Mike Moore argues that MMP is one among a number of constitutionally important issues that need to be considered in concert.
I didn't support MMP when it was introduced, saying it would not be the dog that wagged the tail, but what's under the dog's tail that would wag the body politic.
Recently, we have seen this: one small MP from a small party promises to throw his toys out of the cot if Maori get special representation in Auckland.
The Greens promised to spit the dummy if there was no support for an unworkable anti-smacking Bill, so the past government caved in.
Winston Peters swears before an election he will not join National in government, but does.
Jim Anderton crusades against closer economic relations with Australia, GST, the export of education, a floating dollar, an independent central bank, and then joins a government where those issues are not negotiable.
Peter Dunne, a minster in a Labour-led government before an election, says he will join with National after the election, keeps his job and privileges, and jumps ship without getting his feet wet or losing a day's pay.
People thought MMP would mean more transparent politics and they got more politics and 20% more MPs.
Sordid deals are always done after the election.
Anything can happen, and does.
Whatever it takes to form a government.
Who would have ever thought that Labour would accept Mr Peters, who made his name attacking foreigners, as our foreign minister? Who would have thought National would get into bed with Maori sovereignty types? In both cases, these partners stood for something each major party, for generations, was opposed to.
Who really believes that Mr Anderton or Mr Dunne would be in Parliament in the first instance, had they not been originally elected under a Labour ticket?
The same situation applies to Mr Peters, who had the grace to stand down and face a by-election.
Now, because both Mr Anderton and Mr Dunne claim to lead parties, they get to spend a million dollars over a three-year period to service their parties and get themselves elected.
It's all very cynical.
Labour won't put up a fight against Mr Anderton, and National does not fight Mr Dunne.
National told its voters to back Act's Richard Prebble in Wellington Central, and Labour (gasp) told its voters to back National in Epsom, to stop Act's Rodney Hide.
All this brings out the worst in politicians. MMP has increased diversity in Parliament.
But it would now be suicide for a major party not to select or to de-select members from the ethnic communities.
The public would punish them.
Electorate MPs have to listen to and suck-up to local people to survive; list MPs have only to suck-up to the party bosses.
How do you, the voters, sack some of these people who, having lost their seats, are now still in Parliament?
List MPs have the inside running for pre-selection for electorate seats and vice versa.
This works against parties regenerating.
I like the idea of MPs being accountable to local party committees.
It's good they have to go to local schools, visit Plunket, and show respect to ordinary people.
Big party monopoly is bad, too.
Ten percent of the people believe Elvis is alive; perhaps that should be the threshold, not 5%, to get elected.
Maybe we could cut our number of MPs down from 120 to 100 and have 10 elected on a proportional basis.
There's more than just two options.
Or, do we have a referendum to have a referendum to decide which options to have a referendum on?
The Chinese Foreign Minister, Chou En Lai, was asked what he thought of the French Revolution.
He said it was too early to tell.
Maybe it's too early to tell about MMP.
A decision to reject or keep MMP is a big nation-changing event.
I don't think this should be made in isolation of other issues of constitutional importance.
We New Zealanders tend to make quick, ad hoc decisions that seem small but together are important.
Abolishing or reinstating honours systems, rejecting the Privy Council, introducing a semi-federal system for Auckland, abolishing QCs and then bring them back, deciding to be a bicultural nation not multicultural, and seeing the Treaty go from being a fraud to a holy document in one lifetime.
These are not small issues.
Decisions on them have consequences.
Early last year, I suggested a predetermined process whereby all these issues could be bundled together, and then, over the span of more than one parliament, when passions have cooled, these issues could be framed within a constitutional convention.
From that process the people could decide on a full New Zealand constitution.
I was swamped by a wave of indifference, a tsunami of apathy.
When do we fix the roof?
When it's sunny or when it's raining? Our constitutional arrangements are like the leaky home syndrome.
There is systemic failure and no-one will take responsibility for the big picture. - Mike Moore.
