Food for thought

In response to Arch Duncan’s letter ( Mail 29th Sept. ), it would seem that he’s got plenty to moan about himself, obviously not much meat on his table!

Before accusing farmers of polluting the waterways, he should reflect on where the sewerage from his own place finishes up, also the run-off from the street at his door carrying street filth straight into the local streams.

Streams around urban areas are far more polluted than our country ones.

Yes, us farmers eat well, so well in fact that we feed the rest of the country too. We produce so much food that a large percentage of our production goes to waste.

Arch Duncan should remember that if he ate today he should thank the farmers for the food.

Our farmers produce the best quality and quantity of food in the world, there’s so much of it that there’s no reason why anyone in this country should go hungry. Farming is what we do best in NZ. prevailed in a majority of states.

The other main reason for dissatisfaction with our version of FPP was that third parties never got a look-in.

Even with 21 per cent of the vote, the now-defunct Social Credit party won only two seats in the 92-seat Parliament in 1981.

But it wasn’t so much dissatisfaction with the undemocratic nature of the FFP system that caused voters to rebel against it in the 1990s. After all, we’d been happy with it for 90 years. Besides, it’s still practised in Britain, Canada and the US.

No, what really enabled agitators for electoral reform to gain traction was the widespread perception that once in power, governments reneged on promises and generally couldn’t be trusted to do what voters had asked for.

The theory was that by denying absolute power to any one party – in effect, requiring parties to negotiate and compromise on key policies – the MMPsystem would force governments to become more accountable and consensus-driven.

A bonus was that by giving greater power to minor parties, MMPwould deliver more diverse representation in Parliament.

At least that was the theory, and to some extent it has been proved right.

Under MMP, we have certainly had far more diverse parliaments.

The two-party duopoly has been broken, opening the way for a much wider range of ideological positions and agendas to be represented in Parliament, from the old-style populist Muldoonism of NZ First through to the environmentally driven Greens and the race-based sectional interests of the Maori Party.

But has MMPdelivered greater accountability, as its idealistic (and mostly Left-wing) promoters promised? Hmmm. That’s another matter entirely.

The New Zealand First leader failed to respond to a phone call on Sunday night from National leader Bill English, whose party won six times more support than his own. Although Peters did return the call the following day, I believe he was letting English know who’s boss.

But even without a rogue politician like Peters in the mix, the system is deeply – perhaps fatally – flawed. Because regardless of the result on election day, all bets are off once the votes are in.

At that stage the public cedes total control to the politicians, who disappear behind closed doors to decide which of the policies they campaigned on can be jettisoned and which bottom lines no longer matter. We, the voters, have no power to influence what concessions will be made in coalition negotiations.

Whatever this is, it’s not democracy. Accountability? Pffft again.

The almost comical paradox is that the MMPsystem, which supposedly returned power to the people, is virtually guaranteed to produce a result where one or more minor parties end up wielding influence grossly disproportionate to their public support, and where politicians have carte blanche to wheel and deal without reference to the public.

Apologists for MMP(former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer is one) continue to make excuses for its failings and to pretend that it’s fit for purpose.

The politicians have become thoroughly acclimatised to it too and either fail to see, or don’t want to see, its fatal flaws.

But I reckon we were sold a crock in 1993, and I want my money back.