Winston Peters: Fairer way for all parties involved

After a decade of MMP it is sometimes easy to forget the circumstances that provided the backdrop to such a fundamental constitutional change.

When the voting public opted for MMP, they were "punishing" the two old parties for their betrayal and total disregard for public view and interest.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, New Zealanders were subjected to a blitzkrieg of rapid reform and rigid ideology by successive Labour and National governments, who campaigned with promises and manifestos that bore no relationship to the hardline economic policies they pursued, to the detriment of New Zealanders.

MMP was a means of reining in the abuse of power by the two old parties.

Under MMP, Parliament has changed. There is fairer, more diverse representation. Decision-making is more democratic.

The two old parties have had to get used to sharing power and accommodating wider views on policy. Not all have risen to that challenge. Groups previously marginalised by the two old parties now find they have a stronger voice in Parliament.

It has taken time for an understanding of MMP to develop. In 1996, many in National still operated like it was a single party majority, often hostile to its coalition partner.

New Zealand First had several inexperienced MPs who were overawed and seduced by the parliamentary environment. Some succumbed to delusions of grandeur and paid the price.

Over time, the institutional knowledge and practical experience of how MMP works has evolved. The evidence of this in our select committees' work and in the spirit of co-operation and pragmatism most parties display.

The only party that has failed to grasp MMP has been National, which continues to operate with a majoritarian mindset, spurning potential allies, unwilling to compromise or work with others and failing to learn from its mistakes.

Other parties have matured with the system, and can work together while still ensuring sufficient space for personalities and party platforms.

The major party is reined in, but still has the scope to pursue its policy agenda; the parties working with it are able to promote their policy programme without being subsumed.

New Zealand First has played a pivotal role in major policy debates under MMP. What were once considered radical views on immigration, the Treaty of Waitangi, law and order, an export-driven economy, increased and fairer superannuation, and free healthcare for under sixes - to name but a few - are now the orthodoxy.

Being at the vanguard of policy thinking and then having others move to your position presents New Zealand First with the challenge of coming up with innovative ideas. This is a challenge of MMP.

One constant frustration is the ignorance about how the political dimension works. Too often the media reduce the equation to a binary decision - Labour versus National - when it is nothing of the sort.

In 1996 we were pilloried for working with National, when mathematically it was the only option available. Any deal with Labour would also have involved the Alliance, who had basically pulled the plug on that possibility.

In 2005 the election result was even more delicately poised, but the only workable solution was the one we arrived at - a confidence and supply agreement with current Government. All other options on the table simply offered no long-term stability.

While it has been a roller-coaster ride, MMP has delivered better government.

* Winston Peters is the leader of NZ First.