Submissions and democracy

Big News asks (or rather, asked) "what is the point of opposing government bills when you are ignored?". The immediate cause of his complaint is the supposed lack of attention paid to submissions on recent legislation. While I can't comment on the committee process for the Care of Children Bill, having read the report on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, I think it is wrong to conclude that the committee process has been a waste of time. While the committee failed to reach a verdict, the bill was still discussed, and amendments proposed and considered. The "failure" (if it can be called that) was political, in that no solid agreement could be reached on which amendments would be pursued. But reading past the rhetoric, there's very definitely a broad agreement between all participants but National and ACT on the general direction, and its just a matter of hammering out the details. I have no doubt that a compromise will be reached; what's unusual is that it wasn't reached in advance. And that's why I don't really consider it a "failure" - if a deal had been cut in advance, the public would have had far less input, and this way there is still a lot of scope for those with opinions on the bill to lobby parties as to which sorts of amendments they should support.

Likewise, I think it is simply false to claim that the submissions were wasted or have been ignored. Those with a memory longer than a goldfish may recall that when the bill went to select committee, the government's solution was all about crown ownership and management. Now they're essentially talking trusteeship and co-management through the vehicle of Maori Reservations. This change didn't come from thin air - it came from the submissions.

This is not to say that the government has paid equal attention or given equal weight to every submission, and nor should it. As I've said before, any solution to the foreshore and seabed needs the overwhelming support of Maori if it is to stick; it therefore makes sense to pay more attention to Maori concerns, and to move further towards their desired solution than that of those who oppose the bill on redneck grounds. Those who simply thought that the government should legislate to crush Maori claims were never going to get what they wanted - both because of Labour's political bent, and because it is not a lasting solution - but their submissions did still fill a purpose, in letting Labour know how far they might be able to move.

Big News also complains that

Come the final readings of these bills, the Government flip-flops. First its off to United Future for the Families Commission, will go to NZ First to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Legislation, and to the Greens to pass the Care of Children Bill.

That's not how voters wanted MMP to pan out.

Firstly, this isn't "flip-flopping" - the government isn't changing its beliefs or goals in any way. What it is doing is shopping around for a party which shares those beliefs or goals on any particular issue. What's inconsistent about that?

Secondly, it's exactly how I wanted MMP to pan out. In a democracy, the majority should shift; a permanant coalition creates a situation where one faction wins all the time, and another loses all the time, which simply isn't healthy. It's also important to note that the government's support is far broader than Big News suggests - 80% of all bills gain broad support, and even National and ACT have backed some legislation. And if nobody backs their legislation, then it simply doesn't happen.

But underneath these two complaints about the democratic process is the real issue, which is that Big News is upset that Parliament is passing legislation he doesn't like (and I say "Parliament" because he seems to be mostly complaining about conscience votes rather than party ones). But he's just going to have to grow up and learn to live with this. Contrary to his seeming belief, "democracy" does not mean "always getting your own way, regardless of how little support you have"...

Update: Fixed link. Big News renamed his post, and in the process removed the question I was quoting him as asking.