Political funding cap devalues freedom

The worst fears that MMP has had a dampening effect on decision-making have been realised in the “consensus” on new electoral funding laws and the reported back bill on next year’s referendum.

On the former, the government has made a deal with Labour that retains some of the worst features of the notorious legislation that National successfully campaigned against.

This includes a $300,000 limit on campaign spending by so-called “promoters” or third parties. This is a little more than double that Labour’s law had imposed ($120,000).

National originally proposed no limit but this has been traded off for a higher level before party donations have to revealed. Disclosure would instead now apply only to donations above $15,000 (previously $10,000).

Other changes are equally mean-spirited and inhibiting of public debate, which suggests the writing of electoral legislation remains largely to further the self-serving needs of politicians rather than what's in the public interest.

Most lobbyists from the Left, and their parties, see danger in any form of political funding (ecxept their own). Despite a lack of hard evidence, they associate large donations with political paybacks (for their wealthier opponents).

The public has never accepted this and it is disappointing to see the revamped law is only marginally better than the one that was a major contributor to Labour’s demise in the 2008 election.

Take it or leave it MMP

The money question also undermines the final form of the MMP referendum bill. The same $300,000 “third party” cap has been imposed, presumably to limit any campaign against MMP.

It is assumed, of course, that this would be mounted by a well-funded business-backed lobby, though signs of one are not yet apparent.

A review of MMP is said to be high on the agenda for some in the event it is retained in the first referendum. This review would attempt to reduce some of MMP’s worst features, such as weak electoral candidates still getting into Parliament through the list, and a party having more electoral seats than its proportional vote.

Also, it is likely some would favour a change in the threshold, which at the last election allowed Act to get four seats because it had an electoral seat, even though it polled below the 5% mark, while New Zealand First got no seats but received more votes.

Excluded from the review are other issues where public feeling runs counter to the political establishment – the future of the Maori seats, which effectively double the vote of those on that roll compared with the general roll, and the overall number of MPs.

Pro-MMP campaigners will be keen to highlight this review in defence of a system they say should be “improved” rather than discarded.

Serving the public

Back in the days when income tax was the least contributor to the Treasury coffers, a job with government offered security and not much else.

The trade off was that many government services, such as health, education and accommodation, were also free or negligible.

Today, public servants are now the elite workforce, still with job security but also flexing their muscles as the successors to coal miners, watersiders, seafarers and freezing workers in turning their job monopolies into dollars and cents.

Infometric economist David Grimmond has crunched the numbers on work stoppages, finding that public servants, who make up 11% of the workforce, account for 45% of all strikes.

About 70% of workers in the public sector work belong to a union, compared with just 6% of their private sector counterparts.

While the term public service may signify a sense of duty, in fact, it provides an entitlement that enhances the reality of their industrial muscle: they can go on strike because they face no consequences. As Grimmond observes,

This maximises the disruptive power of strike action. The implication is that public sector workers are naturally in a strong bargaining position, a position that is further strengthened by recourse to industrial action.

By comparison, private sector workers are in a competitive environment and any direct action may imperil their jobs.

Grimmond concludes the public service needs a new set of rules similar to that used by police, who are contracted not to withdraw their services.

Perhaps more radical suggestions are needed to change the relationship of those who enter public service to reflect the need to keep government spending under control and the value of job security.

Why, for example, should public servants pay income tax, which adds greatly to administrative costs in a money-go-round. Salaries would be lower, of course, but at least they would restore the premium for those who work in the private sector.

It would also add transparency for those who pay taxes and how they’re spent.

Oscar and the King

Just as Slumdog Millionaire broke out of the pack a couple of years ago to become the toast of Hollywood, so too has another with a strong British pedigree.

The King’s Speech is an unlikely title for what is being tipped as the next Oscar winner. It is about the relationship between Prince Albert, later King George VI, and a maverick Australian speech therapist, who helped overcome a crippling royal stammer.

Both its screenwriter and director are being talked up since the premiere screening at the Toronto Film Festival.

Newsweek reveals that writer David Seidler is 73 and has nurtured the project for several decades. Much of the delay was due to King George’s wife, the Queen Mother, who agreed to let Seidler access private papers only if the story was told after her death.

She lived for another 28 years to the age of 101. Meanwhile, Seidler had to take journeyman jobs for TV until finally completing both the film script and a theatrical version.

London-based director Tom Hooper, 38, was already being noticed for his Emmy award-winning TV drama series John Adams, about the US president, before he came on the scene.

According to a Wall Street Journal profile, he has his Australian-born mother to thank for seeing the script. She had been to a reading while Seidler was developing the stage version.

The therapist, Lionel Logue, is played by Geoffrey Rush, who will be remembered for his role as another Australian eccentric in Shine, while Colin Firth is apparently impressive as King George VI.