KEY POINTS:
It is perfectly reasonable that there should be binding referendum on mixed-member proportional representation. The public voted for the electoral system to take effect from the 1996 general election and should have the opportunity to decide its fate.
This the National Party has promised to deliver no later than 2011 as one of its 10 election pledges. Its leader, John Key, senses unease about MMP and may see political gain in such a policy. But concern about certain aspects of the system and being denied a say do not necessarily mean people will queue up to vote for its demise.
Perhaps the greatest threat to MMP's continuation is a short collective memory. If a referendum is held, the system deserves a robust defence, particularly in terms of the reasons for its introduction. MMP was a byproduct of a Labour government's rapid economic restructuring during the 1980s, which was accomplished unheralded and without public consultation.
Those who backed MMP no longer wanted unbridled power to reside in the hands of a single party. They also hoped for more fruitful and less confrontational consensus politics, thanks to the probable demand for governing coalitions.
Time has confirmed they were overly optimistic. Parliament is not noticeably more congenial and people are irked by several of MMP's characteristics, most notably unelected list MPs and the disproportionate influence wielded by minor parties.
But it is worth remembering that as much as those parties have sometimes made political gains out of all keeping to their representation, they have also made valuable contributions. Take United Future's relationship over the past few years with the Labour-led Government. This has sponsored something as ineffectual as the Families Commission but it has also, through Peter Dunne's ministerial role, checked Labour's inclination to tamper with the operations of the Reserve Bank.
What annoys people most about MMP is, perhaps, the fact that they have been denied their verdict. When the system was adopted, a review was promised after two elections. The exact parameters of this process were not spelled out, but the public clearly expected a referendum.
What transpired was a review by a special parliamentary committee. Unsurprisingly, given the presence of minor party MPs intent on self-preservation, it concluded all was well, and that there was no need for an impartial examination by the Electoral Commission or a public vote. This manoeuvre has ever since provided a springboard for resentment.
National would, of course, have more reason than any other party to welcome a change. It has struggled more than Labour to cement the sort of alliances that are part and parcel of MMP. But even Mr Key is under no illusion that the public wants a return to the first-past-the-post system.
He foresees MMP being voted out and another proportional system being voted in at a second poll, which would be held at the 2014 election or "possibly later". It is hard, however, to spot that alternative. STV's stocks have slumped thanks to its use in district health board elections, and preferential voting, similarly, is viewed widely as unwieldy.
This offers further reason to think twice about casting aside MMP. As does the fact that, as much as it may need refinement, it can be defended strongly on the basis of having, by and large, delivered representative governments over the past 12 years. It should be given a fair trial.
That means any binding referendum should incorporate questions framed by the Electoral Commission, not self-serving politicians. On that basis, people should, finally, have their say.
