In the spotlight today
Peter Dunne speech, Plimmterton Rotary Club – 2007-11-23
Six months ago, I spoke to the Rotary Club of Tawa, and expressed some strong concerns about the attitudes of the two old parties towards working with other parties to make our MMP system work.
My comments generated a lot of media interest and speculation, most of which completely missed or failed to grasp the point I was making.
Consequently, little has changed in the meantime.
The two old parties still see the system as essentially their plaything, with the newer MMP parties to be regarded as usually nuisances to be worked around so they can have their own way the way they always have done, or occasionally as necessary evils to be accommodated, if they look like threatening the old parties' established way of doing things.
Neither of the two old parties has ever conceded that the new MMP parties have political opinions that are of equal validity to their own.
Consequently, both are continuing to run First Past the Post politics, under the guise of an MMP environment.
Sadly, the media seems to have adopted the same view, seeing the MMP parties as bit players who get in the way of the real game – the ongoing contest between Labour and National – rather than as genuine political players in their own right.
It is worth recalling that when New Zealanders voted in 1993 to change the electoral system they did so, not because they were enamoured of MMP, but because they were sick and tired of a winner-take-all political system that had produced the steamroller governments of the 1980s and early 1990s.
They wanted to put a brake on governments breaking election promises and ignoring the will of the people who elected them.
They saw MMP as the means to do that.
In 2008 the majority of voters will have voted under MMP only – many first time voters in 2008 were not even born when David Lange was Prime Minister, and were barely at kindergarten when the infamous "Mother of All Budgets" was brought down in 1991.
So they will have no recollection or experience of the elected dictatorship that used to pass for democratic government in the days when Tweedledum and Tweedledee held sway.
Of course, one would expect Labour and National to hanker for the good old days as they see them, and to promote the view that things were better when they were able to govern the way they used to.
But it is of huge concern that the media – which always tells us that its priority is protecting the wider public interest – has bought into this line of thinking as well by treating the reporting of only the respective views of Labour and National as meaningful and fulsome political debate.
Such a trite and simplistic approach ignores the point that MMP means neither Labour nor National are ever likely to govern alone again.
So for that reason alone the opinions and policies of the new MMP parties, who will give either the critical support they will need to form a government deserve far more serious attention than the media currently give them.
That was one of the key points of my Tawa speech – that the MMP parties are here to stay and will be key players in our political future – and that the two old parties need to be engaging now with these parties, not simply waiting till after the election results have been posted – so that the voting public can see what post-election compatibilities are likely, before they cast their votes.
At present, that is the last thing Labour and National want, because it would detract attention from their delusions of two-party grandeur and the halcyon days of First Past the Post where they simply periodically swapped the baubles of office between them, while little else changed.
The arrogance that underlies their position is extraordinary and cannot go unchallenged.
But that is precisely what a media obsessed with conflict, rather than common interest, as the vital ingredient of a good news story, is allowing to happen.
What the two old parties are essentially saying is that their views are the only ones that matter, and that the positions of other parties are peripheral, with only a limited philosophical justification behind them.
And the news media has swallowed this claim, hook, line and sinker.
They now predict MMP producing a return to a form of First Past the Post government, with the MMP parties fading away.
It is little wonder, therefore, that opinion polls constantly report that the old parties have around 90% of popular support between them, and that the MMP parties are withering on the vine.
It is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy: treat the race as a two-horse race by ignoring everyone else; state that poll results showing it to be a two-horse race are therefore hardly any surprise; and, consequently, decide that because it is a two-horse race, it need now only be reported as such.
And there are people in both the major parties now openly speculating that MMP may not survive, and rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of the old order being restored.
Of course, that will be the outcome if the political contest continues to be reported as a two-horse race, with everyone else ignored.
There is a bitter irony here: the same media that rails against the Electoral Finance Bill as a threat to democracy and limiting the expression of the public's views sees it as perfectly proper that it can decide what political views are worth reporting, regardless of what the public it professes so much concern about might think.
Whatever their views about politics, New Zealanders, as I read them, are seeking more transparency and accountability – not less – which a return to the elected dictatorship would inevitably mean, and want to see the full and clear expression of all range of political views, so that voters can make informed choices.
Take UnitedFuture's case.
We draw from a clear historical and philosophical tradition dating back to the great English political philosopher John Locke and the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution in the 18th century; through to the Whigs and Liberals, who brought about the great democratic and social reforms in Britain in the 19th and early 20th centuries; to more recent thinkers and social commentators like Lord Beveridge, the social architect of post-war Britain; and, Sir Jonathan Sacks today.
Ours is a philosophy based on freedom of choice, belief and expression, personal responsibility and a respect for life, liberty, equality and community.
It recognises not only the primacy of the individual, but also interdependence with the community, and the key social foundation role of the family in particular.
We believe fervently that strong families and vibrant communities, built on tolerance, respect for human dignity and worth, compassion and justice are the true foundation stones of our society.
These antecedents predate the rise of industrial politics and the trade unions that gave rise to modern Labour politics from the late 19th century, and the express commitment to laissez-faire capitalism that emerged early in the 19th century from which the National Party and its predecessors were spawned.
I make these points not to criticise the genuinely held beliefs of either Labour or National, but rather to underscore the point that my party's political tradition also has substance and validity, and should be respected for that.
The Greens could undoubtedly make the same point in respect of where they fit in the political pantheon, and the Maori Party is constantly asserting its kaupapa.
We all represent legitimate and different political traditions, far removed from the old duopoly of James K Baxter's Ballad of Calvary Street "Where two old souls go slowly mad, National mum and Labour dad."
For UnitedFuture, our approach to politics is governed by three key propositions:
• Ideas and principles are more important than serving special interests.
• Promoting social advances involves all of us, not just the state.
• Participation is the key to successful communities and nations, and families are the building block of these.
We have no affiliations to big business, or to shadowy think tanks that act as ideological fronts for either the left or the right, religious organisations well funded from offshore, or trade unions.
Our links are with the community – and the myriad of charitable, voluntary and non-government agencies that make it tick.
There are currently more than 35,000 charitable organisations and over 1 million community volunteers active across New Zealand today.
So we favour letting the community and the market sort things out where possible, with the government becoming involved only where necessary.
And for New Zealand today, that means working with and alongside our community organisations and families at every level.
Take the field of community and family services as an example.
There are many community organisations active in this area already.
We do not need to be reinventing the wheel here.
That is why part of our post-election agreement with the government focused on using the Families Commission as the co-ordinator of these services, particularly with regard to supporting parents and strengthening their relationships, rather than opening up a whole raft of new government services in this regard.
Put simply, we must do more to support good parents and their families.
We bow to nobody in our commitment to furthering the interests of parents and families as the most basic and precious foundation unit of our society, and we will continue to champion their concerns, and to support parents of all shapes and sizes in their awesome task of supporting their children.
But we will never dare to be so arrogant and self-righteous to stoop to lecturing them about how they should and should not live their family lives.
Families today come in many shapes and sizes, but they all share the common defining characteristics of being the source of love, nurturing and connection for children, and the point of identification, support, comfort and joy for all of us as we grow older.
Those features, not some rigid pre-determined form, define the institution of the family and give it its worth and relevance as an institution well worth preserving.
In an ever changing world, we must never make the mistake of treating the family as having one shape only, for all that will do is alienate and embitter those who do not fit that model.
And the losers from that intolerance are the children because every child, whatever their circumstances, has a right to the love and attention of both their natural parents, regardless of the form of their relationship, because no child has the luxury of being able to choose their parents.
Sadly, parents and families are the most overlooked group in our society at present.
If you buy a car or a household appliance, it will come with not only a warranty, but also a full set of operating instructions, and detailed after sales service provisions.
But become a parent and you are on your own.
There is no after sales service programme, or warranty period – you are assumed to know it all.
And if you dare ask for help or advice, then our caring society comes down on top of you as though you are the problem, you are the one who cannot cope, and you are the one failing as a parent.
We have to turn that around, and UnitedFuture is working actively right now with groups like Grandparents Raising Grandchildren, Every Child Counts, Plunket and Parents' Centre to do just that, and we need the community's support to continue to fulfil that role as a support partner to the government of the day, for the sake of our country's parents.
Another important way in which we can support parents and families is through a fair and family friendly tax system.
Recent policy initiatives such as the introduction of the Working for Families tax credits, and the KiwiSaver tax incentives have provided significant targeted tax relief, which we applaud.
But taxes remain too high – and unevenly imposed.
Nearly two thirds of all personal taxes come from the top 20% of taxpayers.
That burden is getting greater every year.
And, according to a recent survey, 76% of New Zealanders believe that not only should there be a tax cut, but that the government can easily afford it – and they are right.
Moreover, at a time of rising mortgage rates, the tax system does not adequately acknowledge its impact on parents and households.
For example, we have just introduced new rules for the tax treatment of business and professional partnerships, but the tax system still overlooks the unique role of parents as equal partners in the running of a household.
Many parents would love to be able to stay at home to spend more time with their children when they are young, but simply cannot afford to do so.
We already recognise the importance of that through the paid parental leave scheme which provides for up to 14 weeks parental leave on the birth of a child, and we approve of the proposals from the Families Commission to extend this to at least a year, but we believe that parents should have more choices available to them than that.
That is why UnitedFuture has long favoured the idea of income splitting for parents raising dependent children – that is, allowing the combined income of a household to be split equally among both parents for tax purposes.
Take the example of single income household earning $60,000 a year.
Under income splitting, that $60,000 income would be split between both parents and taxed at the rate of $30,000 a year for each.
That would cut that household's tax by $123 a fortnight, both representing a significant tax reduction, and an equal recognition of the contribution of both parents to the running of that household.
If one partner was working full time and earning again say $60,000, and the other working part time and earning say $20,000, the same principle would apply.
That family's tax saving would be almost $83 a fortnight.
It seems daft to us that couples who run a small business between them can split incomes in this way, but they cannot apply the same principle to the running of their family, arguably the most important business of all.
Next year, as Minister of Revenue, I will be releasing a major government discussion document on income splitting and the impact of the tax system on households, which will contain specific policy proposals for the future, to ensure this issue is a live part of both next year's election agenda and subsequent government formation talks.
It will also consider other ways of supporting parents at home caring for children.
After 2008, we will be looking to whoever forms the government for action on this front.
So far, neither Labour nor National, nor any other party has shown any interest in income splitting, yet it is an issue which many New Zealand families have an interest in.
We will continue to be their champions – but we need their political support to turn their policy wish into reality.
In the meantime, UnitedFuture is working on other detailed and very bold tax reform plans involving all aspects of the current system, including tax rates and income thresholds and I will have more to say about that early next year.
We are the one party that can hold our heads high as a tax reform party – the record shows that the only times there have been tax cuts in recent years have been when we have been involved in government.
As well as bringing in the business tax cuts this year – the first reduction in business taxes in nearly 20 years – I was also Minister of Revenue when the National/United Government cut personal taxes in the mid 1990s – the last time we had a personal tax cut.
I must say that the recent attempts by both Labour and National to appear tax sympathetic leave me cold.
Both have weak records when it comes to personal taxes.
Labour's first act in government after 1999 was to raise the top tax rate, and National's last tax efforts were over a decade ago when it abandoned stage two of the 1996 tax cut programme agreed with United, to enable it to go into coalition with New Zealand First.
Yet listening to both today one could be forgiven for thinking these are keen tax cut parties, with a clear ongoing agenda for change.
The blunt truth is neither can be trusted to deliver meaningful tax cuts, if left to their own devices.
Both need the pressure of UnitedFuture on tax issues before they will budge, because we are the only party with a consistent record of cutting taxes whenever we get the opportunity.
That will be as true next year as it has been over the last year as we continue to work, in this Parliament and the next, with this government and the next, to be that niggardly thorn in the side, to ensure tax reform is a high priority for government action.
At the same time, we want to see New Zealanders encouraged to save for their futures, which is why we have been such strong supporters of the KiwiSaver scheme.
The beauty of KiwiSaver is that it is a voluntary savings scheme, which is why I believe it will succeed, unlike the two previous attempts to impose compulsory savings schemes on New Zealanders.
However, in the longer term, when KiwiSaver attracts the support of the majority of the workforce, it is UnitedFuture's firm view that we should look to converting it to a compulsory scheme, and allowing future KiwiSaver contributions to be offset against personal income tax levels.
To describe UnitedFuture's unique role in the New Zealand political environment, let me recall the famous words of the great Irish poet, William Butler Yeats writing in the first third of the 20th century:
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Well, contrary to Yeats' pessimism, we are the party that makes the centre hold, and that promises dignity, respect and conviction in all that we do.
This year alone, we are the party that has:
• Brought about the first cut in the business tax rate in 20 years;
• Made all personal and corporate donations to charity tax deductible;
• Extended daylight saving hours by three weeks;
• Introduced legislation to increase the minimum driving age to 16 years;
• Led the campaign for a code of conduct for MPs;
• Played a leading role in getting the government to back down on planned new rules for financing elections, and proposed restrictions on births, deaths and marriages data for historical; and genealogical research purposes;
• Established the task force to look at using deer, chamois and thar as a recreational hunting resource;
• Forced the government to fast track the abolition of the outdated law on sedition.
By this time next year, the 2008 general election will be behind us.
Labour still faces an uphill battle to win the fourth term in office it is so desperately seeking, with the odds continuing to favour National.
However, Labour will not surrender office lightly, and, over the next year National will have to show far more hunger, passion and energy if it is to be successful.
National still looks too complacent and unfocused to be a credible government in waiting, while Labour still seems to be too much the same old thing voters have had for almost a decade now to appear fresh and inspiring.
It is Tweedledum and Tweedledee all over again.
However, there is another factor that could potentially distort next year's election result significantly.
If the recent Marae Digi Poll result is to be believed, the Maori Party could win six, and quite possibly all seven, Maori electorate seats, while polling about 2% of the party vote nationally.
If that occurs, it has the potential to create a significant overhang in Parliament of up to 5 seats, which would leave the Maori Party holding the balance of power, no matter which is the largest party, with all the implications that would have for the future shape and direction of government policy.
Inevitably, that would raise fresh questions about the future of the Maori seats and why Parliament has been so reluctant to act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission 21 years ago that they be abolished once MMP was introduced.
Be all that as it may, UnitedFuture will still have a role to play.
We are the one constant in MMP governments, because our cause transcends the narrow perspectives of the left and the right, so much so that by election time next year we will have been a support partner to Labour and National governments for 9 of the 12 years MMP will have been in place.
We have worked well with Labour over the last six years, and remain fully committed to our present confidence and supply agreement.
Our sensible and reliable approach, and our commitment to sound economic policies gives Labour credibility it knows it would not have if forced to rely on a collection of separatists and single issue fanatics.
At the same time, our pragmatic experience and social compassion offer National a credible and reliable partner, and would allow it to finally cut itself adrift from the clambering attention of ideological hardliners, and the religious right.
We therefore are the bridge of comfort to disillusioned Labour voters, who sense a change of government may be in the wind, but could never bring themselves to vote National, and disillusioned National voters for whom voting Labour is a step too far, but who both seek a stable and reliable direction for the country.
That is our mission as a centre party – working with either of the major parties in government, to blunt their extremes and knock off their rough edges.
We will make the centre hold – we will keep the left and the right honest and accountable – and we will ensure the interests of the community, parents and families are at the top of the national agenda.