Category: Guest Posts
A "rational optimist" like me thinks the world will go on getting better for most people at a record rate, not because I have a temperamental or ideological bent to good cheer but because of the data. Poverty, hunger, population growth rates, inequality, and mortality from violence, disease and weather - all continue to plummet on a global scale. But a global optimist can still be a regional pessimist. When asked what I am pessimistic about, I usually reply: bureaucracy and superstition.
Christmas and New Year! It is a time for relaxation and celebration; a time, too, to reflect on the past year, and wonder about and plan for the days to come. So let us gaze, if not into a crystal ball, at least into the clouds of the future. Perhaps through the clouds we may glimpse the land below occasionally, and sense, however haphazardly, the terrain that awaits us. When I last wrote I imagined the easy steps by which, if we did not rapidly acquire some gumption, we could have a written Treatyist constitution imposed on us without our consent. Let us go further today. Once we had been saddled with such a burden, what would that mean for New Zealand?
In this article I want to turn to the question of process, and how a country might legitimately change its constitutional arrangements. Let me lay my cards on the table straight up and say this: For a country in today’s democratic era to change its constitution without in any real way asking its own citizens would be a disgrace, the sort of thing one might expect after a military coup in Pakistan or as a consequence of a passing whim of Mr. Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Maori water rights issue that is fouling the National minority government’s mixed ownership model (MOM) partial selloff of state-owned hydroelectric power generators worse than didymo, think again. More serious problems are quietly emerging, despite the apparent truce that has descended since the hooey hui the government jacked up to pretend it was consulting Maori over MOM-related sweetheart deals.
Home affordability has been in the news in recent weeks. The “problem” is a perennial political football, but things got a little more serious recently when the National Party released broad-brush details of their plan to deal with the issue. The Minister of Finance, Bill English, has correctly recognised that housing is becoming less affordable to low income earners and has proposed a range of initiatives to deal with it:
Any way you add up the sums, the message is that present and future commitments under just the one Vote, Treaty Negotiations, will comes to something like 5-6 billion dollars in total present value, probably even more. It’s hard to find Votes with a similarly spectacular explosion.
A ‘conversation’. The very word fills me with foreboding. ‘Conversations’ are creatures of the caring classes; the schoolteachers and academics, the higher-paid end of the public service and all the professional carers in charities, lobby groups, trusts and the social sciences; all comfortably off, and all dedicated to their own deadly vision of a truly caring and happy world where they and people just like them intend to be in charge.
In 1999, the Labour Party, by then in Opposition, promised a comprehensive review of the Act if they won the election that year. After they formed a government late that year, they commissioned that comprehensive review by Lars Svensson, a highly respected monetary policy academic (and now Deputy Governor of the Swedish central bank). And the result? Following careful assessment of the Act and the way the Reserve Bank was implementing it, Professor Svensson concluded that it was world’s best practice.
I think it would be a disaster for New Zealand to move to a written constitution of the sort almost certain to be offered. And I would run a mile from incorporating or entrenching the Treaty into any such instrument, not least because overwhelmingly no one knows what it means when applied to any specific issue. So all you will be buying is the views of the top judges, instead of your own, the voters. That’s not a trade I would ever make.
Obligations are well known to people with jobs. They have obligations to their employers to be there on time, to observe the conditions of their contract and generally toe the line during their hours of employment. Working parents are obliged to put their children in some sort of care, be it formal or family-based. In return they receive a pay packet that furnishes their needs and wants, not dissimilar to a benefit, though usually more generous.
Loading ...
