National Blog of New Zealand

As espoused by John Stewart Mill, “the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral is not sufficient to warrant.”

In contrast to this principle our state imposes a number of paternalistic measures for the purpose of regulating conduct; the criminal law being the most bluntly coercive of all. Essentially a, “do this or else” form of control that has serious ramifications upon future freedom of movement, employment and lifestyle. Examples such as preventing minors from entering into contracts or requirements to wear seatbelts abound. Yet the most active issue of drug criminalisation remains at the fore, in particular the widely used Class C drug cannabis.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 s 3A (c) requires that drugs that pose a moderate risk of harm are classified as Class C drugs based on the risk of harm the drug poses to individuals, or to society, by its misuse. Plainly a requirement to consider harm to others is inherent in the legislation. I submit that the requirement that cannabis offending be processed through the courts results in more expense and harm to the individual than the substance itself. The medical and sociological evidence is out there on both sides.

It’s already unlikely that an offender will be imprisoned for possession of cannabis given requirement for, “previous convictions or of any exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or the offender” that requires a custodial sentence.

So what’s the point in having all of these people going through the court system? Wouldn’t an infringement notice style regulatory regime, where one can opt for a defended hearing if so desired make a lot more sense, cost a lot less money and have less overall social harm. I’m not going to, “Tick the leaf” but I’d love to see some serious consideration given to the issue by the current government, some self restraint not to sensationalise by the media and an opportunity for the general public to assess the facts, disputed or otherwise. The antithesis to the s 59 “reasonable force” repeal. Legislation has recently been introduced to free up the High Court from dealing with ‘P’ cases, is it not time to free the District Court Judges from the constant stream of cannabis charges and improve access to the courts for all.

National has brokered a deal with the Maori party not to move to get rid of the Maori seats without Maori party consent and in return Maori will not attempt to entrench them (which they couldn’t do without National support anyway, besides the legal efficacy of entrenchment remains to be tested). However there will be a constitutional committee to examine issues of representation no later than 2010. This sounds like rather good fun.

So where did the Maori seats come from.

From 1852 suffrage was subject to a property qualification, all males over twenty one who owned or leased some form of real property above a certain threshold were entitled to vote for the House of Representatives, irrespective of racial origin. However, Maori communal title did not meet the requisite property qualification. This requirement effectively disenfranchised the overwhelming majority of Maori.

Thus in 1867 we saw the Maori Representation Act passed into law, a temporary measure in order to ensure special representation until the process of individualising Maori land title was complete. A process which took far longer than expected. This was not an idea limited to Maori, but was also extended to Otago gold-mining communities who failed to meet the property requirements because they lived in tents, rough shacks or lodging houses. They too were given special representation under legislation passed that same year. The only difference is that the Maori seats have survived, though narrowly at times.

Democracy requires that all interests should be represented and this is what the seats set out initially to do. However, following the suggestions of The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986 with regard to the Maori seats one finds, “In a democratic system, the protection of minority interests ought to be the responsibility of Parliament as a whole and not just of the MPs who happen to belong to the minority group.” This is a view to which I ascribe, whilst there is a viewpoint that affirmative action is acceptable and that we ought avoid the tyranny of the majority the idea of consociation does more harm than good to furthering the fundamental principle of equality so central to a liberal democracy.

As Philip A. Joseph points out in his working paper, The Maori Seats in Parliament a useful measure is the ratio of Maori representation in Parliament to their size as a demographic in NZ. If when the Maori seats are removed the number of MP’s is equal to or even greater than the proportion of New Zealanders who identify as Maori then the seats are unarguably redundant further reinforcing the the suggestions of the 1986 Royal Commission.

The results of the 2008 election mean that we now have according to the NBR seventeen Maori MPs. Assuming a 122 member Parliament, that’s 14% representation for Maori, who based on 2006 census figures comprise 14% of the NZ population. Meaning that were the seats to be removed Maori would have a 5% representational deficit. However were the seats to be abolished we would be likely to see more parties putting forward Maori candidates and policies in a search for the Maori vote, thus democratically remedying the deficit.

So on what basis do the seats to remain?

All men are supposed to be equal before the law, and there is no particularly attractive argument based in either Tiriti, principles of active protection or equitable fiduciary duties owed by the Crown that establishes separate electoral rights on the basis of ethnicity or “political status”. Initially they were created as an exception to ensure representation because of land title qualifications. Nowadays that distinction no longer remains and separate representation is limited only to Maori, and afforded to no other minority group. We have universal suffrage. One group ought to have no greater and no lesser rights than any other – as would be the case were there to be a singular electoral roll. I do not believe that the seats represent some form of apartheid as some have argued they have worked in the exact opposite sense, ensuring representation (however questionable) where there otherwise would have been none for a large part of our history. The real issue is whether they remain appropriate today under MMP, I for one am doubtful.

Entrenchment?

Entrenching the seats also seems to be an odd stance to take on such a contentious political issue. Manner and form entrenchments, those that deal with procedural matters of constitutional reform are the most likely to to be upheld by the courts. Parliamentary Sovereignty dictates that the House should remain free to debate the substantive issues and this is why it would be a strange step to entrench something as substantive and hotly political as special Maori representation.

Whether tax cuts are going to help spur the economy back into life all depends upon where the money put back into taxpayers pockets will flow. Proponents of supply-side economics would argue that tax cuts will create supply which in turn creates demand, this school of thought has been labelled “ill-fated” and perhaps “silly” by chair professor Alan Blinder in the Economics Department of Princeton University; and seen as deserved of ridicule by many other notable economists. Supply-siders argue that tax cuts for the rich promote investment, which in turn promotes growth. This “trickle down” effect or Reagonomic approach remains of questionable merit. Keynesians will argue that while tax cuts may be advantageous in stimulating demand they submit to the contrary of supply-siders that broad policy is the way to go which seems thankfully to be the track we’re headed down.

Luckily Mr Key has assured us that he will continue with the $1.75bn dollar increase in expenditure planned by the Labour government. Meaning that tax cuts aren’t simply going to be absorbed by heightened costs of access to ‘public’ services. The net result must however be that the Government incurs more debt on behalf of New Zealanders. This policy of reducing Crown revenues and increasing public debt is a definite gamble that the economy will rebound to prevent a budgetary crisis down the track. Incurring debt now without an increase in economic growth will leave future generations saddled with the interest of our current ambition.

With inflation already running at 5.1%, and our only real monetary tool being interest rates we need to be hoping that the fall in global prices trickles on down into NZ; which appears to be the general consensus among economists when lag is factored in. Expansionary fiscal policy must seemingly be predicated on this basis.

The Public Finance Act 1989 specifies per s 26G(b) that once prudent levels of total debt have been achieved, maintaining those levels by ensuring that, on average, over a reasonable period of time, total operating expenses do not exceed total operating revenue is a key principle of responsible fiscal management. Of course the government can derogate from this principle temporarily for given reasons, and those reasons in my mind must be based upon prudent economic principle stemming from fact not rhetoric.

The Government is firstly there for the betterment of all New Zealanders, and one way of doing this is to provide an open and transparent operating environment for capitalism to be conducted by smoothing the business cycle.  Whether tax cuts are the best way to do this will remain unclear until the numbers can be crunched in hindsight. Whatever the case we must hope that John Key remembers the higher the risk the higher the required return, and for good reason. Interest is the market price of credit.