Dialogue: How three changes can make MMP effective

The deadline looms for public submissions to Parliament's review of MMP. TERRY DUNLEAVY* suggests ways to produce more effective government.

Every adult New Zealander concerned about the governance of our country should be aware that submissions to Parliament's special MMP review select committee close on the last day of this month.

Those who are not completely happy with the MMP system, now in its second three-year term, have a duty to convey their views in writing to the committee.

Realistically, the options seem confined to the following:

Retention of the status quo (MMP).

Return to the former first past the post system (FPP).

A switch to the preferential system so long in use in Australia.

A switch to the single transferable vote (STV) system now being suggested in some areas of local government.

Modification of the MMP system.

Consider first what seem to be the popular criticisms of the present MMP formula.

It is said to create the "tyranny of the minority," a term applied curiously enough many years ago by Jim Anderton when, as president of the Labour Party, he spoke out against proportional representation.

That tyranny arises when small parties whose votes are needed to sustain a larger mainstream party in government exert influence disproportionate to their popular voting support, as applied by New Zealand First in the first MMP term, and now more subtly by the Alliance and the Greens.

Critics also say that MMP creates a larger Parliament than is necessary, or than a small country can afford.

There is a sound case for a Parliament of 120 members. Increasingly, Parliament is being brought closer to the people through the select committee system.

Customarily, every major piece of legislation is referred to one of the many House select committees for close examination and to let citizens and interest groups affected make submissions on suggested additions or amendments to, or deletions from, the bill.

This has been a major advance in applied democracy in New Zealand. Adequate and fully representative membership of the many standing select committees requires a sufficient pool of MPs.

Recent experience has shown that 120 is probably the minimum size for that pool.

As for the cost, the actual difference in dollar terms between 120 MPs and the suggested smaller number of 99 or 100 is a relative drop in the bucket of overall Government expenditure.

Critics also say that MMP equates one constituency seat to 5 per cent of the party vote, enabling some 60-odd voters in Tauranga to not only return Winston Peters but to inflict five of his mates on the rest of the country.

Further, it is said to encourage party-hopping. Changing sides mid-term is not exactly new. Before MMP, Mr Anderton left Labour to found New Labour, and Peter Dunne and others formed United.

But they were constituency members, well aware that they would answer to their electorates at the next election.

The party-hopping introduced by Alamein Kopu, Tau Henare and others in the first MMP term had a more significant aspect.

Mrs Kopu and Mr Henare's confederates were MPs voted in on a party list, owing their first loyalty to the party which put them into the House.

If a party is to exert any discipline - and, in political terms, discipline is a form of enforced loyalty essential to certainty in pursuance of party policy - it must have the power to demand the resignation of a disaffected list MP appointee and install a more loyal replacement.

If, as it seems, there is no overwhelming demand for a return to FPP, the other proportional representation options must be examined.

The Australian preferential system is probably too close to FPP and not sufficiently proportional as to warrant much consideration. Besides, it's Australian.

The single transferable vote system, which is one of the parliamentary planks on which the Irish economic miracle has been built, is generally favoured by those who take the trouble to study the niceties of a practical form of proportionally representative government.

It's not that it's too sophisticated for the average Kiwi to understand. It's just that he or she probably wouldn't give a damn.

What ought to be encouraged are the moves in several local body areas to introduce STV for the election of their councillors. This is a section of our body politic where some institutional change has long been overdue.

Once New Zealanders have had the experience of STV at the local level, and come to understand it, they might more readily embrace it for the country's Parliament.

So that leaves us considering what changes we can make to MMP. There should be three main changes.

These would involve applying the proportionality of the list vote only to the list seats in Parliament, and not to the whole 120 seats; discontinuing the mechanism which allows one constituency seat to equate to 5 per cent of the list vote; and allowing a party to replace a dissident list MP with its next listed unsuccessful candidate.

Reforms such as these will increase the influence and value of constituency members. Small parties will not be excluded but their numbers and consequent influence will be reduced to equate with their level of popular support.

The result may well benefit the two traditional mainstream parties, Labour and National, but, for the foreseeable future, any government will be led by one or other.

We'll get more stability, and hopefully more progress, if the governing lead party is able to get on with the job it was elected to do without too much distraction from the small terriers nipping at its heels.

* Terry Dunleavy is chairman of Bluegreens Northern, which advises the National Party on environmental, cultural and heritage issues.