ELECTION 2011 - tapes, vandalism, separatism, & the Referendum
John Key was right to take a principled stand to prevent the release of an illegal tape recording of a private
conversation between himself and John Banks. If he hadn’t, the whole boundary between what is private and what is public
would be forever blurred. Certain members of the media would feel perfectly entitled to snoop and engage in covert
recordings across the board in the hope that they could get a ‘scoop’ and the rewards of an “exclusive” story. And those
political leaders who are saying that the recording should be released are particularly disingenuous. In fact they
should be ashamed of themselves because if they were the target instead of Key and Banks they would probably be calling
for privacy too.
The willingness by some of the media to set aside a legal principle is shameful. The reality is their catch-all excuse
of something being in the “public interest” is simply a convenience for the media to publish whatever serves their best
interest. Not all reporters joined in, of course. There were notable exceptions - seasoned and principled journalists
who respect the right to privacy and who have strongly condemned the actions of their media colleagues.
So with a week to go before the elections, what have the media missed reporting on?
In my mind their most serious lapse is the failure to investigate the policy detail of parties who are very likely to
play a major role in the next Parliament. For instance, has anyone seriously questioned the validity of the Green
Party’s promise to create 100,000 new ‘green jobs’ through “direct government investment”? With ample research now
available to show that for every green job that is created around 2.2 jobs in other parts of an economy are destroyed,
their figures do not stack up. That would mean that 100,000 new ‘green’ jobs would kill off over 200,000 others. Most of
the early research on this issue came out of the King Juan Carlos University in Spain.[1] And they should know. Their
socialist government enthusiastically embraced green technology and dreadfully overburdened the country with green job
subsidy schemes. With an unemployment rate of over 20 percent, “green” job schemes are surely an example of what ‘not to
do’!
The Green Party’s plan to scrap the subsidies on the Emissions Trading Scheme does not mean that ‘polluters’ will pay as
they claim, but that the cost will fall on ordinary New Zealand households. That’s how the ETS has been designed - to
pass the cost onto consumers. That means that householders would be forced to bear the cost of a doubling of the ETS
levy on petrol and electricity, and the resulting rise in the price of food and all other goods and services. In
addition, they have set the unachievable goal of requiring 100 percent of New Zealand’s electricity generation to be
from renewable sources - which would send prices through the roof. They want to charge everyone for water, they will
push up the price of cars by regulating for higher fuel efficiency ratings, they plan to provide “legal protection” for
plants and animals, and they want to place a moratorium on private land use in areas they decide are “sensitive”.
And where has been the proper media scrutiny over the Green Party’s defacing of the National Party’s billboards? As Mike
butler notes in this blog, “How squeaky clean is Green Party co-leader Russel Norman over the billboard stickering, and
where are the reporters asking all the questions to find out how it all happened? Compare the media reaction to the
"Green delusion" pamphlets in 2005 with the current billboard stickering. In 2005, when anti-Green pamphlets were
connected to the Exclusive Brethren, and then to National Party leader Don Brash, reporters kept asking the questions
until they chased the story down. In 2011, when the Green Party is under the spotlight, reporters seem quite happy to
accept Russel Norman's apology and assertion that he had nothing to do with it and leave it at that. Yet who paid the
$500 to have the stickers printed? Where did the money come from? How were activists throughout New Zealand mobilised to
put the stickers on National’s billboards? Was a Green Party list of email addresses used? If so, how did the
self-confessed billboard sticker mastermind Jolyon White get access to that list? How much did his wife know, especially
since she is the stood-down PA to Russel Norman? Can we really believe that over that time Norman did not know the plan
was afoot?”
I don’t see anyone asking the hard questions - it’s as if the media have decided to give the Green’s an easy ride
leaving voters largely oblivious to the damage their policy prescription would do to the country.
Then we come to the speculation over what is going wrong with Labour’s campaign. But why didn’t they heed the warning of
former Labour Prime Minister David Lange who said that a capital gains tax is the sort of tax you introduce if you want
to lose not just one election, but the next three! Enough said.
Another serious failing of the media has been their lack of scrutiny of Maori issues. The Maori Party, the Mana Party
and the Green Party all want to increase Maori privilege, to give Maori greater rights than non-Maori, and to jack up
the electoral system to give them more Maori seats by requiring that any voter who identifies as having any Maori
ancestry is placed automatically on the Maori roll - with an option to move onto the general roll. This would be the
opposite of the present system which treats every new voter as equal – unless they chose to vote on the Maori roll.
NZCPR Research Associate Mike Butler, this week’s Guest Contributor reminds us of the major changes introduced by
National during the three years of their coalition with the Maori Party. From the flying of the radical Maori
sovereignty flag, to the signing of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, the introduction of Maori-only
welfare system Whanau Ora, the repeal of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed to enable privatisation to the
tribal elite, and the Constitutional Review which is aimed at entrenching the Maori seats and the Treaty of Waitangi in
a new constitution.
He then examines the policies the various parties are proposing asking, “Which New Zealand political party poses the
greatest threat to harmonious race relations? The parties that assert one law for all, or those demanding entrenched
Maori seats, automatic enrolment of Maori on the Maori electoral roll, have Maori language compulsorily available in
schools, or an independent Treaty of Waitangi Commission elected solely by Maori voters?”
He explains, “Election manifestos show a conspicuous absence of Maori issue policy by the National and Labour parties,
with wish lists by the Green, Maori, and Mana Parties that are big on asserting rights and small on taking
responsibility”. To read Mike’s full article and see what the parties are proposing, click here>>>. And to view all Party Manifestos, click here>>>.
Back in 2009 I wrote, “It is tragic for New Zealand that John Key’s National Party appears to be blind to the agenda of
radical Maori and naïve in allowing this escalation of racial division under its watch. Incredibly the National Party
has advanced the Maori sovereignty agenda much more than the socialist Labour Party did. At a political level, the
actions of the National Party have re-opened the door to the return of Winston Peters – who has consistently argued
against racial division and the prevailing partnership myth of the Treaty of Waitangi. It also re-exposes National’s
right flank to gains by the ACT Party, should ACT choose to pursue this issue and wrestle away votes that would
otherwise go to New Zealand First.”
This warning has come to pass. While ACT was initially forcefully outspoken on the need for one law for all and an end
to Maori privilege when Don Brash first took over the leadership, latterly they have become relatively silent over this
ticking time bomb. Winston Peters however, has never stopped his attack on Maori sovereignty, the Treaty industry and
the Maori Seats. His recent climb in the polls indicates that on this issue he is striking a chord.
In thinking about Maori policy, one thing is certain. It is long past time to abandon the biculturalism model that has
become the driving force of racial separatism within New Zealand. Biculturalism has allowed the development of a
parallel society where well-funded tribes are seeking greater political power and control as well as access to even more
taxpayer resources. Creating a nation of self-governing tribes will be the death knell of this country. New Zealand can
only prosper and grow if we build on the governance and institutional arrangements that strengthen democracy. Powerful
Maori tribes, doing everything they can to undermine our democratic state, and using the country’s resources and
institutions to foster the Maori tribal world view, is not the way of the future. It is time that every New Zealander
understood the dangerous path we are on and demanded our elected politicians give us the right to live in a country
where we are not defined by the colour of our skin.
Finally, on Saturday we not only have to vote for the person we want to represent us in our electorate and the party we
want to govern the country, but we also have an opportunity to vote in the Referendum on the electoral system. We will
be presented with two questions. The first is whether we want to keep MMP or whether we want a change. The second
question then asks which of the alternative voting systems we would like to change to: First Past the Post (FPP),
Preferential Voting (PV), Single Transferable Vote (STV), or Supplementary Member (SM).
In looking at the alternative voting options there are a many factors to consider. Here are a few. If you are happy with
multi-party representation and list MPs selected by party bosses - but want to limit their influence - then SM, which
elects 90 electorate MPs through an electorate vote and 30 list MPs through a party list vote, is the choice for you.
If, however, you want every Member of Parliament to be elected directly by voters, then your choice is between FPP, PV
and STV.
Then there is the size of the electorate: if you would like a small number of very big electorates - between 24 and 30
around the country each with between 3 and 7 MPs - then STV is the system for you. STV is already used by Health Boards
and some Councils where voters rank candidates according to their preferences, with preferences re-allocated from the
lowest-polling candidates until the winners reach a pre-determined quota.
But if you want a system that delivers 120 small electorates each with only one elected MP, then your choice is between
FPP or PV. Of those, if you prefer the system that elects the candidate with the most number of votes on election day,
then FPP - the voting system we used to have before MMP - is the choice for you. If on the other hand you prefer a
voting system that ranks candidates according to preferences - re-allocating from those who drop out until one passes
the 50 percent threshold - then PV is the choice for you.
The systems most likely to result in coalition governments are MMP and STV. The ones least likely to result in a
coalition government are SM, FPP and PV.
Then there are the Maori seat considerations. Because the Maori Party gerrymandered the Referendum process to retain the
present proportionality of Maori seats (under MMP there are 7 Maori electorate seats out of a total of 70 electorate
seats, giving a 10 percent proportion), under SM with 90 electorate seats there would be 9 Maori seats, and under FPP,
PV and STV with a total of 120 electorate seats, there would be 12. Full details about the voting system options can be
found on www.referendum.org.nz.
Good luck with your deliberations on who to vote for in the election and the Referendum on Saturday!
ENDS