Governments would do better with longer terms
GIVEN we are now in an election year, I wonder if any consideration is going to be given to longer electoral terms.
The argument is that a longer electoral term creates more stability that allows longerterm plans. There may be some truth in that. Our threeyear term is not a lot of time to plan and execute things like the decadeslong infrastructure development projects we urgently need.
A fiveyear plan has a better chance of getting something constructive done than trying to ram everything into three years, with the prospect of having it overturned before it beds in if there’s a change of government.
A term extension from three to four years was comprehensively rejected in referenda in 1967 and 1990, so it seems as though the electorate don’t trust Parliament enough to give it longer between the elections, which are our only way to control parliamentary behaviour.
In those cases, the term extension was not balanced by protections for the citizens, such as an upper house or recall legislation.
Checks on power like those would help prevent governments exceeding their mandate, such as the 1984 Labour government’s economic reforms, or with the National government of 2013 ignoring the result of an asset sale referendum.
But is the political class prepared to come to a constructive quid pro quo arrangement with the electorate to get more time to actually achieve something useful?
David Cohen
Dunedin
Global population
I NOTE that there is another highlevel meeting of the worried minds, this time in Davos, whereby all concerned parties (except Greta, of course) have flown in, escorted by scores and scores of aides.
Not to mention hundreds of media and the technicians and staff required, all gathering air points or some such while they are at it.
This meeting will most likely say that New Zealand and other countries are naughty because we have a lot of burping cows. However, I would like to point out to those jet streampolluting delegates that, not all that long ago, there were fewer than a billion humans on this planet.
Coexisting with us at that point were literally billions of bison on the North American continent. There were billions of ruminants of all fashion roaming in Africa. Yaks abounded in Siberia, and South America and Australia had a lot of gaseous animal excretions, and we haven’t even mentioned the fecundity of the animal life in Asia.
Was there an abnormal and potentially lethal increase in planetary temperatures in those quite recent days? No.
The problem is not due to any animal on this planet other than man. We have overbred, overconsumed and not cared in the slightest while we have been about it.
Keep the farms going but knock back the human population really quickly or there is little hope for the planet.
Pete Jenkins
Galloway
Jones on meat
SHANE Jones (ODT, 21.1.20) accuses those recommending eating less meat as a way of reducing carbon emissions of ‘‘medieval absolutism’’.
The justification he goes on to give for continuing to eat copious amounts of dead animals is ‘‘That’s how I grew up’’.
The irony won’t be lost on anyone with a basic competence in critical thinking — though, one suspects, it might be on Mr Jones himself.
Alex Miller
Roslyn
Festival fun
HAVING read the report on the veteran car rally (ODT, 20.1.19), I also endorse the idea to reinstate Dunedin’s traditional Festival Week of activities and events.
It was always special to look forward to, and when it was changed, it never really felt the same. Although the various events continued on, they were more spread out.
To have that special ‘‘week’’ back would be awesome.
Maurice Boyle
Green Island