In my view, David Seymour is right on the mark with
this proposal.
Any Party entering into a collation agreement with another Party which holds the majority of seats, essentially relegates itself to a “poodle partner”.
Once a Party locks into “collective responsibility”, it is
bound to support all policies emanating for the Executive i.e., Cabinet of the
government to which it has signed up to support.
A “confidence & supply” agreement means that the minor
Party can vote against the major Party on any policies.
If this throws the governing Party into losing support in
the House for its policies and the Opposition decides to table a vote of “No
Confidence”, that is when the minor partner with a Confidence & Supply
agreement, steps up to support the Government.
Similar rules applies when budget time arrives and “supply”
i.e., money for governance, is on the table.
In 1994/5 I formed the first political party under MMP -
Right of Centre (predicated on my economics of protecting private property as
the cornerstone of private sector commerce) and entered the first ever MMP coalition
agreement with National, to hold the balance of power for 9 months until United
Party was consummated.
The Confidence & Supply agreement between National and
RoC, overrode the animosity between Rt Hon Jim Bolger and
me. National was safe.
With ACT, unlike National, presenting gutsy unequivocal
policies such as below, the best way for ACT to get traction on these policies,
is from a position of “confidence & supply” coalition.
Consider ACT’s latest policy pledges:
“There is nothing in any of
the three Treaty articles that suggests Māori should have special rights above
other New Zealanders. The Treaty itself guarantees that “all the ordinary
people of New Zealand...have the same rights and duties of citizenship.” All
New Zealanders have a basic human right to be treated equally under the law and
with equal political worth. One person, one vote.
ACT would legislate that the
principles of the Treaty are based on what the Treaty actually says, in
contrast with recent revisionist interpretations of the Treaty’s principles,
through a Treaty Principles Act and inviting citizens to ratify it.
National is nowhere near this courageous stand against the usurpation of New Zealander’s rights, promulgated by radically racist elements.
As we all know, the Labour-NZ First Government commissioned
‘He Puapua’, which has led to co-government being implemented across numerous
areas of government. For example, healthcare is now being prioritised according
to racial identity and not the actual needs of individual patients.
ACT says it would repeal recent laws that give different
rights based on ethnicity, such as the Three Waters legislation, local
government legislation, and elements of health legislation.
Try finding an unequivocal statement from National, on this?
Finally, in an earlier blog I articulated a view that,
Mandarins were ruling while MPs were fooling about. (1) I’m
delighted to read that ACT too, has reached a similar conclusion.
“The public service is meant
to serve all New Zealanders, but even administration and service delivery has
become focussed on race. This isn’t a true focus on equity, serving citizens
based on their measured need rather than their ancestry is.
ACT would reorientate the
public service towards a focus on equal opportunity and need according to
robust statistical evidence instead of racial targeting, along with devolution
and choice for all.
I see no signs that National has any cognisance of this
massive problem: i.e., a public service which over time (in my assessment) has
been has become a virtually political party stacked with latent disciples of
Fabianism.
It is immensely encouraging that ACT reached its assessment
of the Public Service and proposes a remedy.
In my view, ACT will have more power to achieve its goals via a “confidence & supply” coalition, than it would have as a “poodle partner” of a government.
Ross Meurant. BA MPP Former
police inspector. Former Member of
Parliament. Former Diplomatic
Representative of a foreign country.
4 comments:
I agree Ross.
If we want the next government to reverse the racist and divisive policies enacted by the Left bloc then ACT need to maintain their independence from a woke, wet national Party.
They need leverage to ensure real change happens. If they sign up for collective responsibility then National holds the whip hand and not much will change.
The next government is as much about putting National on notice that it no longer is the automatic choice for those on the Right and that it will have to negotiate on every major issue.
National gives little to enthuse over about their ideological stance on Zero Carbon by 2050. 27 years away is "can kicking" on steroids and is only a wiggle room position. National has negated to debate the serious misinformation about methane . The Holy Grail - IPCC have categorically stated that methane has been overstated in modelling and Global warming statements by 300-400%. If National believe in Carbon Zero as per IPCC and Paris Accord et el then why does Mr Luxton gabble on about carbon zero and a huge percentage of the population being wrong therefore just deniers and sceptics.
ACT have a sensible and pragmatic approach to the climate debate without alienating voters and need to be in a strong Government position after the election
My wish, and it is possible that after the election National will be begging the Act party for a confidence and suppy arrangement.
After watching last night's effort by Chris Luxon it appears and confirms the two have more in common than not.
As a result, many more National supporters will be ticking the Act box come the Election.
To "mudbayripper"- sorry those votes will go the NZFirst - there are many -
[1]- National Party supporters who do not like ACT
[2] - who will be disfranchised Labour supports who will vote NZ First
[3] - of the undecided will either go with the Greens or "not vote at all".
My "prediction" based on events up to now and after last night - that if Chris Luxon "does grow the essential hairy ones", he will be a one term PM.
Post a Comment