Our own Pearl Harbour?
December 7, 2011, was the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack that launched America into the Second World War. It was indeed a big deal for every American. But it’s also a big deal for New Zealand, because it's the day the newly elected National Government started with an unannounced policy implementation for which it sought no mandate, even before the new Parliament has been assembled.
‘Charter schools’, bulk funding in drag, a long held ACT Party policy, has been foisted on low decile schools in south Auckland and Christchurch. What’s more, the timing of this announcement is such, that with school about to finish for the year, the change over will be all done and dusted before the new year commences.
My chief concern is the manner in which the changes – major changes to our school system - have been implemented. This completely autocratic style of leadership is precisely what MMP was supposed to prevent. My guess is the teaching unions will ban their members from working at such schools, bringing the government and unions into another unwanted conflict, in which the students and their parents become, yet again, pawns in the game.
As I write this, there is some uncertainty as to the final numbers for each party in the parliamentary makeup. National may fall from an election night absolute majority of two seats to retaining only a one seat majority, even with Banks (ACT) and Dunne (United Future) as coalition partners. It is not at all certain the Maori Party huis will allow them to offer any arrangement with National, given ACT’s policy position, which National has already adopted.
I have long held the view that neither Labour nor National wanted to win the election, in view of the massive economic difficulties facing New Zealand. Goff was clearly mortified at having to defend raising the retirement age and introducing capital gains tax, which he knew would cost Labour the election. Key knew the voters would reluctantly accept partial privatisation, provided he reassured them our public assets would not be controlled by off-shore interests but remain under our control. Ever heard of ‘cornerstone shareholding’? It simply means that not all shareholders are equal. Or, in other words, the scrip the average Kiwi investor will be offered will have no voting rights. It’s the off-shore institutional investors that have all the control. We just get to guarantee their debts. The taxpayer is screwed yet again!
The question on everyone’s lips is, how deep is the hole we’re in? Not as deep as Greece or Italy, that’s for sure, but deep enough to worry the average thinking person. So how does the government propose to deal with the problem, other than tax its way back to a budget surplus? It’s already telling us, a week after the election, it might remove a further $800 million from the budget. Where’s this going to come from, and what mandate did National receive to make such deep cuts?
I mistakenly thought we lived in a country that prided itself on trying to gain a consensus about what it is we should do when it comes to the big questions, like, is your bank a nice place and do trees die of old age? It appears Parliament has become divided into irreconcilable philosophical enclaves, which have captured persons of good intent and turned them into uncaring monsters.
Low Voter Turnout?
But what about the low voter turnout? I believe it was the National vote that was primarily affected, not Labour. Key refuses to acknowledge much of National’s core support from the 2008 election has been eroded by a change in personal circumstances since that time. Many have lost their employment, their life savings and investments, and, in some cases, their homes. Significantly, they blame a lack of government intervention as the principal cause for their current distress. Most didn’t vote against National at this election, they just didn’t vote. This will change in 2014, after their families' circumstances decline even further, as National’s austerity measures begin to marginalise them.
Where to next?
NZ First will be the big winner in all of this. Why? The ‘baby boomers’ who have already retired suddenly realised they must act to protect what’s left of their declining standard of living, and those yet to retire must ensure they do so at an age when they have some ‘golden years’ left. The retirees realise that had it not been for NZ First, the retirement age would have been raised to 70 – by lunchtime, and the pension reduced even further, by slashing essential rebates and supplementary payments.
This election has been a watershed event. Even though, at the time of writing, National has an overall majority in Parliament, that could change as the world economy deteriorates and new political realities force a realignment of alliances within the House. MMP allows this to happen without the instability of political stalemate and new elections that FPP would inevitably cause. Perhaps it’s time the politicians were forced to look at ways in which they could serve the nation as one New Zealand, and leave behind the philosophical baggage of ‘them and us’ that has so blighted this country for nearly a century.