Latest news with #MMP
Newsroom
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill
Opinion: The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) is a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints. In a number of respects, it expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy. First, it lacks a strong democratic mandate. At the last election, Act was the only party to put forward such a proposal, and it won only 8.6 percent of the vote; 91.4 percent of voters did not support that party. This bill cannot remotely be taken to express 'the will of the people.' Second, the majority party, National, agreed behind doors – despite its prior opposition for almost two decades – to support this proposal from a fringe party during coalition negotiations. Like the Treaty Principles Bill, this undermines the principles of proportionality and accountability to the electorate on which the MMP electoral system is based. That, in turn, corrodes trust in democratic arrangements in New Zealand. Third, the bill seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested. These principles focus on individual rights and private property while ignoring collective rights and responsibilities and values such as minimising harm to human beings and the wider environment. Fourth, this legislation is to be applied retrospectively, applying to all existing laws as well as most new laws and regulations. Rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them. Fifth, the structures and processes this bill seeks to put in place are profoundly undemocratic. It aims to establish a 'Regulatory Standards Board' selected by the Minister for Regulation, the Act leader, and accountable to him, with the legal right to initiate inquiries into all laws and regulations, past and present, that offend against Act's libertarian ideas. This attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. Such an arrangement is repugnant to democracy, and must not be allowed to proceed. Sixth, as the minister's own officials and many others have pointed out, this bill is unnecessary. Structures and processes to monitor and enhance the quality of laws and regulations already exist. These are accountable to Parliament, not to a particular minister, as is right and proper. They may be strengthened, as required, and must remain rigorously independent from any particular political party. Seventh, there is little reason to trust the integrity of Act's professed intentions in relation to this bill. Although it is claimed the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to promote robust debate, rigorous scrutiny and sound democratic processes in law making in New Zealand, in practice, Act ignores these at will. The retrospective changes to pay equity legislation it promoted is a recent case in point. Eighth, New Zealand already has too few checks and balances on executive power. The fact this bill, with its anti-democratic aspects and lack of an electoral mandate, is in front of a select committee demonstrates why constitutional reform to protect citizens from executive overreach is urgently needed. Ninth, and perhaps worst, the practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise. As many experts have pointed out, under such an arrangement, taxpayers may be required to compensate tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits by seeking to minimise the negative health and economic impacts of smoking; mining, industrial forestry and other extractive industries for regulations that seek to minimise environmental harm and damage to communities; and many other activities in which capital seeks to profit at the expense of others. The accumulation of wealth and power by the few at the expense of the many is precisely what is undermining other democracies around the world. It is inimical to the very idea of democracy as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people,' in which governments are supposed to serve the interests of citizens, not of capital or corporations. As social cohesion is undermined by radical inequality and an over-emphasis on private property and individual rights, the danger is that it tips over into anarchy; and by removing limits on the right to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of others, into oligarchy. We are seeing something like this in the United States at present. Around the world, democracies that were once strong are collapsing. It is the responsibility of our Parliament to ensure that this does not happen here. Act's attempt to paint this bill as an innocuous attempt to promote good law-making in the interests of citizens is disingenuous, and should be recognised as such. Rather, this is a dangerous bill that attacks the fundamental rights of New Zealanders, and democratic principles. It must not be allowed to pass.
RNZ News
11-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
The Politics Panel
Journalists Ruwani Perera and Dan Brunskill join Wallace Chapman to discuss all the big politics news of the week. Also in the studio is former NZ First MP Tracey Martin. Tonight they examine the Gaza floatilla headed by Greta Thunberg and the NZ sanctions placed on two Israeli ministers. They also discuss the tren dfor more right leaning and alt poltical organisations to film their interviews - David Seymour recently took hi own camera to an interview conducted by John Campbell. What to our journalists think of that? And finally, MMP, has it had it's day? Are we basically running a first past the post system anyway? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
The Spinoff
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
With so many parties ‘ruling out' working with other parties, is MMP losing its way?
Part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of the worst excesses of the political executive. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. There has been a lot of 'ruling out' going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, Act's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party. Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own, indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori. And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to 'completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing'. Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago. Under the old 'first past the post' system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice. Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary. Government by decree By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party that might be able to govern with either major player. In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an ' elected dictatorship ', part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s. Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill. Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign 's fears before the electoral system was changed – that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy – the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that. It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one. But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from Act (the Treaty principles bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation) and NZ First (tax breaks for heated tobacco products). Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes Act and NZ First have managed to secure will erode – at least in some quarters – faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements. The centre cannot hold Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/Act/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left. In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate 'commonsense' party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now. In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player. The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and Act may be small, but they are not minor. In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase. For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar. The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand – lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies – needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments.
RNZ News
10-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
With so many parties 'ruling out' working with each other, is MMP losing its way?
Analysis - There has been a lot of "ruling out" going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, ACT's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party . Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori . Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own , indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori . And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to "completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing". Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago. Under the old "first past the post" system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation ( MMP ), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice. Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary. By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party which might be able to govern with either major player. In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an " elected dictatorship ", part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s. Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of Parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid Parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill . Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign 's fears before the electoral system was changed - that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy - the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that. It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one. But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from ACT ( the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation ) and NZ First ( tax breaks for heated tobacco products ). Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes ACT and NZ First have managed to secure will erode - at least in some quarters - faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements. Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/ACT/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left. In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate "common sense" party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now. In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player . The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and ACT may be small, but they are not minor. In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show ), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase. For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar. The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand - lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies - needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments. * Richard Shaw is a Professor of Politics at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa - Massey University - This story originally appeared on The Conversation.
The Spinoff
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
The highs, lows and WTFs of Winston Peters, deputy prime minister
Thank you for your service, Winston Raymond Peters. On Saturday, Winston Peters will finish his third stint as deputy prime minister of New Zealand, so here's a selection of highlights from the storied career of the National-NZ-First-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned-outcast-turned-Labour-NZ-First-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned-outcast-turned-NZ-First-Act-National-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned … ? High: The king kingmaker The MMP system has (mostly) been kind to Winston Peters. The NZ First leader's willingness to partner with either major political party has led to him essentially deciding the outcomes of the 1996, 2017 and 2023 general elections, each time having enough bargaining power to secure the role of deputy prime minister. Perhaps the kingmaker was the king all along. WTF: Causing the 1998 coalition collapse A dark time in Peters' career, though it certainly kept him in the headlines: following the introduction of MMP in 1996, NZ First formed the first coalition government with National, which lasted about 21 months before Peters was sacked from cabinet. He and prime minister Jenny Shipley – who had staged a coup against Jim Bolger in 1997 – had failed to see eye-to-eye over her plans to sell off the government's shares in Wellington Airport, and Peters walked out of government altogether. The coalition may have been over, but Shipley's government limped on with the backing of some of Peters' former NZ First colleagues who were unwilling to join him on the opposition benches. Only one of the people mentioned above is still in government now, so who's the real loser? High: Covering Jacinda Ardern's maternity leave As deputy prime minister to the Labour prime minister Jacinda Ardern from 2017 to 2020, Peters' primary role was handbrake, whether it was preventing the introduction of a capital gains tax, delivering Auckland's much-mythologised light rail system, reaching a settlement for the Ihumātao occupation, repealing three strikes legislation, putting cameras on fishing boats or passing hate speech legislation in light of the March 15 terror attacks, among other things. Then, for six weeks in 2018, Peters got to be prime minister while Ardern took maternity leave, and despite concerns from some quarters, his tenure passed pretty uncontroversially. WTF: Bussygate It was a fine Saturday morning when Peters took to X to let everyone know that Green MP Benjamin Doyle had used the word 'bussy' and was also a parent. What ensued was about two weeks of political reporters running around the halls of parliament trying to figure out what 'bussy' really meant, if we should be offended, and whether a spiral emoji was a kind of Batman symbol for paedophiles. In the end, it must not have mattered that much to Peters after all, because he declined a one-on-one conversation with Doyle and has moved onto fighting hecklers at Wellington central train station. But it was kinda weird and homophobic, and made a good case for government officials needing to follow at least five young gay people on Instagram before purporting to speak for all New Zealanders. High: Foreign affairs, ministered There's something to be said about a minister who manages to do his best work outside of the country. Three-time deputy prime minister and three-time foreign affairs minister, Peters has been described as a ' born diplomat ', and his air miles leave no question of his commitment to the role. During this term alone he has spent 152 days travelling, visiting 44 countries, pushed for Aotearoa to retain an independent foreign policy, made Phil Goff jobless, and faced Trump officials. It really all goes to show that sometimes the best export a country can have is a crotchety older gentleman. Low: Something something Mexicans? Despite the strides made in foreign affairs, maintaining positive domestic relations with New Zealanders who also happen to be immigrants (specifically from Mexico or something frighteningly similar, like perhaps the Philippines) has been a sore spot for Peters and his cohort lately. While his NZ First deputy Shane Jones has called to 'send the Mexicans home', Peters has opted for a softer policy, one which asks for New Zealanders born overseas who have the gumption to see themselves as New Zealanders to 'show some gratitude' and also never, ever use the word Aotearoa. No intel yet on whether a Latin America Reset will be established. WTF: Putting the PM in his place Slagging off the prime minister is not a skill you'd expect his deputy to have, and yet here we are. Luxon was 'struggling' in the top job because he was 'so new to politics', Peters told The Post in November, and by March the deputy prime minister was reminding everyone he had 'made' Christopher Luxon the PM. Come April, Peters told Luxon (via RNZ) that he should 'call me next time' before giving a speech to world leaders that supposedly included some 'hysterical' takes on the US trade war. Watch this space. High: Living to see another day Peters turned 80 in April. Surely that's something to celebrate. High: Some great comebacks 'Lefty shill'; 'wokester loser'; 'you look like bollocks'; 'moron'; 'don't be a stupid little schoolboy'; 'on the marae, Megan, you keep quiet'; to name a few. Low: Entrenching woke in the parliamentary vernacular Some things should only exist on the internet. High: Fighting declining parliamentary standards It's just not the same place it was back in 1979. Low: What is a woman? Who the fuck cares? WTF: Whatever comes next A snap election? An increased focus on fighting the war on woke? and sending him in an ambulance hitting 100km/h? Basically more of the same? Only time will tell.
