Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s statement that he would hold a referendum on MMP if his government is re-elected is not a need based on any demand.

It is an admission of MMP leadership failure and a cynical distraction from the real problems his government is facing.

But his sudden enthusiasm for a referendum arises from a party that has never wanted MMP. National has always seen itself as the ``natural party’’ of government which benefited from the old FPP system, one that delivered them power with a minority of the vote.

Last year, Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith said he would ``like the MMP system to be vanquished.’’ This was particularly rich coming from someone who has for years gerrymandered the Epsom seat, allowing David Seymour to carry Act New Zealand into Parliament, and who is a List MP himself.

Despite disquiet about aspects of MMP, both major parties have resisted reforms to an eminently flexible electoral system.

The most notorious example came after a wide-ranging and in-depth review of the system by the Electoral Commission.This followed the referendum on MMP in 2011 when voters gave it the thumbs-up.

Among other items, the Commission recommended lowering the threshold from 5% to 4% and abolishing the one-electorate rule that Minister Goldsmith had used to manipulate the vote in the Epsom seat.

When the Labour opposition asked then National Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, if she would implement the Commission’s recommendations, she simply stood up Parliament and said, ``No.’’

Labour then quietly forgot all about it, even when they had an absolute majority in 2020.

MMP is not to blame for the current coalition’s problems and the declining state of the country. Prime ministerial ineptitude has much to do with it, plus levels of arrogance amongst some of his ministers.

Yet Mr Luxon also wants to tie an MMP referendum to his bid for four-year parliamentary terms. He clearly is out of touch with the negative mood of the electorate which would almost certainly keep MMP and reject four-yearly terms.

Luxon promised a referendum on the parliamentary term for this year’s election, but this was quietly dropped when National realised they would be on a hiding to nothing on this issue.

There is a case for improving MMP but perhaps Mr Luxon does not know how or does not want to know how. MMP can be modified to changing circumstances and needs.

Apart from the Electoral Commission’s 2012 recommendations, we could look overseas and see how different MMP systems work there.

One of the old hoary criticisms of MMP is that list MPs ``are not elected’’ but ``appointed.’’ As if electorate MPs are not also ``appointed’’ by their parties. As if the majority of list candidates do not campaign for their parties in electorates.

This criticism harks back to the ludicrous anti-MMP campaign in 1993, backed by the National Party, in which list MPs were shown as people blundering about with brown paper bags over their heads.

In any case, other MMP systems include open lists which allow voters to choose individuals.This helps to counter a party’s attempts to oust members who upset party hierarchies but who are popular with voters.

An open list here may well have prevented Dunedin’s National MP Michael Woodhouse being dumped by his own party after being placed too low on their list in 2023. MMP can be tuned to suit.

The big difference between our MMP system and those elsewhere is the presence of separate Māori seats. When the Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended MMP 40 years ago, it also recommended that the Māori seats be relinquished but balanced by Māori parties, for several elections, not being subject to any threshold.

This would allow Māori parties to develop presence, mana and policies before meeting the general threshold. The Commission recommended this at 4%, but was changed to 5% by the National government not long before the MMP-winning referendum of 1993.

It has long been declared that only Māori can decide whether or not the Māori seats should remain. That means close to forever, especially when Te Pāti Māori campaigns for more people to join the separate Māori roll so that more Māori seats may be created.

But have Māori been shooting themselves in the foot? The parties on the right rarely bother contesting the Māori seats and the current coalition is not exactly going out of their way to meet many Māori needs.

But if there was only one electoral roll, all parties, Māori or not, would have to compete for Māori votes.

The separatism of segregated seats can be electoral poison. As Māori affairs journalist, Aaron Smale, has pointed out, the geographical scale of Māori electorates like Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Te Tai Tonga effectively corral large numbers of Māori voters in a kind of ``passive version’’ of gerrymandering.

When attacks on MMP occur, look closely at who wants to shoot the electoral messenger and why. Ask why MMP’s opponents do not want to improve the system, but wish to return to old ways that just gives them more power and control, and voters less choice.

 

Dr Philip Temple ONZM was a campaigner for MMP leading to the binding referendum in 1993. He was given a Wallace Award by the Electoral Commission for his ‘significant contribution to public understanding of electoral matters. This is a revamped and updated version of an article he wrote for the ODT two years ago.