Dialogue: It's the political equivalent of insider trading

Questions of constitutional significance are ultimately a matter for the people, not the politicians, to decide. Thus, many who voted for MMP in 1993 held the incorrect belief that there would be another binding referendum in 2002 after the country had used the new system for two electoral terms.

Provision was made in the 1993 Electoral Act, which introduced the mechanics of an MMP system, for a select committee to review the system. Since September the MMP review committee, chaired by list MP and Speaker of the House Jonathan Hunt, has been hearing submissions as part of the review process.

While Mr Hunt urged the public to make submissions, his apparent enthusiasm for a small amount of democracy was much diluted when he later expressed the view that whether we like it or not, the committee was not going to be making a substantial change to our electoral system.

Interestingly, of the eight members of the select committee, four are list MPs, which could prove an obstacle to getting a referendum.

I suspect the politicians will give us a referendum on their proposed changes to MMP, not the substantive issue of whether we wish to keep or discard MMP.

MMP should, however, be tested by a binding referendum before the next election. Irrespective of one's opinion about the merits or otherwise of our arrangements, the voters, not the politicians, should make the decision.

There are two reasons for this.

The first concerns ethical issues. Since the 1993 referendum, there has been an unwavering and widespread public expectation that there would, indeed, be another referendum. There has been no concerted effort by MPs to correct this mistaken thinking. Perhaps they have until now been haunted by the thought of a little democracy.

It is encouraging to see the Opposition now at least trying to remedy the matter through the introduction of a private member's bill.

MPs also have a conflict of interest in the matter, which they acknowledged in 1993 by standing aside from the debate. To coin a phrase, "the fox really is now in the chicken coop," and we are seeing the political equivalent of insider trading. On reflection, this is probably unsurprising.

A natural instinct for self-preservation no doubt focuses the mind wonderfully.

And there was a wonderful demonstration of self-preservation at work in Radio New Zealand's Focus on Politics when there was a discussion about the size of Parliament.

While National and Act supported implementation of the referendum result which demanded a reduction to 99 MPs, Labour, the Alliance and the Greens argued for retention of 120 seats and were dismissive of the will of the voters.

Eighty-one per cent of voters, or 1.7 million people, voted to reduce the number of MPs. How the politicians ignore this result I cannot comprehend.

The second category dictating that voters should decide is related to performance issues. MMP has demonstrably not met the expectations outlined by its proponents. We were told, unequivocally, that MPs would be more accountable, that the people would have more power, that MPs would be better behaved, that we would all have two votes and so on.

Accountability has been weakened, the power to choose a government has been transferred to MPs and parties, and behaviour is the same as it ever was.

We don't have two votes (in the sense of equality of influence). We are allowed two ticks, only one of which determines the makeup of Parliament.

MMP has failed also because it has weakened local representation, weakened democracy through party list appointees and introduced the tyranny of the minority. When the bronze medallist determines who gets the gold, is it any wonder we have such a low dollar? Investors want to know there is a crew on the bridge who know how to steer a course based on common sense.

The only fair way to resolve this mix of issues is to put it to the voters again. At the same time, the opportunity should be taken to test voter attitudes to the question of separate Maori representation.

If Parliament does not enthusiastically endorse the idea of a binding referendum, it will further entrench negative attitudes to politicians. It is interesting to recall that the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, was calling for a binding referendum on this matter as far back as 1997.

The apparent determination of Parliament to ignore the vote to reduce the number of MPs is the sort of conduct that breeds voter hopelessness and apathy. It is tempting to develop a "what's the point, they won't take any notice anyway" attitude. New Zealanders need to recognise that we are now facing a further example of parliamentary high-handedness. However, we must not let the politicians act only in self-interest. We must demand they expedite the will of the people on this issue.

MMP was originally put to voters because politicians recognised that they had a conflict of interest and the decision should be left to the people. The same logic applies today.

Once again, Parliament should let the people decide what voting system they want. MMP was chosen by the people, so they should decide whether to keep it or scrap it.

* Peter Shirtcliffe was the founder of the Campaign for Better Government, which put the case against MMP in 1993.