Chicanepictures.com

Minority government

Whatever happened to the idea of minority government, so much in vogue away back when we were campaigning for MMP?

As Mai Chen stated then in an article in the New Zealand Law Journal, the definition of a government is a set of responsible ministers, drawn, by invitation of the governor-general, from the largest party or coalition, whether a majority or not.

The ministers run the departments, but Parliament, not Government, makes the laws and the budgets.

The ship of state, she said, would no longer switch direction with every change of government.

It would set a relatively steady course steered by well-considered, majority-backed legislation.

This is the long-term vision of the 1986 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, on which our change to MMP, and increase to 120 MPs, was based.

Unbridled power would be a thing of the past.

The common objection to minority government is the need for ‘‘confidence and supply’’.

If a set of ministers is being entrusted only to minister but not to make laws, then confidence can be given to them far more easily and safely than at present, when simple majority and collective responsibility lets them do as they like, when they like.

Supply is the annual budget, a piece of legislation that can be negotiated like any other.

Whether journalists think it practical or not, minority government is a constitutional possibility.

It is irresponsible for the media to overlook it, and continue repeating such false statements as ‘‘Labour and the Greens would need New Zealand First in order to form a government, ‘‘ instead of ‘‘…to form a majority government’’.

Or to speak of assuming power or balance of power, and to promote the ludicrous (and sexist) label of ‘‘kingmaker.’’

If people were no longer urged to worry about the unpredictable idea of a balance of power, and to play guessing games which they invariably get wrong, then they could vote honestly for the parties whose values they believe in and produce a result beyond their expectations.

The outcome could be a government that assumes responsibility, and a parliament that assumes power; representation by parties with clear philosophies and mandates; no more guessing, and no more kingmakers. Gavin Maclean Gisborne Abridged -- Editor

Welfare

I wish to provide an alternative view to welfare than that described by Mervyn Cave (July 24).

Our retirees and elderly receive a universal, inflation adjusted income that leads the world in its generosity. I think it is wonderful that we have achieved such financial security for our oldest citizens.

Last year we spent over $12 billion on superannuation, double what it cost ten years ago.

I find it appalling that we don’t invest anything even vaguely similar on our children and young families.

We used to have universal child support, but no longer.

I still remember how hard it was financially and emotionally for my wife and I when we had young children on a reasonable income.

I have no idea how sole parents with young children survive on the welfare benefits.

Many also rely on food parcels and the generosity of friends and family and charities to meet basic needs.

Most move off welfare after five years, in reality there are few ‘‘bludgers’’.

28 per cent of our children now live in poverty and a large number live in substandard housing.

We have the worst outcomes for the health and welfare of our children in the developed world according to a Unicef report.

Benefits should allow struggling families to provide a decent home for their children and properly support their education and personal development (at a minimum).

I do not believe that we should ‘‘write off’’ one third of our children.

Those born into poverty are now likely to remain in poverty.

Welfare should provide a ‘‘hand up’’, not a humiliating, degrading and judgmental ‘‘slap down’’ as it currently does.

The Green Party wants to end child poverty and create a better future for all our children. Dave Kennedy Invercargill