The notion that money can be used to buy policies via donations to a political party, is repugnant to anyone who supports a quality democracy.   I believe there is too much anecdotal information around to dismiss the concerns held by several commentators.

What has not been discussed is the role the MMP system plays in the way monied interests view political parties.   Under MMP smaller political parties don’t expect to get 35% plus of voters and thus target their campaigns around a few issues.  These few issues attract not just voters but money which supports them.

As major parties Labour and National have to appeal to broader constituencies and thus cannot indulge too many narrow special interests.  When negotiating with smaller parties, Labour and National have to make policy concessions, much as that might grate with their supporters.   Thus we have a situation where MMP provides the opportunity for those with money to influence specific policies.

We have laws relating to political donations and the fact some behaviour has resulted in prosecutions and also SFO investigations, show the system does work.   Could it be better?  I think so but don’t support the notion we have a Royal Commission as proposed by Bryce Edwards.  Royal Commissions are expensive long winded exercises which sometimes produce reports that don’t get acted on.

The USA has heaps of laws in this area, but their system allows people to effectively buy policies.  The challenge with any new law is to prevent policy buying, without creating undue compliance costs or simply change the way the policy buying works.

My proposition is two fold.   First, require political parties to disclose the names of all donations above $1000 or $15,000pa.   Second, require all donors to be on the electoral roll.  This would mean no corporate, union, foundation or any other organisations, donating to political parties.

By reducing the donation disclosure level to $1000, donors will be part of a much larger group and thus hopefully less shy about being disclosed.   Also the $1000 limit, combined with the requirement they be on the Electoral Roll, will make it extremely difficult for donors to get around the $15,000 current disclosure level.

The two proposals will require some consequential review of legislation applying to  others, to ensure they were not used to get around the requirements for political parties.

New Zealand has a great reputation for transparency and non corrupt politics.   My proposals would reduce reputational risks and enhance our democratic institutions.

 

 

 

Next Thursday we have a public holiday to “celebrate” 180 years since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.  Unlike the USA which every July 4 celebrates the Declaration of Independence without reservation, Kiwis have mixed feelings about the meaning of our national day.

Some Maori believe they still haven’t got justice.  Many non-Maori feel threatened by Maori claims for what is seen as “extra rights”.  They are not prepared to say what they think because they fear being demonised like the Hobson Pledge group, which quite rightly is concerned about undermining the integrity of our democratic fabric.

This is a pity because it was a remarkable event – a powerful colonial power elects to negotiate a treaty with the chiefs of the indigenous population, instead of simply declaring it a colony and establishing direct rule.   This contrasts with Australia where the indigenous Aboriginals were treated as virtually irrelevant.

The extraordinary failure of our education system to teach New Zealand history for at least 50 years, is the major reason why so many are often confused and bewildered.  Hopefully this will be in part remedied by Government plans for all schools to teach NZ history.

However I expect this process will be controversial in itself as there are many histories.   I don’t have much confidence the Ministry of Education will produce a balanced history curriculum, but that is not a good enough reason to continue mass ignorance of the population.   It will be a bumpy process, but it is a journey that must be made.

In the meantime it would be great if everyone feels they can participate in public discussion without the fear of being slagged off in the media, particularly social media.   My own thinking has evolved over the last 40 years, but below is a note I wrote 15 years ago, which I stand by today.   Considered responses invited.

“The essential elements of the Treaty (Property rights, citizenship and sovereignty) should be honored because that is the right thing to do.  However the Treaty should not be seen as blueprint for government policy for the following reasons:

1. The documents are not robust enough. The various versions contain significant differences which means there was no true meeting of minds and explains why there has been so much debate about its meaning.  It is a moot point whether all Maori signatories understood fully the term “government” in the sense of sovereignty.  (See the English translation of Article One of the Maori version.)  It should be noted also that some Maori chiefs signed the English version and some did not sign at all.
2. Society has changed in ways that make some aspects of Article two less relevant today. Maori Chiefs do not have anything remotely resembling the role and authority they had over members of the tribes in 1840.  Maori and “Pakeha” (i.e. everyone who is not Maori) are increasingly intermingled racially and culturally.  While many Maori and non-Maori Kiwis will identify themselves as one or the other, many also see themselves on a continuum – somewhere between “Maori” and “Pakeha” or non-Maori.
3. New Zealand has become a democracy with all that implies in terms of individuals being equal in the eyes of the law but also the importance of respecting the views of minorities and protecting their rights. Trying to build a society on the basis of an imperfectly drafted minimalist treaty would be like governing on the basis of the Old Testament, the Koran or the original version of the American Constitution, which did not give the vote to women or Afro-American slaves.

The Government should

1. Complete as soon as is practicable the historic Treaty claim process.
2. Ensure that all New Zealanders are treated equally in the eyes of the law but that the interests of Maori and other minorities are also protected.  The partnership concept is a creation of the Court of Appeal and the Treaty Industry.  It is not mentioned in the Treaty and is not consistent with democratic principles.
3. Actively assist those less advantaged.  In achieving this goal the government may use non-government agencies, including Maori agencies, to deliver education, health and social welfare services.
4. Recognize and help nurture Maori culture and language because it is the indigenous culture of New Zealand, not just because of the Treaty.
5. Protect property rights.  However it should also be accepted that from time to time the Government has considered it necessary to qualify or remove these rights in the national interest, as evidenced by the Public Works Act, mining legislation and the RMA.   An issue to be addressed in each case is whether compensation to the affected party is appropriate.”

One of the mysteries of life for me is how so many “conservatives” blithely dismiss the scientists who believe human created climate change is a real problem that must be addressed on several fronts.

As a non-scientist I retained a healthy scepticism for some years until the evidence piled up about greenhouse gasses and their likely impact on the climate and sea levels etc.   I think a true conservative would be seriously interested in conservation and thus alert to environmental threats.  I expect a conservative would be prepared to take precautionary action, even when the risk is not proven beyond all doubt.

Fortunately in New Zealand the climate debate has not gone off on the extreme tangents seen elsewhere.  The difference here between National and Labour is not great.   But in Australia and the USA and elsewhere this is not the case, which is a tragedy for the environment and bad for democracy also.

In New Zealand we do have climate zealots who are another mystery for me.  Our contribution to greenhouse gasses is I think about 0.17% of global emissions.  This means if all mammals, including humans disappeared from this country, the global impact would be very close to zip.  People should stop pretending if only we take drastic action the climate would be stabilised.  It won’t and adults should not lead children to believe otherwise.

I think New Zealand should be an internationally responsible citizen and do its bit.   We don’t need to be world leaders but can and should be somewhat better than average.  But at a practical level given the indifferent performance of most countries, we should place more emphasis on mitigating the effects of climate change, particularly rising sea levels.

 

 

 

I am starting this blog site because after more than 40 years writing about or contributing to public policy, I think maybe I have something to say which will be of interest to some of my friends and others.

The intention is to focus on public policy and the media both in New Zealand and overseas, and as far as possible stay on the issues rather than the personalities.   For openers:

I am an economic rationalist with a social democratic overlay.

We live in great times – the best in the last two thousand years.   History shows that the open economy plus democracy, is the best model humans have come up with so far.  Not perfect but better than the alternatives such as monarchies, dictatorships, feudal leaders,  tribalism and theocracies.

While genes plus the environment seriously influence how people behave, they don’t determine it – we have free will and can change our futures for better or worse.  I notice this theme was picked up by the new National MP for Northcote Dan Bidois, when talking about his upbringing which was seriously challenging for everyone involved.

New Government:  While there are and will be actions I don’t support, fresh eyes usually bring some positive change.   There are fewer than five million people in this small remote land.   While it’s a disadvantage in many ways, it also provides the opportunity to be super agile.  We throw that away with complexity in respect of state agencies.

Why have 21 District Health Board when we could have say three regional health boards integrated back into the Ministry of Health or maybe a New Zealand Health Service, which would also include Pharmac and Medsafe?

Eight universities is a few too many so thank goodness there won’t be any more.  However 17 polytechnics is clearly far too many because a few are not presently viable.   Rather than the war or attrition, why doesn’t the government orchestrate several mergers?  Their behaviour over recent decades of expanding into Auckland and offering courses because the funding is there, as distinct from real need etc, makes a nonsene of the original concept of regional post-school training institutes.

And while we are about it, why not merge parts of the Ministry of Education, the Tertiary Education Commission and the NZQA, into one Ministry of Tertiary Education and Training, leaving what remains folded back into the Ministry of Education?

Treaty of Waitangi issues.  The abysmal failure of our education system to teach New Zealand history in a comprehensive manner, is both baffling and a cause of some unnecessary angst about some actions of the Government.   However I am deeply concerned about where this expansive concept called “partnership” will lead.   A serious erosion of our democracy is one possibility, and we should have an intelligent discussion about that, and not hurl abuse at those such as the Hobson’s Pledge group who question the “partnership” concept.

Trump:  While he has many seriously unattractive features, and, for a man who has traveled, is very ignorant about how the rest of the world, he does actually make some valid points.  For instance he is right to call out China over trade and investment but creating a trade war with Europe, Japan, Canada and Mexico, is nuts.

Yes Nato ought to spend more on defence and rely less on the USA.  Trump’s recent behaviour should bring home to the Europeans they cannot rely on NATO for the US to defend them against say Russia.  However, as we all know, US defence spending is what keeps the military industrial complex going – it is not altruistic.

I can visual how Germany, with its great engineering capability, could quickly create a massive defence force capable of defending it and neighbouring countries.  It has been done before and the USA might reflect on that before pushing harder.

His tactics with North Korea (I am crazier than you), may well work in the long run but that will take a while to play out.   And yes some deregulation was ok but he is overshooting on the environment and tax reform was certainly needed but the likely deficit will affect us all negatively in the long run.

With the Marshall plan and other steps to create the post-war international order (World Trade Organisation, IMF, World Bank and the UN) the USA played a giant sized role in leading the era of prosperity and relative peace.  It is tragic that Trump wishes to destroy so much of that.  But this is the new reality we all have to accept or see if there is a better way, that also deals with the legitimate concerns of those in many countries who don’t believe they have benefited from internationalism