Nation-changing a big-picture event

BY MIKE MOORE

We may be having a referendum on MMP. In defence of MMP, the status quo - which is Latin for yesterday's mistakes - predictable beneficiaries of the present system will fight for their lives.

People who couldn't get elected to a school committee now come into Parliament. They don't have to convince or persuade anyone of their merits. All they have to do is convince the party bosses they should be high on their party lists.

New Zealand has muddled on with coalition governments, which is inevitable under MMP, and not that hard during a period of the greatest global growth in history.

I didn't support MMP at the time, saying it would not be the tail that wagged the dog but what's under the dog's tail that would wag the body politic.

Here's the record: One small MP from a small party promises to throw the toys out of the cot if Maori get special representation in Auckland, and got his way.

The last government caved in to the Greens, who promised to spit the dummy if there was no support for their unworkable, anti-smacking bill.

Winston Peters swore, before an election, he would not join National in government, but did.

Jim Anderton crusaded against closer economic relations with Australia, GST, a floating dollar, an independent central bank, and then joined a government where those issues were not negotiable.

Peter Dunne, a minister in a Labour- led government before an election, said he would join National after the election, then kept his job and privileges and jumped ship without getting his feet wet or losing a day's pay.

People thought MMP would mean more transparent politics but instead they just got more politics and 20 per cent more MPs.

Sordid deals are always done after the election - anything can happen, and does.

It's about process not substance, which the insider capital-based media enjoy because it's easier to report.

A new breed of advisers and a commentariat has emerged to manage this process.

Who would have ever thought that Labour would accept Winston Peters, who made his name attacking foreigners, as our foreign affairs minister? Or that National would get into bed with a Maori sovereignty party? In both cases these minor partners stand for something each major party, for generations, was opposed to.

Who really believes that Mr Anderton or Mr Dunne would be in Parliament in the first instance had they not been originally elected on a Labour ticket?

Now, because both Mr Anderton and Mr Dunne claim to lead parties, they get to spend a million dollars each over a three-year period to service their parties and get re-elected.

It's all very cynical - Labour won't put up a fight against Mr Anderton; neither does National fight against Mr Dunne.

National told its voters to back ACT's Richard Prebble in Wellington Central, and Labour told its voters to back National in Epsom to stop ACT's Rodney Hide. All this brings out the worst in politicians.

Leadership must be more than having a strong stomach, holding your nose and swallowing the occasional rat.

It's true that MMP has increased the diversity in Parliament, and that's healthy and long overdue.

But it would now be suicide for a major party to de-select or not select MPs from the ethnic communities.

Electorate MPs have to serve local people to survive; list MPs have only to suck up to the party bosses. They owe their loyalty to the party machine, not the people.

List MPs have the inside running for pre-selection for electorate seats and vice- versa. This works against parties regenerating and learning from defeat.

I like the idea of MPs being accountable to local party committees. It's good they have to go to local schools, visit Plunket, and listen and show respect to ordinary people.

However, I accept MMP's supporters' logic on parliamentary diversity and the dangers of a big party duopoly.

Ten per cent of the people believe Elvis is alive - perhaps that should be the threshold, rather than than the current 5 per cent for list MPs to get elected. Or maybe we could cut our number of MPs down from 120 to 100 and have 10 elected on a proportional basis.

There are more than just those two options.

A decision to reject or keep MMP is a big nation-changing event and I don't think it should be made in isolation from other issues of constitutional importance.

We New Zealanders tend to make quick ad hoc decisions that seem small but together are important: Abolish or reinstate honours systems, reject the Privy Council, introduce a semi- federal system for Auckland, abolish QCs and then bring them back, have another flag, decide to be a bicultural nation not multicultural, the Treaty goes from being a fraud to being a holy document in one lifetime.

Australia will have a president; in populist panic we may follow them. Just to prove we have our own minds and are independent.

These are not small issues. These decisions have consequences.

Last year, I suggested to MPs a process whereby all these issues could be put to an elected constitutional convention. From that process the people could decide on a full New Zealand constitution.

I was swamped by a tidal wave of indifference, a tsunami of apathy. When do we fix the roof, when it's sunny or when it's raining? Our constitutional arrangements are like the leaky home syndrome. There is systemic failure and no-one will take responsibility for the big picture.

* Mike Moore is a former prime minister and a former leader of the Labour Party

- © Fairfax NZ News