collide over

Opinion

Nzmps

Mmp

NEW Zealand’s new Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system of voting, introduced for the first time at the 1996 general election, has not yet been through a single three-year electoral term. But calls to get rid of it are growing increasingly loud.

Opinion polls show voters, who chose it to replace the old Westminster-style first-part-the post system at a referendum in 1993, would have changed their minds long ago, given the chance.

Sadly, MMP - which resulted from widespread dissatisfaction with politics generally and politicians in particular - has not proved the wonder cure some thought. The standard of parliamen tary debate is not better, consensus politics remains a fond dream and the behaviour of politicians has not miraculously improved.

But MMP did change the shape of Parliament for the better, ending its traditional domination by white middle-aged males and giving the country a body more accurately reflecting the popula tion mix. It produced a record number of women and Maori MPs, three Pacific Island representatives and for the first time a politi cian of Asian descent.

For this reason alone, it would be a mistake to ditch it sum marily and revert to the old system or adopt another version of proportional representation that would dilute the healthy diversifi cation of Parliament.

Yet, although the next election will have to be held under MMP rules, it looks certain that a referendum to change it is not too far off.

The political parties, each with their own axes to grind, are already lobbying heavily. Politicians, long comfortable with a two-party dominance of Parliament who conceded ownership of the electoral system to voters in 1993, are working assiduously to reassert control for themselves. MMP is firmly back on the politi cal agenda.

It has to be said the system did not get away to a good start.

One of the main reasons for public dissatisfaction with MMP was the New Zealand First party’s decision after the 1996 election to go into coalition with the National Party government it had vowed

to oust. This upset many supporters who had believed leader Winston Peters’ campaign call that the only way to get rid of National was to vote for NZ First.

Many other voters were shocked that a party with only 13 per cent of the vote had the balance of power and could determine the next government - a classic case of the tail wagging that dog and far from the more democratic system they thought they had select ed.

As time passed, with a number of the new MPs showing they were not worthy of the confidence voters had in them, NZ First’s popularity fell in direct proportion to rising dissatisfaction with the voting system.

Although the junior coalition partner had undoubtedly checked the excesses past majority governments had been prone to, the legislature appeared paralysed. As the stresses and strains increased, the coalition eventually collapsed in august following a showdown between Prime Minister Jenny Shipley and Peters.

At this stage, 10 MPs - one in 12 of the total - had abandoned the parties in whose colours they were elected less than two years earlier and were sitting in Parliament as independents. This despite the fact most of them were not directly elected by voters but had got their seats under the MMP system on party lists.

Little wonder, perhaps, that more than a quarter of a million New Zealanders had by then signed a petition calling for the num ber of MPs to be cut from 120 to 99. Such was the feeling, the number would probably have doubled had it called for the aboli tion of parliament.

Shipley’s National Party, tainted by sharing power with the inept and unpopular NZ First (now split in two) after governing on its own for most of the last 50 years, led the drive for dumping

Mmp.

The Labour Party joined it in backing instead the so-called Supplementary Member (SM) system, which is partly proportion al, not wholly like MMP.

The problem with this, political analysts said, was that it would again favour the National and Labour parties. Thus, their concern is clearly not with achieving good, stable government in line with voters’ intentions (as they profess) but with blatant self-interest.

Winston Peters’ opposition to change stems, of course, from the same self-interest perspective. Without proportional represen tation his party would have won only six seats, not 17, at the 1996 election. MMP is all that can lead him to hope he will get more than a handful of seats at the next one.

The National Party-NZ First coalition soured voters’ percep tion of MMP from the start, but the country was in uncharted waters and it was inevitable there would be teething problems.

But Maori and Pacific Island MPs, who along with women, most risk losing their new-found political clout by a change, say it is too early to discard it Into the political waste-bin of history.

The Labour Party and the left-wing NZ Alliance have learned their lesson and are now prepared to cooperate in a future coali tion given the chance. The National Party and the free-market ACT NZ are more ideologically suited partners than the ill-fated National-NZ First pairing.

It should not be forgotten that Social Credit took 20 per cent of the vote in 1981 but won only two seats. The New Zealand Party’s 12 per cent in 1984 did not produce a single MP under the old sys tem. MMP was designed to right these inequities and deserves a fair chance to show its virtues. ■

David Barber

Weuingtoh