David Farrar: The MMP referendum
It has been amusing to view the outrage from certain quarters that the Government is going to ask voters if they want to continue with MMP.
The confirmation of a referendum on MMP in 2011 should hardly have been a surprise. It was an explicit election promise in National’s 2008 manifesto. It was also an election promise in 2005, and possible previous elections before that. The referendum could hardly have been better signalled.
Some people feel very threatened by the notion of letting the people decide whether or not continue with MMP. They are calling on the Government to break its election promise, as they are seemingly worried the public will make what they consider to be the wrong decision.
Over the last decade, polls have shown the country is split around 50/50 on the merits of MMP. It only passed 54/46 in 1993 and a July 2009 UMR poll from 41% support for MMP and 40% for FPP.
Just before the 2008 election a Herald Digipoll had it 35% MMP and 39% FPP. Research NZ had 41% MMP and 46% FPP.
The one contrasting response was a Research NZ poll taken the week after the 2008 election – that found 53% support for MMP and only 35% for FPP. Having delivered a clear Government on election night for the first time, there was a temporary boost for MMP.
But that post-election poll illustrates how the referendum poses a dilemma for the Government. When Labour was in Government, and allowing the Foreign Minister to run newspaper ads attacking his own Government’s foreign trade policy, it was easy to make the case against MMP. Winston Peters stood as the prime example of everything wrong with MMP. His 5.7% of the vote was enough to not just gain him the baubles of office but make him untouchable, in three ways
Firstly he used his role as holding the balance of power to extort huge amounts of money from the Government for his pet causes. The racing industry got paid off for their support, as did the pensioners with their gold card. But those sums pale compared to the huge boosts in funding Peters got for MFAT and NZ Aid.
Secondly you had the bizarre sight of the Foreign Minister not just refusing to vote for the free trade agreement with China – New Zealand’s most important foreign policy achievement of the decade – but actually running large taxpayer funded advertisements whipping up opposition to it.
And finally you have the shameful spectacle of Labour MPs being whipped by their leadership to vote against the Privileges Committee report which concluded Peters had lied about his ignorance of the $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn towards his legal fees.
But Peters is gone, and Labour is no longer the Government. John Key is now the Prime Minister and running a popular and relatively stable Government involving for parties.
So how do the opponents of MMP run a campaign saying MMP doesn’t work, without implying that the current Government is not working?
This explains why the Prime Minister appears luke-warm on the referendum. Do you really want a year long debate about whether (say) ACT or the Maori Party have too much power for their vote share, while you are trying to govern with them?
The referendum or referenda will happen, but don’t expect to see the Government or National as a major voice in the campaigns that will spring up. I expect they will stress this is about giving the people a say (and in the July 2009 poll 64% wanted a referendum and only 26% did not) and not about saying that MMP is not working.
The other area of wariness from the Government is that they do not want the public thinking that they are focusing on “side shows” rather than the economy, schools and healthcare. This is one of the reasons why the first referendum will be in 2011 instead of 2010.
The other challenge for the Government is how to word the appropriate referenda questions. They seem to be somewhat dangerously considering having the public make a binding decision to change electoral systems, without specifying in detail what they would be changing to.
If they proceed down this path, there would be considerable protest. The second 1993 referendum asking people to choose between MMP and FPP saw an MMP Electoral Act drawn up (which is the law today) that detailed exactly how MMP would work.
So while the public will like the fact that they are getting the chance to confirm or reject MMP, I suspect some in Government will be wondering whether in hindsight the promise to have a referendum is as appealing an option in Government as it was in Opposition.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions30
Although I voted for MMP, but would now vote against it. I am now of the view it has failed because it has given activists too much influence.
I feel that while MMP is an improvement on FPP, it is not as good as it could be. STV is probably the best option for NZ. And all the mutteirng about ACT having less votes than NZ First. . . If you add ACT's party vote, and Rodney's personal votes, they far outweigh NZF's +Winston's.
I think MMP (or some form of proportional representation) needs to be used. FPP is an unfair electoral system, in the fact that parties who get less than 50% in populous vote can become the government and have the majority of power (undemocratic anyone?) - at least with MMP parties need to negotiate their involvement in a coalition government.
Views of these minor parties are relevant (sadly to say in some cases even the Greens) and contribute to better policy creation and representation of a greater New Zealand.
New Zealand would be a poorer place without proportional representation (of some ilk)
is the compilation of the lists MPs. When an electorate "sacks" a sitting MP - or votes against an electorate candidate - we don't want to see the failures reappear on the list. And back in the House. It is this arrogance on the parts of all parties that will lead me to vote against MMP. Change that and I (and many others I know) may change our minds.
I voted for MMP and would again.
Democracy is where the majority of the public gets representation. Not like FPP where one group of people, often less than 50%, get to enforce their policies on the rest.
Now. For someone to suggest that just because he disagrees with the ideas of anothe group, they should not get representation is just fundamentally wrong.
Get over it. MMP in one form or another is the only truely democratic means of democracy.
I would make one change though. It is not fair for a party to get representation with about 1% of the vote (United) and another party (NZ First) getting 3.5% (?) to get no representation.
The percentyage hurdle shoudl be set at 5% or the percentage received by the smallest party getting an electorate seat.
That would be fair.
The problem with MMP or any proportional representation is that it merely gives people like Helen Clark the opportunity to make promises then break them on the premise that 'our coalition partner insisted'. Of course people like her and Cullen thrived on that - promise the earth and delive zilch.
The current government is stable sure but as the political pendulum swings back Key will find he is more dependent on the minor parties and of course that gives them power beyond their vote share(and if it is idiots like Winston or the Greens/Communists he is forced to deal with look out)
You may not have liked Muldoon but when he said he was going to do something he did it.
Im afraid that there are far to many morons like yourself in this country, for me to vote for any but some form of proportional representation.
With out which there is a grave danger of enough white bread ignorant, reactionary fools like your self getting total power like you used to in the bad old days when national was the default government.
For your infromation, Muldoon was thew closest thing this country has EVER known to a communist dictator.
Far, far mpre than the greens, who yes have a few fresh, original ideas, and OH MY GOD, brought in things like insulation for freezing, poorly designed, New Zealand homes.
Muldoon bankrupted the country buying votes from the same dumb arse farmers who get national into power every time.
Labour may have made mistakes, but they were far far superior to ANY party national ever offered up previously.
Some of us have a few brain cells and a memory.
I see the general quality is of post on this site is sadly deluded, ignorant, and lacking in isult. I guess thats the average dumb arse kiwi for you. thank god for MMP slowing you muppets down.
As for minority interests.. whats 40 % or less of the population dictating policy to the rest? Bugger that.
Fascist pricks.
As for post above these.... I think its true that MMP could be and probably should be tweaked. Not exactly sure I like the idea of FFP in any form myself.
If you don't have proportional representation then you are left with the tyranny of the majority.
MMP needs improved but reverting back to FPP would be damaging to our democracy.
MMP is better than FPP, but it needs to be changed in some way so that the tail is wagging the dog.
The worst thing for NZ is to have someone like Winston to hold the majority parties to ransom.
Perhaps MMP could have a higher threshold for minor parties, maybe 7 - 8% before they get seats, and if they get an electorate seat but party vote is under the threshold they shouldn't be entitled to List seats..
Can anyone say what the Green Party as MMP list MPs have improved NZ standards,other than being Anti family with their supporting Clark and her sycophants over the years and every drop kick that lands in NZ without a passport ,also how they imported an Australian as co leader bearing in mind the NZ electors had no say in the selection,MMP is a blight on our Nation DUMP IT.
mmp has failed because it allows minor parties to have disproportionate influence
this coupled with a compliant/corrupt media means that, eg,the left,can implement their policies without any restraint [helen clark anyone?]
a better proportionate system,eg,stv, should be possible
How anybody can say that this Government is working is totally beyond me.
(But then again I do live in South Auckland!)
So compromise is a bad thing? Lets watch you change your tune, when National slips in the polls, and its looks like they might lose, then guess what? Labour all by themselves with no moderating voice...
you only support FPP because you think it benefits National....
I must say, having moved her from the UK recently, that the desire for a return to FPP seems a bit odd. The MMP system has its flaws, but they are flaws which stem from bad leadership. That Clark did not fulfill her promises was a sign that she was not a good leader (forgetting any emotive issues people have with her). People still voted her, or coalition partners, into power after this had become obvious. That is called democracy, whether we like it or not. That Key has managed to run a stable government under the system speaks equally about him as a leader. So the system doesn't appear to be the problem, but who you end up electing, which is a matter of voting and the people cannot blame the system for that.
Simply put, FPP creates a minority-elected government having extreme powers and it doesn't allow people to have a serious voice for opinions. You get MPs who are 'electable', rather than potentially good ministers, and people are forced to vote solely on their local candidate, which may mean they end up having no real voice. Having recently had a UK MP say to Roger Douglas 'If we were in the UK there wouldn't be a divide between the National Party and ACT. It would be part of the Conservative Party' I think people should ve very weary of what they wish for with FPP. Do you really want single parties to represent Labour-Greens and National-ACT?
The track record of MMP is far better than FFP (altho STV would be better still), e.g. the NZ voters could & did chose never to give Clark an absolute majority. The fault has been allowing every minor party a veto over improvements to STV. List candidates need to be elected in order of their % performance, NOT their party list position.
It is unfortunate and wrong that 43% of Parliament is made up of LIST MPs who do not represent the populace. As they do not represent people they ALWAYS vote along party lines. When MMP was decided it was handled unethically by determining the type of representation and then voting for MMP OR FPP - it was taken in the wrong sequence. We do not need 125 MPs - with 4.3 Million people 80 MPs representing the PEOPLE in their electorates is adequate ! The same challenge is facing the Super City - only independant candidates ( not party politicians ) should be allowed to stand.
Its called the House of REPRESENTATIVES for a reason. MPs are there to represent the public. Proportional representation is the fairest and most representative method.
If 6% of voters vote for the Greens then 6% of the members of the house of REPRESENTATIVES should be Green MPs - fullstop.
If voters don't like the candidates on a party list then don't vote for that party - simple.
There does need to be a change around the 5% threshold -
It seems unfair that NZFirst, which got more party votes than the Maori, Act, Progressive and United Future parties, got no seats while the rest did.
Maybe there should be no list seats allocated to parties that don't reach the threshold even if they get an electorate seat?
I don't think many would want to go back to FPP. It is just the best form of proportional representation that is in question , whether that be a modified MMP or STV or some other way. So the way the question(s) are put in the referendum will be very important.
I see the UK is looking at changes now
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-ponders-voting-referendum-on-poll-day-1785430.html
I agree with Mock. The "List" MPs (who would need a new name) should be chosen from the unsuccessful electorate candidates, ranked in order of the %age of their electorate vote they got. So if, for example, in the last election the ACT candidate for East Coast Bays got a higher percentage of the East Coast Bays vote than any other ACT candidate did of THEIR electorate, then he/she would be at the top of the ACT "list". So at the next election, if the ECB voters didn't like him/her, they wouldn't vote ACT.
The reason this government is not being wagged by a minor party is that ACT (who are the only party National need to govern) are sensable and reasonable (not doing a Winnie). The others are just in goverment to stop them whinning all day (that's left to Labour).
The issue with MMP is that it encourages many parties to push for what their constituency want (eg Greens/Maori), not what is best for the whole country. This can give a small, selfish voice too much power.
FPP puts the onus on the governing party to Represent the entire nation (THAT is what House of Representatives is about)
Your three arguments against Winston Peters and the influence he holds under MMP don't stand up for this reason: they could happen under any other fair electoral system. NZF theoretically could win 8 seats under FPP and hold the GOvernment to ransom in the same way - your argument is not so much one against MMP but against the way Labour and New Zealand First handled their relationship, for which they were punished in the media and at the ballot box.
For me MMP is the best balance in an electoral system. It is proportional, but allows for independents to enter parliament through an electorate seat.
As for those bemoaning list MPs as less scrutinised than electorate MPs, just how likely do they think it is the people of Mt Albert will elect a National candidate or the people of Clutha Southland a Labour one? In any electoral system where you elect 120 people at a time you will find areas where some are sneaking in in safe seats.
List MPs are like illegal emigrants, there is no place for them in a tiny country like NZ ,MMP like list or retread MPs are an expensive luxury,dump the lot.
I like that "illegal emigrants" - I am not sure if it is xeonphobic if you are criticising New Zealanders leaving without permission
How about illegal IMMIGRANTS as with retread LIST MPs sucking of the public teat MMP what a scam.
Peters was clearly the single greatest cause of low quality policy and tail wagging the dog under MMP. The stability of govt and parliament is completely different post-Peters. The contortions Clark had to perform to live with him as a govt partner were truly ridiculous. And under the 96 Bolger govt, the turnaround point in the then growing healthiness of govt accounts is directly attributable to Peters madcap spending 'initiatives'.
Contrast this with the quality of the ACT-Nat confidence and supply agreement where not one dollar of spending for pet projects was asked for by ACT - the document is totally policy focused on growth and problem solving and fully congruent with ACT's philosophical governance and policy principles. What you see is what you get.
National's negotiators made sure that ACT's policy gains were not beyond reasonable proportion to ACTs election vote. That ACT seems to have a lot of influence is simply a reflection of the drive and talent of its MPs and Ministers and that it's policy priorities are focused on what really matters.
Maybe too, having clear principles to stand on and be guided by is more than a little useful to withstand the steady trickle of seductive offers and delectations from the majority partner who naturally comes under a greater range of pressures to be politically expedient rather than stay success and outcome focused .
I will say the present Govt are people of integrity not like the Labour and Greens flakes of the previous 9 years who were more interested in the people in their parliamentary circle and voted for all their questionable and devious habits.
How I vote will depend entirely on the nature of the referendum and the question (s) asked.
If it is FPP vs MMP then I shall vote for MMP. Now that I live in the UK and see how Westminster seems to operate there is no way in hell I'd support a return to that system without much wider changes - like term limits, an upper house or a written entrenched constitution.
If it is along the lines of whether or not we should change from MMP to another PR system then I might well vote against MMP.
MMP may have delivered more representative govt, but the representatives are surely less accountable now than under FPP (look at the party list system).
Lets get the best of FPP and MMP - return to a bicameral parliament - lower house FPP, upper house fully proportional. This will deliver real checks and balances govt in NZ.
Mock, there is a place where the electoral system you mention is used, the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg - http://www.landtag-bw.de/en/16.html
"The total number of direct mandates is 70, one from each of the electoral districts. At least 50 more mandates are secondary, allotted to those candidates who, while not winning a direct mandate, obtained the largest number of votes in a district in relation to their party's other constituency candidates. This results in a minimum number of 120 Members of Parliament."
Why didn't the Royal Commissioon consider that?
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below