s plans are still firmly on the table. If Key gets the mandate in November through a return to power, 49 per cent of Mighty Power River, Meridian, Genesis Energy and Solid Energy will be up for grabs.

Further consequences of the international turmoil will no doubt trickle down over the next few weeks and months, and while it will be interesting to note the effects on the domestic political situation, don’t hold your breath for any reversal in the polls. *

Since first being broadcast in 1984, televised leaders’ debates have become a central fixture of election campaigns in New Zealand. With the introduction of MMP in 1996, and consistent with a key premise behind the electoral system, there have generally been efforts to represent a multiplicity of views in these influential affairs. Until 2008.

To be sure, there are undeniable benefits from having Goff and Key debate one another exclusively. As David Farrar over at Kiwiblog points out, this gives the two leaders the opportunity to explain themselves thoroughly, and respond to the opposing leader’s assertions, creating a real ‘debate’. The all-inclusive debates, by contrast, can turn into trivial affairs characterised by populist soundbites rather than policy clarification and discussion. However, there were always going to be one-on-one debates regardless, so the point is redundant.

Moreover, multi-party debate is crucial in the era of MMP, where the post-Election landscape is characterised by coalition deals forged between the victorious dominant party, and generally like-minded minor parties. It therefore follows logically that voters should be able to make their decision based not only on the policies of that dominant party, but also on the policies of potential support parties, which bar a few exceptions, are relatively predictable in their affiliations.
“A spit in the eye of democracy,” is how Victoria University’s Steven Price—an adjunct lecturer in media law—put it in a discussion of the 2008 decision.
In a political environment no longer (entirely) monopolised by National and Labour, the voting public should have the opportunity to compare Key with Brash, with Dunne, and with Tariana Turia. Likewise, the public should be able to witness Brash and Turia facing off to see how that dynamic’s working out for them.
On the other side of the equation, the voters should be able to evaluate the dynamic between Goff and Norman/Turei and Goff and Harawira. Goff and Turia would be a particularly fascinating one, helping voters to determine whether Helen Clark’s departure from Labour means that Turia’s animosity over the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed legislation has now been laid to rest.

Voters might have also gained clarity in whether there is any actual potential of a deal being struck between the Greens and National, as suggested earlier in the year.

In an election accompanied by a referendum on our electoral system, this is a move that undermines both the purpose and effectiveness of MMP in highlighting and encouraging the continuing dominance of the two major parties. Accordingly, for someone who purports to support MMP, Goff’s complicity in the decision is astonishing.

Goff should have refused to take Key’s bait. Had Goff stuck with the planned debate, Key would have been forced back to the table. A non-appearance when Goff was appearing simply wouldn’t be an option for the Prime Minister. As Green co-leader Russell Norman argued, “John Key would look like an idiot if Phil Goff and everyone turned up to the debate and John Key didn’t.”

Finally, if this announcement reveals anything about potential outcomes for the election itself, it’s simply that Goff’s decision has just deepened Labour’s grave by another foot, as alluded to in the No Right Turn blog last week:

“Both leaders have reasons to favour this arrangement—Key because he looks good next to Goff, and Goff because he’s a moron who doesn’t understand that he looks bad next to Key.”

Bad move indeed.

Rather than campaigning against Banks, Goldsmith has announced he will campaign for the ‘party vote’, while encouraging National-leaning voters to give their ‘electorate vote’ to Banks.

It’s win-win for Goldsmith. He might have been convinced to fall on his sword in Epsom, but a predicted decent list placing means he will likely be returned to Parliament anyway, albeit through the ‘back door’.

A cynic might see this horse-trading in Epsom as efforts by Brash and Key to undermine MMP by exploiting two of the system’s deficiencies—(1) the one-seat rule that allows a Party to gain proportional representation without reaching the five per cent threshold, and (2) the ability of candidates rejected by the electorate to utilise the ‘back-door’, entering Parliament via the list. The irony is, of course, that Brash’s preferred electoral method—Supplementary Member (SM)—would see the party he leads obliterated.

To be sure, it wouldn’t be the first time suicidal tactics have been used against the country’s democratic institutions. In 1950, Sid Holland’s National Government abolished New Zealand’s upper house, the Legislative Council, by stacking it with National members—the so-called ‘suicide squad’—who immediately dissolved the body, voting themselves into unemployment.

Of course the difference here is that if voters do opt for SM in two consecutive referendums, by the time a government is elected by that system in 2017, Dear Old Don will no doubt be relaxing in retirement with all those other septuagenarian and octogenarian proponents of laissez-faire.

The deal makes perfect sense from National’s point of view. Due to the aforementioned peculiarity in the current MMP system, if Act wins an electorate seat, the five per cent threshold is foregone, and in addition to the winning candidate, Act would be rewarded with seats in Parliament proportional to its share of the party vote. Even at their current abysmal polling levels, Act would pull in at least two or three candidates alongside Banks; not least of all Party leader Brash, dependant on entry via the list because of voters’ growing aversion to the ex-National leader. This compared to the one MP National would gain from winning the seat makes it a matter of simple arithmetic.

There have been claims from Brash that Act won’t necessarily join a National-led coalition after November 26, potentially opting to support the Government from the cross-benches rather than take ministerial portfolios. But this defies logic; it is near impossible to believe Don Brash would settle for any less power than he could possibly achieve in any post-election deal.

The case of Epsom doesn’t explain National’s decision to turn voters toward United Future leader Peter Dunne in Ohariu though. On the latest Fairfax Media-Research International poll, United Future are heading toward the same result as 2008, meaning again, only Dunne would be represented in Parliament. At this point however, Dunne looks a surer bet than National candidate Katrina Shanks, and with reports of Party polling indicating strong support for Labour candidate Charles Chauvel, National have concluded that it’s safe to put their eggs in the Dunne basket, especially considering Dunne is renowned for towing whatever line will keep him in Government.

In addition to speculation about Labour’s own deals being made with the Greens—particularly in Dunne’s Ohariu electorate with Gareth Hughes opting to focus on the party vote—there exists the potential for Labour to derail the National-Act agreement in Epsom. The New Zealand Herald’s Brian Rudman recalls how at the closing stages of the 2005 campaign, Helen Clark urged campaigners in Epsom to encourage voters to give their electorate vote to National to derail Act. Certainly, the same tactic in 2011 won’t exactly endear voters towards Labour, but in a true-Blue seat, the sinking of Banks and Act could be worth the minor damage.

Of course, there are numerous deals being done, explanation of which would be beyond the space limited to this column, but rest assured, Ohariu and particularly Epsom, will be particularly interesting contests to watch as we gear up for November’s election.

It is important because it is the first sign that the Labour Party might be gearing up to play an effective role in contesting November’s election, as well as tabling a long-overdue policy debate.

Of course, last week’s TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll that showed support for Labour had dropped to a ten-year low at just 27 per cent doesn’t appear to reflect a positive response for the proposed CGT. But, as Goff correctly pointed out, the poll shouldn’t be taken as a judgment on the CGT: “It’s too early on in the piece.”

To be sure, the polling data—or some sections of it—could actually give Labour some confidence in their new policy. The poll registered 43 per cent in favour of a CGT, with 49 per cent against. Admittedly this isn’t anything near the support needed, but it is certainly an adequate showing for a policy that remains to be convincingly sold to voters.

Furthermore, polling that pits the CGT against asset sales sees support increase dramatically, and it is this dichotomous debate on which this year’s election will no doubt be fought. Which is the lesser of two evils? Or, put another way, which party’s policy do the voters dislike less?

New Zealand is an anomaly in that we don’t already have a CGT. Economists from the OECD, the IMF and from Treasury have been calling on successive NZ administrations to introduce such a tax, and many academics, analysts and commentators are welcoming the debate.

The key argument for a CGT is that without it, there is an incentive for investors to funnel their money towards speculative investments—primarily housing—which is unproductive for the economy. A CGT, it is argued, would direct this investment toward export-oriented industries, which would actually benefit the country as a whole.

Furthermore, in the short-term, Labour have illustr-ated that their proposed 15 per cent CGT would allow for the introduction of a tax-free first $5000 of earnings, the removal of GST on fresh fruit and vegetables (which is becoming more relevant with current inflationary pressures), and a significant increase in research and development spending. And Labour’s good news doesn’t appear to end there.

In making the policy as palatable as possible, the tax has been set at an indisputably low rate—lower than the income tax for anyone earning over $14,000—with numerous exceptions ranging from the family home, to many of those Cantabrians affected by the Christchurch earthquakes.
A CGT does have significant credibility, and despite being a tax, if Labour can sell it to the electorate, while continuing to set it against National’s plan for asset sales, we could be in for a closer result in November’s election than has long been anticipated.

The technocratic element of the proposed CGT will be a barrier Labour needs to contend with in convincing the electorate. Scoop’s Gordon Campbell has set out clearly in the following (lengthy) argument how it should be sold, and it is worth quoting in full:

Do you continue to vote for a programme that (a) consists of income tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich (b) exempts their speculative activities from tax almost entirely, while taxing your wages (c) cuts back social services and (d) sells high earning state energy companies to make up the shortfall…? Or do you keep the assets (and reap the dividends and strategic planning benefits involved) and treat the income earned from speculation and capital gain in the same way that you treat the income earned from wages? Who’s the freeloader here, and who is intent on defending the freeloader?

Of course it’s going to be a push to appeal to the rational side of a voting population who have an emotional attachment to housing, but if Labour can do anything to take the focus of the election away from a Key vs. Goff question of personality, this is the ticket. *