I See Red

Reform MMP. Don't throw baby out with the bathwater.

Is MMP perfect?  No.  But it is a proportional system that better reflects the voting preferences of the New Zealand public, creates better checks and balances on executive power, and has helped create a more diverse Parliament.

Earlier this year the Christchurch East LEC put up a remit to Labour's Region 5 conference that started to kick off the debate within the Labour Party.  That remit passed and then went to Annual Conference (you will have seen the media that surrounded that).  Lianne Dalziel spearheaded that remit and has argued strongly that Labour needs to put aside personal and party interests and enter the debate - but the debate simply can't be MMP versus another system.

I agree.  If the debate is status quo versus change, change will win.  And that change will result in a return to FPP or Supplementary Member (FPP with a winners bonus). 

Labour has to be willing to advance an argument around reforming the more unpopular aspects of MMP, rather than simply arguing for the current MMP system.  And everything should be on the table.  The size of electorates, the 5% threshold, the number of electorates versus list MPs, the provision that allows MPs who win a seat to bring other people in, the number of MPs in general, the party hopping provisions etc.

If Labour fails to do that then I fear that the New Zealand public (enticed by what will inevitably be a well funded well run campaign against MMP) will vote for change.  We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater - we need a sensible debate around reforming some aspects of our current system. 

Vote Yes

Auckland Super-City: A Christchurch Perspective

Cross-post from Just Left.

I'm a one-eyed Cantabrian, so that is the lens through which I watch the Auckland Super-City arguments play out.  It is not my place to say what is right or wrong for Auckland.  I simply don't know enough about Auckland to know what will work and what won't. 

I do know that regardless of what eventuates I would like to see a Progressive Mayor and Progressive Council in power across as much of Auckland as possible. 

I also know that whether it is Auckland, or Invercargill, or Christchurch that people are shortchanged if they lost the Representative function of Local Government in favour of a Governance only business-style of Council.  Such Council's lack legitimacy and confidence of the public.  The more distant the Council (or Councillors) the lower the voter turnout and the less relevant local government is for people.

It seems to be the trend in New Zealand that we like to restructure things.  Sometimes we opt for large centralised power, then a more intimate devolved model, then back again.  It wouldn't surprise me that if in 15 years time we're breaking Auckland up again into multiple Councils.

The key thing at this particular juncture is that the Government listen to the voice of Auckland people.  That may or may not be in a referendum.  The Government must be willing to take a deep breath, listen, and come up with the best model for Auckland that has the confidence of the public.  Their current model does not do that.

Stop "Guilt Upon Accusation" Law

National Front seek to set up a "mini-state"

Former National Front member, Kyle Chapman, is seeking funding to set up a commune in North Canterbury for "like minded Europeans"

I believe that every person is born equal (regardless of where they are born, who their parents are, what nation or race they are born into, what gender, what sexuality). 

So, while I disagree fiercely with Kyle Chapman's racist views, in a democracy we must respect his right to say and do what he likes (within the law).  And I have a right to reject those views.

House Auction Illegal

The Department of Internal Affairs has rightly pointed out that the $100 house auction proposed by a couple in Christchurch is not an auction at all, but is in fact gambling.  What they are doing is illegal under the gambling act - it is an on-line form of gambling and it is for private and not a charitable purpose.  Anyone call sell their home on the trade-me auction site.  But an auction is where the highest bidder wins.  This "auction" will almost entirely come down to chance and is therefore closer to being a raffle or lottery than an auction.

Time to get sensible on sentencing

Eventually (and hopefully sooner rather than later) it must dawn on people that being "tough" on crime doesn't lead to less crime or lower recidivism and it doesn't make us safer.  The question is, will it be the left or right who (as No Right Turn puts it, both engage in a law and order auction) finally take a stand.

No Right Turn has a very good post on a NSWs conservative who is taking a stand and trying to put an end to the auction and Kim Workman has spoken out about the need to be "smart" about crime, not "tough".

What we need in NZ is an evidence-based approach where we do what works, and not what makes us feel good.  That doesn't mean we don't lock murderers up for life, but for many offenders at the lower level of offending our punitive approach is not working.  Too often we use prison as an easy solution to what are difficult problems - particularly people with mental health issues.  And we don't use enough of restorative justice - forcing people to front up to what they did and the impact of what they've done on others lives.

Peter Ellis case

It's not often I agree with David Farrar, but I couldn't agree more with his post on the call for Simon Power to launch an inquiry into the Peter Ellis case.  I believe the evidence of a miscarriage of justice is compelling, but (with the distance of time and absent of the hysteria surrounding the issue at the time) let's have someone independent take a look at the evidence again.

Radio NZ debate on the economy

I went to the Radio NZ debate on the economy on Sunday.  It was a lot of fun.  I thought the eight speakers did a very good job at presenting their different parties positions on a range of issues.  I think we should be very grateful that we have a democracy where eight parties can have a  1 1/2 hour policy focused debate on important issues.

I did feel kind of sorry for Roger Douglas.  While many of us can disagree with him, at least once upon a time he could string a sentence and argument together for the liberal right.  Most of the debate people were laughing at him.  I think ACT should have left him in retirement.

Some of the highlights for me are below.

The first round of applause of the debate went to Jim Anderton in response to this:

The thing that most concerns me is people who need the most help in difficult financial times are the poor and most vulnerable.  They're the ones who get the least help out of tax cuts actually.  And no'one around this table should be getting tax cuts.  We should actually be giving all the help we can do to supporting families on low incomes.  We still have 13% of children in NZ who live in poverty.  We've been successful in lifting a lot out of poverty but when we've got that level of poverty the last thing we should be doing is giving tax cuts to the richest NZers and taking money off the poorest.

And anther loud round of applause for Michael Cullen on National's tax and consume policy:

The National Party has come clean on its tax cuts because its promising to pay for them by savaging Kiwisaver and removing the research and development tax incentive.  So in a situation where the world is saying to us do not become heavily indebted nations (and Mr Key is no longer saying we don't have a debt problem, he's finally found out NZ does have a debt problem) in a time when we're really having to say to ourselves its time to start saving more and investing more and less emphasis upon consumption - we have a tax proposal from National which says consume more, don't save and don't invest in innovation.  That is a dumb plodding old fashioned approach.

There was also this interesting interchange between English and Cullen:

English: The issue with Kiwisaver is this - only a quarter of the working age population are in it.  And you ask yourself why are the other 3/4 not in it when it offers such a 200% plus return on capital.

Cullen: After only 18 months over 800,000 people are in the scheme.  This is the most successful private savings scheme in NZs history.

Jeanette: We don't think it makes sense to cut Kiwisaver to fund tax cuts.  We know what people have done in the past with tax cuts.  They've not gone into savings.  They've gone into consumption and that's what we don't need at the moment.

And two comments from Michael Cullen got huge rounds or applause:

Do we want to be a smart economy or do we want to be a dumb economy with a low tax rate?

Roger, my good friend here, I've got to say.  Roger's great at destroying things that need destroying, but he's never been any good at building things that need building.

Cullen also made English look a little foolish when in response to English claiming businesses were rorting the R&D tax credits:

This came into force 1 April.  Nobody has actually yet applied for the R&D tax credit and got an aye or a nay.  So to say there's rorts going on is a remarkable achievement.  It reminds me of that sort of polishing your shoes and what it might lead to in terms of sex somewhere down the track.  It's that kind of argument.

The credit crunch

I've been meaning to post this excellent article on the credit crisis for a while. Will Hutton argues that it is time for the world to build a new financial system based on fairness instead of greed with long-term commitment to building businesses and supporting investment. 

The first part of the articles provides an analysis of how the problem was created:

This is a crisis that has been 30 years in the making - a Gordian knot of libertarian free-market fundamentalism, unregulated globalisation, the collapse of social and political forces committed to fairness, the explosive impact of financial innovations such as 'securitisation', and sheer greed. Each has contributed to the fiasco - and all now need to be unravelled if the economy is to have a sustained recovery.

He criticises the lack of opposition to the market fundamentalism:

There was no effective opposition. The left and organised labour collapsed as intellectual, social and political forces; there was no conviction that any alternative to this shareholder value-driven, financial, 'securitised' capitalism existed, or any political muscle to support it even if there were. Mainstream culture moved away from public purpose and fairness; the new priorities were individual self-fulfilment, personal experience and loyalty to self.

He then explains the consequences of the past 30 years:

And now the roof has fallen in, setting up potentially the most dangerous vicious circle since the Great Depression - and it could be most vicious of all here in Britain. The belief that securitised loans could always be sold or insured has proved illusory. Worse, too many have junk assets as security - commercial property, buy-to-let property, junk American loans and overstretched buyers in the residential property market. The debt will stay toxic until the economy recovers again. But worse, the margins on any new loans the banks could offer are tiny or non-existent. They have dried up, and as a result the price of property is collapsing, so that the debt is becoming even more toxic. Because everybody knows this, and nobody trusts anybody else, the banks are in a trap.

And then he outlines some possible solutions:

Talking of making bankers pay for the mess they have created, as they do in America over the Paulson plan, is pointless. The task now is to survive without a slump – and create a new financial system that moves decisively away from the mores of super gentlemanly capitalism.

We have to mimic the Paulson plan and set up a so-called 'bad' bank, with up to £100bn of purchasing power. We must buy toxic loans from all British-based banks, with the object of selling them in better market conditions. Most such operations, as in Sweden in the Nineties or Britain in the Seventies, end up losing no money whatever. This will stop the banks becoming zombie institutions.

Second, we have to reopen the markets in securitised assets. This requires two initiatives. The taxpayer will have to find £50bn-plus to invest in the shares of our leading banks so there is no doubt they are solvent and can support both the existing level of debt and the new issue of more. The taxpayer should also give an additional stimulus by running a temporary insurance scheme so that overseas and domestic buyers of securitised loans know there is no risk of losing any money – in other words, a form of targeted and temporary deposit insurance.

...

The regulatory regime must be overhauled; never again should regulators turn a blind eye to off shore banking and wild ratios in which lending can reach 30 or 40 times a bank's capital. EU and American regulators need to work much more closely – and Britain needs to be part of the process. The UK taxpayer does not have the firepower to support a bust international system – one of the reasons that Brown's reluctance to consider a joint European initiative is shortsighted. We may even have to consider joining the euro to get the necessary financial power behind London.