Editorial: Time to fix date, once and for all

Opinion

At the highest level of the Beehive, much thought has been given, and may still be being given, to the date of this year's general election. All the scenarios will have been analysed. Does this date clash with a rugby international, or could that create another hazard? All this in the name of enhancing the fortunes of the Labour Party.

Much of it, of course, is a waste of time and energy. The vast majority of voters, contrary to the view of politicians, are not fixated on the issue. At most, their level of interest in the precise date might be described as mild. Even the corporate world, which places a high premium on certainty, will generally not be too put out when the dates in question are measured in weeks, not months.

Nonetheless, the cat-and-mouse game being played by the Prime Minister invites, and has created, a vague unease. There is a sense that elections, the realm of the people, should not be toyed with in this way.

Indeed, perhaps the most significant effect of this game will be revived calls to take the prerogative for deciding the election date away from the Prime Minister. Why, the argument goes, should the date not be fixed, as is the case in the United States and many other democracies? The Greens gave their backing to the notion after Helen Clark played fast and loose with the date in 2002. This year's repeat performance hardly weakens the case.

The Prime Minister herself does not appear totally opposed to a fixed date. This year she mentioned it in the same breath as a four-year term. Certainly, if the parliamentary term were extended from three years, a set date would be a necessity, given the reduced accountability of the Government to the electorate. However, a reasonable case can be made for a fixed date, with or without a change to the term.

The key argument against it stems from the greater potential for fragility under the MMP electoral system. Snap or early elections are a convenient way out of a serious Government breakdown or impasse between coalition partners. Yet that has not prevented Germany, the model for our MMP arrangements, from having a fixed period of four years. It circumvents potential problems by using what is termed as a constructive vote of no-confidence. In essence, that means an alternative Government needs to be available before a vote of no-confidence.

As much as there is merit in, and experience to support, a fixed date, an early amendment to the electoral law is highly unlikely. Helen Clark links it to other change, and National seems in no rush to dismantle a governing party ace. If it held power, it would surely also seek to manipulate the election date to enhance its position.

This, then, like the question of an extended parliamentary term, is a subject suitable for a referendum. Contrary to the Prime Minister's view, the two need not be tied. Indeed, they should not be, given that the backing for a fixed date would almost certainly be greater than that for a four-year term, the idea of which has been defeated in two previous referendums.

That rejection spoke volumes about the electorate's determination not to cede more power to the Executive. A fixed date, in contrast, is all about taking power from the Executive. It is about giving voters certainty, and of putting an end to an undignified and anachronistic spectacle. The Prime Minister's prerogative to decide the date has been, and continues to be, abused. Increased murmurings about the need to remove that privilege are not without validity.