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