Sometime later this year New Zealanders will go to the polls to vote
in their second election under the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) electoral
system. This article examines how New Zealand came to radically change
it's electoral system, why New Zealanders are so now dissatisfied with
the system, and prospects for further electoral reform.
In 1996 New Zealand's first general election under MMP took place. This
system is radically different to the 'first-past-the-post' (FPP) system
it replaced. Voters are now make two voting decisions, first they decide
which party they wish to receive the most representation in Parliament,
they indicate this choice by casting their 'party vote' for this party.
Next they decide which local candidate they would prefer to be their local
MP and cast their 'electorate vote' accordingly. The local MP in each
electorate is determined on the same basis as before, the candidate with
a plurality of votes is elected. However Parliament is made up not only
of 'electorate MPs' but also 'list MPs' who are elected from party lists
in order to ensure that each party is represented in proportion to the
total number of party votes it received nationwide. So if a party receives
50% of the party votes, it is entitled to 60 seats in the 120-seat parliament.
If it has won 40 electorates it will get 20 list MPs, if it won no electorates,
it would get 60 list MPs. At the next election the balance between list
and electorate MPs is 66 electorate MPs and 54 list MPs.
New Zealand electors in a two-stage referendum process chose the new
electoral system. In September 1992 New Zealanders were asked first, if
they wanted to change the electoral system, and second, if the system
were to be changed which of four systems would they prefer. Over 55% of
electors voted in the referendum, with 85% voting for a change in the
system and 71% choosing MMP. In the second referendum, voters were given
a straight choice between retaining 'first-past-the-post' and changing
to MMP: 54% of electors voted for change.
Dissatisfaction with the major parties provided much of the impetus
for the move to MMP. This discontent began to ferment during the period
of the Fourth Labour government, 1984-1990. Voter dissatisfaction with
Labour stemmed from both the nature of the reforms it implemented and
the pace with which it went about its program of reform. While National
won the 1990 election decisively not long after the election it became
clear that the new government was following a very similar path to its
predecessor. Going into the election National had kept its economic policy
vague. While National's manifesto commitments may have been ambiguous
(Boston 1991), Vowles and Aimer (1993, 80) note that for most voters National's
policies, especially when viewed in light of its scathing attacks on Labour,
suggested some quite significant differences from Labour. The actions
of the National government between 1990-1993 embedded a sense of mistrust
of parties even more deeply in the New Zealand political culture (Vowles
et al. 1995, 132). It was in this climate of distrust for the main political
parties that the support for electoral system change came to a head.
Disenchantment: the 1996 election and the rise of NZF
On 12 October 1996 New Zealand returned its first parliament elected
under MMP. This parliament was initially made up of six parties: the two
old parties National and Labour; two parties which had been represented
in the 1993-1996 Parliament, the Alliance (a coalition of NewLabour, the
Green Party of New Zealand/Aotearoa, Mana Motuhake, the Democrats and
the Liberals) and New Zealand First (NZF); and two new parties, United
and Act. A survey conducted immediately after this election found that
a clear majority of voters were at least fairly satisfied with the way
democracy works in New Zealand. However by July 1998, as Table 1 shows,
the situation had changed significantly with a majority of respondents
now expressing dissatisfaction with the democratic process.
Table 1. Satisfaction with the way democracy works
|
1996 Election
|
July 1998 |
Very Satisfied |
19%
|
4% |
Fairly satisfied |
54%
|
41% |
Not very satisfied |
24%
|
36% |
Not at all satisfied |
7%
|
19% |
Sample Size |
4063
|
535 |
In the same survey respondents showed very little support for retaining
MMP. While there was not a majority in favor of dumping MMP, only 5% of
respondents were committed to keeping it. To understand this dramatic
change in voter sentiment it is necessary to look at some of the events
that have occurred since 12 October 1996.
Table 2. Support for MMP
Get rid of MMP |
42%
|
Keep MMP |
5%
|
Too soon to tell |
47%
|
Don't Know |
5%
|
Sample Size |
535
|
Much of the explanation lies with the formation of the first MMP coalition
government. Throughout the election campaign it appeared that New Zealand
had developed a bipolar party system. On the right were National, Act and
the Christian Coalition (described by NZF leader Winston Peters as the toxic
trio). On the left Labour, NZF and the Alliance (tagged by the incumbent
National Prime Minister Jim Bolger as the gloom gang). Some commentators
noted that Winston Peters had not ruled out a coalition with anyone, but
this was dismissed by most as the kind of technicality in which Peters reveled.
Given the bad blood between Peters and Bolger, how could it be taken seriously?
Peters had been a cabinet Minister in Bolger's first ministry but had been
sacked from cabinet and stormed out of the party. The NZF campaign focussed
almost exclusively on attacking National. Survey results show that most
NZF voters believed they were voting against National, and most wanted a
coalition with Labour. Given this background it is not hard to imagine the
outrage felt by many voters when NZF after a six week negotiation process
(which in itself tested many voters patience with the new electoral system)
announced it would be going into government with National.
Table 3. Composition of Parliament following 1996 Election
|
Governing Parties |
Government Supporting Parties |
Opposition Parties |
Parties |
National |
44 |
Act |
8 |
Labour |
37 |
NZF |
17 |
United |
1 |
Alliance |
13 |
Total |
|
61 |
|
9 |
|
50 |
The level of disenchantment with the coalition is clear from Table 4.
When respondents were asked to rate their approval of the National-NZF
coalition only 15% approved, while nearly three-quarters of voters disapproved.
Table 4. Approval of coalition government
Strongly approve |
2%
|
Approve |
13%
|
Neither |
10%
|
Disapprove |
25%
|
Strongly disapprove |
49%
|
Don't know |
2%
|
Sample Size |
535
|