web analytics

De-regulation, de-democratisation

Written By: - Date published: 11:52 am, February 9th, 2013 - 26 comments
Categories: democracy under attack, elections - Tags:

Is it just me or does the argument for a four year term of Parliament look a lot like the argument that’s presented for deregulation? I was thinking about this watching Mainzeal go under as its leaky building legacy caught up with it. It’s the same dropkicks who say that government needs to get out of the way of business to create jobs who are saying that the people need to get out of the way of government and let it govern with less ‘regulation’ in the form of elections.

Well, look what deregulation has got us: leaky homes, over-priced internet, casualised, low-wage employment, over-priced electricity, the world’s most high-profit banks (all foreign-owned), and even airports gouging us – to name but a few examples. That’s what the ‘get out of their way and let them get on it with’ argument has got us in the private sector.

Now, they want to apply the same logic to the public sphere. In fact, National has already been conducting an experiment in de-democratisation in Canterbury. Regional council replaced by a dictatorship with further elections on hold because National fears it won’t get the result it wants. Gerry Brownlee overstepping his already incredibly wide powers again and again under CERA and, what’s arguably worse, doing things that are entirely within his power but are having devastating effects on the lives of Christchurch residents.

We know what happens when we ‘let them get on with it’, especially when ‘they’ are politicians, is usually pretty shit. That’s why we have regulation for the private sector and democratic oversight for the public sphere.

You would have to be hopelessly naive to believe that reducing the number of elections by a quarter wouldn’t result in a less democratic government. That’s what the Right wants, of course. But some on the Left seem have this almost sweet-if-it-weren’t-so-stupid faith that the government just wants less democratic control of what it does so that it can do more good things for us. You would have thought that the experience of CERA would have been lesson enough for them.

26 comments on “De-regulation, de-democratisation ”

  1. Ed 1

    Well said. The actions of this government make a mockery of Farrar’s “ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY” taunts during the last term of the Clarke Labour-led government. I agree with Shearer who said that three years is too long when you are in opposition – and I don’t see much evidence of support from the left for a longer parliamentary term. A throwaway attempt at distraction from economic bungling can be revealing about the underlying thoughts of our Prime Minister – or perhaps he just hates the thought of the next election.

    • Beryl Streep 1.1

      >I don’t see much evidence of support from the left for a longer parliamentary term

      Labour, Greens and NZ First have all publicly stated that “the country would benefit from a four-year parliamentary term” and it should go to a public referendum. Maybe you should read, listen or watch the news now and then and become better informed.

  2. AmaKiwi 2

    + 1

    I have never met a leading NZ politician who is a democrat (i.e., the people should decide rather than their representatives).

    If you were an MP who spent years being virtually powerless, once you got into power you sure as hell wouldn’t want to share. “Those guys didn’t share with me, why should I share.” So our top politicians are all dictators in waiting; elitists rather than democrats.

    It’s a tragic state of affairs. It cannot change until power is shared either with constitutionally protected local bodies, binding referendums, or some other mechanism I haven’t yet discovered.

    • One Tāne Huna 2.1

      I’d like to see more robust rules around select committee hearings – with judicial oversight as the last resort.

      We need more evidence-based policy, and select committee hearings are the correct forum for this evidence to be heard, but too often they simply behave as a rubber stamp for the executive.

      • Macro 2.1.1

        Good idea! Having attended a few in the past, and submitted, the process is quite scary from a fairness and social justice point of view. Too often the bias and prejudice of the members is just too blatant for words, they are not there to listen or to deal in a rational manner with the issues presented to them at all. However we need to look at better performance of sub committees not only at National level but at regional and district council level as well! A recent example of such a committee here was just too appalling for words with members simply failing to understand even the most basic of facts, and then when speaking to the topic getting them wrong, and one saying “well I really don’t understand what its all about so I’m just going to vote for the status quo” or words to that effect. Is this how we want our communities and countries to be run?

    • swan 2.2

      “I have never met a leading NZ politician who is a democrat (i.e., the people should decide rather than their representatives).”

      Actually in a representative democracy, like we have at the central government level, it is the representatives who decide. That is the way it works.

  3. Tim 3

    Another things – just by the by – is the way politicians consistently undermine the judiciary.
    Why is it that we have Minsters making ‘executive’ type decisions on certain issues such as with immigration?
    If the laws they’d created were robust enough, they should not fear judicial decisions.
    Effectively we get politicians involving themsleves (in this example – i.e. immigration) in matters that should be left to judicial interpretation of laws.
    I seem to remember we’ve had teenagers drug and exported, Zowie’s and other incidents.
    Interesting too that we’re now going to bail out Australia YET again over their cruel and incompetent handling of asylum seekers.
    Does anybody else recall that little ‘training exercise’ on how to handle an influx of ‘boat people’?.
    I said (elsewhere – I think Tumeke cos its was the only left blog I’d discovered at the time), that we should not be surprised if we were soon to become the Manus Island of the Sth Pacific.
    John Key, as we already know, LOVES sucking up to the big people (in this case – as in “our big brothers”).
    The funny thing is….while I’m on the subject, Joooolyah is supposed to be from Labor Left ffs!
    She’s so far right it isn’t funny – but I get it now….the Labour old guard are probably aspiring to emulate her ‘success’. Certainly there’s a krizmetuk used-car salesman that’s doing his best to.

    Still, no worries. I’m inspired by this morning’s Kim Hill programme with Guy Standing – you know the one: from those dirty filthy lefties at RNZ.
    ——————————————

    …..Oh FFS sake – here we go!!! NOW we learn on RNZ 13:00 NEWS that 150 asylum seekers to be taken will form part of the 700ish we normally take.
    ….so Key has just sold off a little more of our sovereignty – bailing out OZ (a la Tampa), in order to keep sweet with the racists. AND – nothing in exchange (such as with the inequity that came about with Howard’s reforms of 2001).

    Does Key own any property on the GC does anyone know?

    ———————————————-

  4. the sprout 4

    I know Helen Clark was adamantly against a 4 year term, given nz’s unicameralism. Someone should get her on record on the matter.

  5. Ad 5

    Anyone remember the hue and cry the media especially the NZHerald made when Clark determined to do away with the Privy Council and establish our own Supreme Court?

    Yet when Key – and then Shearer – propose to significantly lengthen the only time we get to Performance Review the entire political order, the whole MSM says “we worship and adore you”.

    We are having a constitutional review at the moment. That’s the right place to propose this. Not live to camera after a brain explosion.

    And in Shearer’s case, for such a major constitutional shift, he should at least have consulted caucus, Labour policy council, maybe even his own membership.

    This attitude by Key and Shearer makes me think we should have direct democracy, in which there’s a clear set of annual indicators, and we get to say (by unique text) whether they are measuring up.

    Political Annual Performance Review.

    With full vote of confidence in the Board (elections) every three years.

    • Ed 5.1

      Shearers comment was if anything more supportive of a shortening of the term of parliament – he said three years _was_ too long to be in opposition, but _may_ be too short to get everything you want done in government. I took it that he was not taking the proposal at all seriously – that is far from supporting a change.

      The ‘brain explosion’ was news of thousands fewer in work, and Mainzeal closing with 400 internal jobs and thousands of subbies. You are correct that the constitutional review is the right place to raise such issues – unless you know you can suck media debate sideways by a distraction . . .

      • Macro 5.1.1

        Well he should think more carefully before he puts his mouth into gear.

        • Ed 5.1.1.1

          The problem was not with Shearer – the headline was all a sub-Editors work. But Key has had a success of sorts – the distraction has had a whole lo of blogs running around wasting time on a non-starter – far better for him than discussion about jobs or Mainzeal or poverty . . .

  6. They should give us the fixed term without trying to crony up their own job security. You’re a politician in one of the easiest countries to rush through laws in in the democratic world. You don’t need four year terms in government.

    • Exactly.

      Legislation does not have to go through an upper house or over some other ‘hurdle’. The legislative process, given that, is surely quite rapid compared to other parliamentary democracies?

  7. BLiP 7

    .

    Lets face it, if a political grouping in power is any good, it will get six years. That’s de facto, I suggest. Now, if there’s a really, really shit government, they won’t get past three years. If it does get past the three year hurdle and we’ve missed something, then we’re in trouble . . . oh, hang on!

  8. Bill 8

    Wouldn’t a point of lengthier terms be to afford a more consistent environment facillitating a deeper degree of capture of government by corporate/financial interests? A 30% increase in the time span allowed to corporate /financial interests to persuade the same government to pursue policies favourable to them, where that government doesn’t have to keep such an eye on electoral risks due to a longer election cycle; that’s a major and surely unwelcome shift.

    • fatty 8.1

      True…However, this appears to be a trimming of the weeds, rather than pulling them out from the root. It also appears to be a safeguard against Labour being average? Labour should get 8 years instead of 6 under the same system

  9. fatty 9

    I don’t think I understand this 3 year vs 4 year argument…or this post.
    How does this relate to CERA?
    How is the argument the same as deregulation?

    The argument for a 4 year term is that it should produce policies that look towards a longer term vision. What is the argument for a 3 year term?
    The CERA issue occurred in a 3 year term due to most parties giving Gerry authoritarian powers. National got voted back in after they became dictatorial arseholes.

  10. The argument for a 4 year term is that it should produce policies that look towards a longer term vision.

    I don’t follow this argument. It looks like a non-sequitur to me. Why would a longer term lead to policies/legislation “towards a longer term vision”? I don’t see the incentive towards long term vision in lengthening the term – in some respects, and for some individual politicians, it could well act in quite the reverse manner (you know, that law about a task expanding to fill the available time?).

    The fact that the electoral term is longer seems unrelated to the length of term of the ‘vision’, so far as I can see. They both have the word ‘long’ in them, I guess, but that doesn’t indicate anything relevant to the claim.

    Additionally, I know that ‘long-term thinking’ is always presented as a good thing, but that assumes that we get the ‘long-term vision’ right. It seems to me that having the scope for adjustments or even reversals on a regular basis is no more or less a ‘bad thing’ than irrevocably entrenching a ‘bad’ long term vision.

    Further, even if the claim were true, it strikes me as an unwise depoliticisation of the political – the claim that governance is primarily a technical matter and three year terms undermine our ability to do the technically ‘right’ thing. I’m very sceptical of that view.

    Also, Douglas’ ‘reforms’ were undoubtedly a ‘long term vision’ and they have pretty much achieved their purpose – and that was with three yearly elections (which shows that three year electoral cycles don’t prevent the enactment of ‘long term thinking’). (I know, Douglas claimed to have ‘unfinished business’ – given 8 years rather than 6, maybe he could have finished it?).

    It was, of course, a long term vision that was massively flawed, in my opinion.

    But, Bolger’s government, remember, was voted in on the expectation that there would be a halt to the Douglas reforms (remember the ‘decent society’?) – while that didn’t work to stop the reforms because of a 180 degree turnaround by National from its manifesto, the electorate in effect tried to reject/adjust the ‘long term vision’ within 6 years of it being implemented, rather than the 8 it would have taken under the proposed 4 year terms (It’s also possible to argue that they only let it run for 6 years because they believed Lange in the 1987 election campaign when he said they’d finished doing all the economic stuff and were going to return to Labour’s core concerns with welfare, education, etc.).

    • Puddleglum 10.1

      Sorry, I should have replied directly to fatty’s comment at 9.

    • fatty 10.2

      Additionally, I know that ‘long-term thinking’ is always presented as a good thing, but that assumes that we get the ‘long-term vision’ right.

      True, the last thing we want is a long term right wing vision to be implemented. But we seriously need some long term left policies.

      So, is 3 years preferred so that we can only vote them out quicker? If that is the case, is 2 years better, or is that too short? I’m not trying to be a smartass, its just there appears overwelming support for 3 years on here and I am yet to hear a good argument for it…is there even a good argument for 3 or 4? I don’t think one is better than the other…and I don’t know much about political science, I am hoping to be convinced.

      Someone has already stated that due to our unicameral system 4 years is too long and too much damage can be done in 4 years…but I thought MMP addressed this issue?

      • GregJ 10.2.1

        If you haven’t already then I strongly urge you to read (or re-read) Chapter 6 of the 1986 Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System – it really does sum up the arguments both for and against the four year term. Although it recommended a referendum on the issue it hedged that with some caution around the need for sufficient checks (and yes PR was viewed as a possible check).

        It is interesting that the unpopular Forbes coalition government extension of the Parliamentary Term for 1 year in the 1930s and both failed referendums on a 4 year term (1967 & 1996) were put forward by National (or proto-National) government – it does seem to be a particular recurring National theme.

        • fatty 10.2.1.1

          thanks GregJ, I’ll give it a read.

          • fatty 10.2.1.1.1

            Here is the link to the chapter that GregJ has suggested…its clear and concise, and also gives a brief history of our terms of government.

            Paragraph 6.9 is interesting. It states that in the UK the average length of governments have been 3 – 3.5 years, despite them having 5 year terms. The same is the case for many other countries who have 4 year terms. (this suggests that a change to a 4 year term will just mean more early elections, not a longer time in office)

            Paragraph 6.15 suggests there is evidence that policy is designed to coincide with election year, especially with economic policies…but the following paragraphs after that statement dispute this.

            The conclusion is also interesting. They tentatively suggest 4 years could be better if MMP was introduced (It was still FPP when the report was made). They also call for a more politically informed public (not sure anyone here would say that has occurred).

            The report is also quite firm that the decision should be done by referendum.
            I think I am still undecided…much more informed, but still not sure.
            Bryce Edwards has posted on his blog about the length of term, he is very against an increase. Not sure how many other people in the media will take the same position as Bryce Edwards and voice their opposition to having their mug on TV more often.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Public Housing Plan announced
    The Government has released its Public Housing Plan 2021-2024 which outlines the intention of where 8,000 additional public and transitional housing places announced in Budget 2020, will go. “The Government is committed to continuing its public house build programme at pace and scale. The extra 8,000 homes – 6000 public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    22 hours ago
  • Prime Minister congratulates President Joe Biden on his inauguration
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has congratulated President Joe Biden on his inauguration as the 46th President of the United States of America. “I look forward to building a close relationship with President Biden and working with him on issues that matter to both our countries,” Jacinda Ardern said. “New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Jobs for Nature funding will create training and employment opportunities
    A major investment to tackle wilding pines in Mt Richmond will create jobs and help protect the area’s unique ecosystems, Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor says. The Mt Richmond Forest Park has unique ecosystems developed on mineral-rich geology, including taonga plant species found nowhere else in the country. “These special plant ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Pre-departure testing extended to all passengers to New Zealand
    To further protect New Zealand from COVID-19, the Government is extending pre-departure testing to all passengers to New Zealand except from Australia, Antarctica and most Pacific Islands, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “The change will come into force for all flights arriving in New Zealand after 11:59pm (NZT) on Monday ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Bay Cadets learn skills to protect environment
    Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Better care for babies with tongue-tie
    Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison over
    The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Pre-departure COVID-19 test for travellers from the UK and the US from 15 January
    Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago