John Armstrong: National resists playing games with MMP referendum

Justice Minister Simon Power has set up a no-nonsense, two-step system to gauge public wishes on MMP. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Constitutional fair play has prevailed. So far, National has resisted the temptation to skew its promised referendum on MMP to get the result it wants.

There was certainly plenty of room for mischief-making on National's part when it came to the procedure by which New Zealanders will have their say on retaining or ditching the mixed-member proportional system.

National could have rushed things with little if any public consultation and opted to hold just one referendum pitting MMP against the most talked-about alternative, the supplementary member system.

Alarm bells had started ringing in the minds of MMP supporters over National's lack of specificity regarding the timetable and format it was planning to fulfil its promise. Those bells rang louder after the Prime Minister made favourable noises about supplementary member, which flatters in being partly proportional when in actuality it is predominantly first-past-the-post.

Yesterday's announcement that there will be two referendums held over two general elections has substantially eased those concerns.

Justice Minister Simon Power is to be commended for getting the Cabinet to accept his recommendation of a two-stage process which will see referendums at the 2011 and 2014 elections before any new electoral system is introduced at the 2017 election.

Power's format sensibly replicates the two-step process of the early 1990s which had few critics and which resulted in the introduction of MMP.

The one difference is that the two earlier referendums were held little more than a year apart. Power's timetable delays the introduction of any new electoral system by a further three years.

No doubt some of his colleagues would have preferred a compressed timetable with the first referendum, which will indicate whether people actually want a change and the preferred alternative, being held late next year and the second referendum, which will see MMP in a straight battle with the preferred alternative, being held at the 2011 election.

The significance of the Cabinet's decision is in giving MMP two lifelines. If people do not want a change, the second referendum will simply not be held. If a majority opt for change in the first referendum, MMP will get a further opportunity to head off the challenger in the second.

The two-step process may be critical. The first referendum in 1992 produced an overwhelming vote for change from the incumbent first-past-the-post system. The binding referendum the following year witnessed a much closer contest with MMP just scraping in.

History thus suggests that the odds are weighted in favour of the the incumbent system when push comes to shove.

Furthermore, public angst with MMP is nowhere near as strong as was the case with first-past-the-post in the early 1990s. Where unhappiness is deepest is among older voters. The odds on MMP's survival thus further rise the longer it is in place.

Opponents of MMP realise this. Which is why anti-MMP campaigner Peter Shirtcliffe is complaining that Power is dragging things out unnecessarily. Power will take that criticism as a sign he has got the timetable about right.

Concern lingers in the MMP camp that National still has scope to manipulate the result through the wording of referendum questions and the electoral systems it puts up as alternatives.

Promoting the supplementary member system to voters would be a lot easier, for example, if sold on the basis of being a suitable compromise between MMP and first-past-the-post which could operate with a much smaller Parliament. Cutting the number of MPs is always a winner with the public - if not the MPs themselves.

It remains to be seen what option, if any, National ends up pushing. Power, however, will not be part of any crusade for change. As Justice Minister, he has to play a straight bat. But his performance so far inspires some confidence that National is not going to play clever games at the expense of New Zealand's unwritten constitution.