The cutting edge

Opinion

The cutting edge of NZ politics

NEW Zealanders - who do not have a very high opinion of their politicians - will get a rare chance to say exactly what they think of them this year when they vote in a referendum on cut ting the number of MPs from 120 to 99.

Such is the distaste for politicians of all parties there is not much doubt about the outcome - the fewer MPs the better is probably the prevailing thinking.

That’s not to say MP numbers will automatically be cut. The referendum, forced by a petition signed by 292,000 voters - well over the lOper cent of the electorate required under the Citizens’

Initiated Referenda Act - is indicative only.

That means the government can ignore it, although Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has said her National Party would heed voters’ wishes if there was an overwhelming verdict.

But the poll, which will almost certainly be held at the same time as the general election due by November, does look likely to be another nail in the coffin of the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system used for the first time in 1996.

After less than one three-year electoral cycle, MMP has already been given a solid thumbs down by disenchanted voters who have not found it the answer to their general dissatisfaction with politics and politicians.

Monthly surveys by the research firm UMR Insight have found a clear majority of voters in favour of returning to the old Westminster-style first-past-the-post (FPP) system ever since November 1996 - only one month after its debut.

By the end of 1998, 57per cent of New Zealanders were expressing a preference for FPP, with only 32per cent wanting to hang on to MMP.

At the same time, polling showed voters were reverting to traditional preferences for the National and Labour parties who had monopolised the political scene for more than half a centu ry. The polls showed that minor parties, who gained most from MMP - as voters intended when they chose it in referendums in 1992 and 1993 - were struggling to get the sper cent of support needed to put them back in Parliament.

And a return to two-party politics seemed inevitable with news that the National Party and the free-market ACT NZ were considering a no-contest pact in several electorates this year to

increase the odds of the centre-right hold ing on to power.

This could force the Labour Party and NZ Alliance, who were already talking about a “loose coalition”, into similar arrange ments to try to ensure a centre-left victory, making this year’s election yet again a two horse race.

The MMP system is not about to be sum marily ditched. It will be used in this year’s

election and probably again in 2002. Under the Electoral Act, Parliament is required to set up a select committee in April next year to review it and decide whether another referendum on the voting system should be held. But the main concern about the mounting challenge to MMP is the threat that all the benefits it produced in 1996 in terms of a more representative Parliament will be lost.

MMP was singularly successful in delivering representation of ethnic minorities and more women in Parliament in propor tion to their numbers in the total population.

Maori MPs, for instance, represent 12.5 per cent of the total members and Pacific Islanders 2.sper cent while 30per cent of MPs are women - still short of their 50per cent of the population but a considerable improvement on their previous representa tion.

Analysis of the party list MPs - as distinct from those elected to represent constituencies - shows the prospect of a radical change to the make-up of Parliament.

If the 20 lowest-ranking list MPs were removed, Parliament would lose 11 women, including New Zealand’s first and only Asian MP, National’s Pansy Wong.

The Pacific Island community would lose its National Party representative Arthur Anae, and Maori would lose three Labour MPs as well as Alamein Kopu who was elected on the NZ Alliance list but now sits as an independent and supports the government.

The entire character of the Parliament would change and even the majority of voters who now oppose MMP would concede that a regressive move.

The backlash against MMP came as soon as the New Zealand First party (whose 17 MPs held the balance of power after the 1996 poll) chose to go into coalition with the National Party gov ernment it had campaigned vigorously against and promised to oust. This provoked immediate second thoughts about a system that could give a party with only 13per cent of the vote the power to hold a self-serving auction of its services and determine the shape of the government.

The collapse of the coalition 18 months later with NZ First going on the opposition benches and the defections of a total of 10 MPs from the parties they were elected to represent, left vot ers at first bemused and then angry.

A handful of resignations, with MPs replaced by others on their party’s list, including Gilbert Myles who in his time has belonged to just about every party in Parliament, did nothing to restore public confidence in the political system.

With every sign of a long and unedifying election campaign to come, there will be widespread sympathy for the view of a wag who warned: “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, you’ll still get a politician.” ■

David Barber

Wellington