Watching the increasing dialogue with respect to our MMP system, is concerning. One of the biggest problems at the moment is that most of the non-politically active people I know don’t really understand our political system or the rationale for MMP.
To this day, I still have people asking me ‘what is a list MP’. To put it in to context for our Pacific peoples, I explain that the majority of the Pacific MPs that have gotten in to Parliament, were initially list MPs (Vui Mark Gosche, Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, Anae Arthur Anae, Charles Chauvel, Su’a William Sio and myself) and that the MMP system was set up so that minority groups and women, could get better representation. It is a much fairer system, than first past the post.
Our NZ Parliament has come a long way with regards to fairly reflecting and representing our communities. Currently we have 1 Indo Fijian MP, 1 Sik Indian MP, 1 Korean MP, 2 Chinese MPs, 1 Pakistan MP, 17 Maori MPs, 3 Samoan MPs, 1 Tahitian MP, 1 Tongan/ Samoan MP. 28 MPs who identify with something other than just Pakeha.
We have 40 female MPs (22 of whom are list MPs). We also have a number of MPs who are openly gay.
Isn’t it great that we have a broad spectrum of people who represent the views of All New Zealanders – Why would we want to jeopardise this?
You patently do not have a clue why MMP was established.
It has nothing to do with better representation. That might be a by-product but it was established to stop elected dictatorships that saw Hitler rise to power. It was established in Germany post WW2 to prevent this happening again. It was not established to allow minorities and women into parliaments. That is absurd and as a MP you should know better.
While I support MMP for the two reasons Ms Sepuloni has pointed out (cultural and political diversity, and the opposition is concerningly stuck in FPP mentalities) I do question the extent of the truth to the ‘MMP has brought more diversity’ story because the reality is there have been huge changes in societal attitudes in the last 15 – 20 years which are more likely to account for the increased diversity in some areas (particularly sexualities).
Chris Carter has always been an electorate MP (party list did not help in 96) and Tim Barnett has not been on the party list before. Unless of course Wikipedia is wrong!
Also I would argue that it is actually the FPP system which brought Georgina Beyer into Parliament. Had it not been for the legitimacy she achieved in winning Wairarapa in 99, I wonder whether she would have been placed as high on the party list in 2002 as she was. Correct me if I am wrong, but she was several list spots away from entering via the list in 99.
Would she have broken the glass ceiling had it not been for the FPP remnant electorate system? Or in future years would she have hovered in an unwinnable list spot merely to be brought out at election time as a prop for party list diversity, but not too often so as to not scare the Brash-era Waitakere Man?
As per Gooner, plus: it was NOT introduced so that only the “politically active” could understand it is you suggest. I hope that many of your ‘constituents’ read this and realize the contempt you seem to have for them.
Gooner, that may have been why MMP was established in Germany but if you had read the Royal Commission report on MMP in New Zealand you would realise that it was, in fact, recommended for implementation specifically because it was more representative.
Dimmocrazy, that is the ultimate example of selective quotation I have ever witnessed. This article in no way suggests that it was introduced so that only the politically active could understand it, but surveys show that people who aren’t politically active DON’T understand it.
Nice blog Carmel
I think there needs to be a great deal more education in schools about the workings of our system of government. It is no wonder that there is so much political apathy out there when most people don’t even know how their vote translates into the selection of a government! (And Dimmocrazy, I’m basing that on studies not on some assumption that people are too stupid to understand, as you seem to believe yourself).
Carmel
I would have thought that ” we have a broad spectrum of people who represent the views of All New Zealanders” could have been selected through normal party candidate selection process if the party thought they had the right qualifications.
We do not need MMP for that.
[Trolling, deleted. Final warning - admin]
MMP is so simple that it annoys the bleep out of me that there are voters who don’t understand it.
Maybe a cartoon or finger puppets could be used in explaining this – offer free beer and you’ll get an audience.
Interesting points you make, Ms Sepuloni, and I don’t think many people would dispute that to its credit the MMP system has forced parties to be far more diverse in their selection processes than they were under FPP. Both Labour and National had a pretty poor record of selecting women, Maori, and ethnic and diverse people before MMP.
MMP has changed that, although I see that the real test, the selection of women and minorities in safe seats isn’t even across the parties. The Party list in my view should be a means of bringing good people into the caucus who wouldn’t otherwise get their feet through the door, but in my view it is just window-dressing if these people aren’t given the opportunity of a long term future in caucus by getting a safe seat. In this regard both National’s and Labour’s safe seats are predominantly still white and male.
I think though Ms Sepuloni you do voters little credit when you say: “One of the biggest problems at the moment is that most of the non-politically active people I know don’t really understand our political system or the rationale for MMP.”
In my view voters are much smarter than politicians often give them credit for. There seems to be a habit in the Labour Party at the moment to patronise voters and think they are stupid, and this transcends to thinking that the 2008 election was just a big aberration and the voters got it wrong, rather than Labour taking responsibility for its own actions. I think Labour will struggle to claw its way back up the polls until they accept the reasons why they lost in 2008 and stop treating voters like idiots.
I too support MMP.
But the fact I might lose a vote in a democratically-held referendum is not a reason not to have one.
You’ve come up with a number of excellent reasons to vote for MMP, and to campaign for MMP. But these aren’t reasons not to hold a public vote.
Carmel, it’s fair to explain an electoral system in terms of outcomes attractive to one constituency or another. It is not ‘patronising’ or ‘treating them as idiots’. It is no different from telling people changing the RMA will put people ‘back in control of their own gardens’. The vote splitting at the last election shows that people ‘get’ MMP. Your problem was that your ‘Pacific people’ stayed home, not that they didn’t understand the electoral system. And as Tim points out, maybe your efforts would be better directed to figuring out why that was. It certainly wasn’t the weather.
And one other thing, it is disingenuous to credit MMP with better gender and ethnic representation in parliament, when that has always been in the hands of the party machine, under FPP and under MMP. So if there was a poor gender and ethnic outcome before MMP, look in the mirror. Are you suggesting that a return to FPP would mean the party machine would select “just Pakeha” to use your own offensive term? If so, you’re in deeper trouble than I figured.
It isn’t disingenuous to credit MMP with greater parliamentary diversity because it allowed parties that are actually committed to this to enter.
The diversity of backgrounds of MPs is a by-product of what MMP offers New Zealand.
MMP delivers to New Zealand a voting system where who ever governs has to have the consent of the representatives of over 50% of the voting public. This is a step up from FPP, which, for example, twice allowed Rob Muldoon to form governments based on less public support than the main opposition party (Yes, Labour) received.
Having just been reading the book by Graeme Hunt (it’s quite old, bur seems relevant) on the case for ditching MMP, I tend to agree with him. The problem I have with MMP is the the fact that list MP’s answer to no one but themselves and their respective party, and it seems undemocratic in that an electorate MP gets voted out, but stays in Parliament via the list. Is this fair to the electorate voters? Does Key like MMP? It would seem so, suddenly.
The biggest value of MMP is that every vote counts. It’s as simple as that.
Under FPP, if I was a National supporter living in Mangere my vote was pointless – a waste. Same if I was a Labour supporter living in Epsom – why bother even voting it won’t make a damn bit of difference. FPP made it so that your vote only really counted if you lived in a marginal electorate. That’s horrific to see so many people effectively disenfranchised.
There are other benefits of MMP, such as more diverse parliaments and the ability of minor parties to exist. But really it all pales into insigificance against every vote counting (well, almost every vote thanks to the 5% threshold).
That’s an interesting point, Tanya. I don’t think it will do MMP’s credibility much if MMP delivers Judith Tizard back into Parliament, which will be what happens if a Labour List MP toddles off into the distance.
Labour needs to take responsibility for how public perceive MMP. They governed under an MMP system for nine years, and I don’t think their dealings with Mr Peters did the system a lot of favours. Their decision to put lower calibre MPs down the list rather than taking the hard decisions and getting rid of them entirely has downgraded the value of List MPs.
True, Tim. Also, if we had a ‘binding’ referendum on MMP and the MMP vote won, then fair enough, I would have to accept that. I waa always under the impression that us voters would all get to have another say on MMP, therefore, its about time that this was honoured. It seems only fair in a supposedly democratic country, – if MMP is so effective, then why can the list MP’s not be voted out by the voter. Yep, the Winston factor has been a debacle, twice over now, wonder if he’ll make it back?
I think MMP is a far superiour system to FPP however it is an exageration to claim every vote counts. How many people cast their party vote for a party that didn’t make the threshold. I would think that all those who supported Winston and NZ first would say that their vote didn’t count at all.
MMP is a good option. It would be good to see time spent on ironing out some things such as over hangs or what has happened with ACT.
Hello Tanya
I think the public judged a party by on the performance of all its MPs, including the list MPs. So if the public doesn’t agree with the stance that a party’s list MPs take, the public will move its vote away form that party and it will have less list MPs next election. This is what happened to the New Zealand First party in 2008.
Just because a MMP parliament has politicians you don’t agree with isn’t a sign it is broken, it’s a sign it works.
We did have a binding referendum on MMP, following an earlier referendum on the subject, and MMP did win.
Gooner – You are an angry person…it is not absurd at all for me to state that MMP was established in NZ with the intention of having a political system that allowed for better representation of ALL and for ALL New Zealanders.
Oh Dear – Dimmocrazy, you would seem to be the only person holding any contempt.
Graeme – I agree. But lets get the dialogue moving on this so that when/ if it comes to a referendum, people know what’s at stake.
@Geek- some people vote for small parties like say the ALCP knowing that they won’t get in just to show that there are people that support a particular issue. And there are Bill and Ben voters who really didn’t want their votes to count anyway.
With MMP I like the fact that I can vote for an MP of any party while still supporting the party of my choice. FPP – zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Ms Sepuloni, perhaps you weren’t involved with the Labour Party in 1993, but my recollection was that Labour’s leadership including Mr Moore, Ms Clark, Mr Cullen and Mr Goff weren’t great fans of MMP. It was the Bolger Government that gave voters a chance to vote on MMP, which had been first promoted in the 1986 Royal Commission.
If diversity and greater representation by smaller parties was the only important feature of MMP, then it is reasonable to say that Labour wasn’t very well disposed to achieving either and didn’t make it a priority.
It’s also fair to say that Labour doesn’t do a lot to encourage diversity apart from window-dressing with List seats rather than finding high calibre people from all backgrounds who will have long term careers in the Labour Party. I think Labour’s selection of Maori candidates has been an important example in this regard, and is one of the big reasons that Labour lost so many seats to the Maori Party in 2005. The calibre of Maori Party MPs is much higher in general than the calibre of Labour Party Maori MPs.
I might also suggest that the calibre of Labour’s PI MPs hasn’t been particularly high and hasn’t gone beyond window dressing, since Mr Gosche retired. Mr Field was a classic example of window dressing. There was a good new intake of MPs in 2008 from Labour, but where were Labour’s rising stars from diverse backgrounds before then? Where were the stunning counterparts that National brought in from diverse backgrounds, like Ms Parata, Mr Lotu-Iiga, Ms Kaye, Mr Bridges, and Ms Bennett, to name just a few?
This is incorrect. Under MMP if an MP screws up so much that the people don’t want them there any more then the party can remove them immediately with the spot filled by another list MP (and if they behaved that badly then there’s little to no chance that they will get back in on the list). If an electorate MP screws up that badly the people can’t remove them until the following election and even that’s not guaranteed as they could still get the most votes even though most people don’t want them back.
Proportional voting gives more accountability not less. Time to dump the electorates.
Hekia and Simon have made almost no impression in the house – I can’t remember either asking a primary question or making a considered speech, Nikki reads bad research unit speeches badly, Sam spends much more time than is appropriate on Auckland City business and everyone is just waiting for the media to carefully examine Paula. If that is the cream of national then the team of the future is either bright or energetic but never both in the same person.
Goodness me, Mr Mallard. If Mr Bridges, Ms Kaye, and Mr Lotu-Iiga are so hopeless, how did they manage to beat the odds and win their electorate seats off Labour?
In case you haven’t noticed, Mr Mallard (it seems a lot of Labour MPs have forgotten), Labour lost the election. The gap between National and Labour at the last election was how much? Fifteen percent perhaps? It’s now thirty.
Labour have a long way to go to start even thinking about getting the same results in 2008, let alone winning back those seats. Under-rating and patronising rookie opponents who served Labour such a caning last time might amuse your Labour Party colleagues, Mr Mallard, but it doesn’t seem to be winning your party any votes.
I read from the paper this morning that you have a conference this weekend, Mr Mallard. You might want to think about why Labour is so far behind in the polls before you set your sights towards another humiliating loss.
I understand what you are saying spud, however it is incorrect to say that every vote under MMP counts. Once again the large number of people who voted NZ First are no different than the labour voter in Epsom during FPP. You get to see their vote but it results in no representation.
I am a fan of MMP though. I just think it is hard to say it is perfect and there are surely area’s we can improve it.
Tim :- Bridges won a seat that was previously National, both Nikki and Sam were helped by boundaries and a very big swing against Labour. Maybe they were all tired after the campaign and haven’t quite developed the energy to put in a full day at Parliament yet.
Thank you for your political advice – it will get the consideration it deserves.
Mr Mallard as I understand it the boundary went against Ms Bennett, so to suggest that was the major factor in Ms Kaye’s and Mr Lotu-Iiga’s case is a bit disingenuous in my view. Let’s face it, all three of them won seats in Auckland that they weren’t expected to win and it was a big shock to Labour that they did, against some quite formidable incumbents. Ms Kaye, for example, beat a long standing incumbent who is sufficiently well positioned in Labour as to be the next person in on Labour’s list.
Fair point about Mr Bridges winning a previously held National seat, and to be fair it wasn’t a slap in the face to Labour that he won. It was certainly a surprise I think that his majority was so large however.
You also make a valid point about all of them winning during a big swing for National, but it’s equally valid that they all worked hard against important incumbents and their wins were greater than the swing elsewhere. Further with respect to the national swing, if this was the major determinant then Labour aren’t in a very good position at all, since your party is fifteen to twenty points further behind National now than you were on election night, before you even start cutting into majorities.
Unless Labour starts performing, on national trends in my view Labour is more at risk of losing more electorates than you are of winning any others back.
I’m pleased to offer any advice that might be helpful. I would love to see the Labour Party competitive and performing again, because I think it’s important for democracy to have an efficient and well-performing opposition. I hope you reach that stage soon.
Good effort staying true to the team there Trev.
Lets try and stay close to the thread Dimmo Trevor.
On the topic of wasted votes, under MMP we are now talking about 8-5% wasted compared to something probably closer to 60% in FPP – that’s a significant difference.
Tim @ your 12.49 post you didn’t mention Bennett.
Your team was expecting to win all three of those Auckland seats.
The next election is almost certainly in 2011.
Lets get back to the topic.
Tim, and Trevor, to what extent do you believe a hard working and popular local electorate MP is able to withstand a swing against their party? Or is the tide just too strong either way?
@ Jennifer – I haven’t seen any decent research on the question. My intuition is that they can slow down a trend and there was some evidence of that in 2005 – but by 2008 the tide was just too strong.
I beat Minogue in 1984 and if there was ever evidence of the tide beating a high profile local MP that was it.
And I have just considered apologising to Nikki Kaye who did speak out against Nick Smith yesterday. And if she had followed her comments with a vote for one of the amendments that would have given effect to her wishes I would have apologised. Whaleoil covers it from a national party control freak angle. I actually think Nikki has some talent (even if she mainly keeps it hidden) but she will need to be consistent if she is to get the list position to protect her from the swing which will inevitably occur. http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2009/09/10/nikki-being-a-silly-little-girl/
You’re quite right, Mr Mallard, I did omit to reference Paula Bennett in the earlier comment. My mistake and I thought I had.
I don’t know what you mean by “my team” as I wasn’t on the team, but even if I were it is equally valid to say that your team, which you were on, was not expecting to lose those three Auckland seats and your party was shocked when you did.
my 5 cents is simple .. I voted for MMP because the nats and Labour were shockers around this time. REVENGE was mine. The out for me was that WE were going to vote again a few years later. The Govtmt, Labour at the time, said no, we will keep MMP and that is 1 of the reasons my faith and vote for Labour was lost.
I want my day to right my wrong.
To me it has NOTHING to do with diversity of races blah blah blah. I was lied to.
Winston Peters .. say no more. (but I will) .. he stuffed up MMP in my mind and it could happen again. The Nats and Labour need to invite a mix of races etc to join up. that would be a good start.
I live in Dunedin and I like the fact that we have four MPs, two seated MPs elected in what are relatively safe seats for Labour and two list MPs from other parties. This gives our region a greater voice and advocacy in parliament. Diversity in parliament is nice, and that goes for smaller and marginal regions of New Zealand as well as ethnic diversity. I suspect other parts of homegrown New Zealand would be sorry as well if it lost its range of voices in government.
Those are good points, Mr Whelk. Don’t you think the public have a right to decide on whether they think MMP is a good system and whether they should keep it, rather than letting politicians make the choice for them as Labour did when it ruled out a referendum on MMP?
No, you weren’t. There was never a promise to take MMP back to referendum.
Teething problems that we’ve, mostly, gotten over.
Tim, you’re spinning as usual. We made the choice for MMP back in the early 1990s. Not Labour, Not National, US.
Switching to either SM or FPP is a terrible answer to this, as parties can protect candidates by running them in a “safe” seat where there’s a lot of support for advancing their agenda as a party even if the candidate isn’t very popular.
If you really want the ability to “de-elect” a bad list candidate, you’d do much better hanging on to some sort of proportional system like MMP or an open list and demanding the ability for lists to be determined directly by party members or voters instead of picked by the party elite. (or if you’re a Greenie you can just join the party and vote on the list before the next election. IIRC you are a Nat supporter though.
) The ability for voters to determine Party lists seems like it addresses the only substantial concerns people have with MMP, which all seem to revolve around indirect election.
I don’t mind having a referendum, but I think it’s a bit of a waste of money given that it’s being structured as “do we want to ditch MMP and vote between a set of options which we are not going to tell you?” rather than “Are you satisfied with the change to MMP and which of these other electoral systems would you prefer if we switched?”
Any change needs to be about the voters getting a more expressive electoral tool that results in smarter and fairer government, not about National or Labour trying to advance their interests. I truly believe FPP and SM would be big steps backwards in that regard.
I’m mainly a supporter of MMP; I think it could do with a little tweaking (in regards to ACT getting less that 5% of the vote but still got 5 seats) but I don’t think we should be rid of it alltogether.
The thing that worries me about the referendum is that people are talking like if it happens, it will either be MMP of FPP. Why does FPP even have be considered? If we have to choose, why not from a range of other, new electoral systems?
Personally I think we should set the quota at .82% (a 120th of the vote) instead of 5%. Solves the problems around minor parties and electorates but lets any party capable of winning a seat outright on the merit of the list vote into parliament. 5% wasn’t the recommendation and it seems to be set so high mainly to favour Labour and National and stop the incubation of other centre/centre-right parties.
What is Labour’s and/or any individual MP’s position on lowering the 5% threshold?
There isn’t a Labour position – but there are certainly a number of issues some tweaking and some a bit more substantive – that could be considered for their potential to improve MMP. I’m not wedded to 5%. Royal Commission said 4% but it is not an issue that keeps me awake at night or which I would put energy into.
gee wgtn lost, counites won. goodness me Trevor, what’s happening?
back to MMP, something has to change. I don’t know the answer, I just feel Winston stuffed things up, Jim and Peter are, well interesting add ons to our political system as is Rodney i guess. So if you support those 3 blokes in parlament (need spell check) then MMP is for you.
There isn’t a Labour position? deleted obscene Trevor ?????????
The last time I found out a result just before I watched was 1999 RWC when reporter rang to ask me what I thought of ABs losing and the likely effect on election just b4 7am replay. Grrrr, thanks Jabba – I never watched the AB game either.
Of all the places Red Alert should have been safe.