Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘MMP’

The right to vote

Posted by Clare Curran on September 15th, 2011

I believe everyone aged 18 and over, who is able to, should vote. I believe it’s our responsibility as citizens. I believe it should be a requirement of citizenship.

How you vote is your affair. You can cast an invalid vote to protest against the system. But I believe we should.

I talked about this in my maiden speech. This is my view, not my party’s.

The ancient Greeks, who gave birth to democracy, held that it was every citizen’s duty to participate in decision-making. Let’s have the discussion.

In 1893, New Zealand women were the first in the world to be granted the vote. That’s not long ago. My (and your ) ancestors fought for that right.

That achievement was the result of years of effort by suffrage campaigners. In 1891, 1892 and 1893 they compiled a series of massive petitions calling on Parliament to grant the vote to women. The biggest of them all, submitted on 28 July 1893, was signed by ‘Mary J. Carpenter and 25,519 others’ – about one in five New Zealand women at the time.

 The petition contains the signatures of many leading suffragists and feminists, including Kate Sheppard, Marion Hatton, Rachel Reynolds, Ada Wells, Tailoresses’ Union leader Harriet Morison, writer Edith Grossman, and sisters Christina and Stella Henderson (whose younger sister, Elizabeth, then too young to sign, would later achieve fame as New Zealand’s first woman MP – under her married name, McCombs).

To mark Women’s Suffrage Day on 19 September, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage has made the names and address details of the women who signed the petition available as a searchable database on NZHistory so New Zealanders can search for family ties to this historic event.

‘Women’s suffrage is rightly celebrated as a great milestone in New Zealand history,’ says Neill Atkinson, Chief Historian at Manatu Taonga. When the governor signed a new Electoral Act into law on 19 September 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world to grant all women the right to vote in parliamentary elections. In most other democracies – notably Britain and the United States – women couldn’t vote until after the First World War. ‘New Zealand’s world leadership in women’s suffrage has become part of our national identity,’ says Atkinson.

I think that’s a great initiative. I’m proud to be a woman MP in our parliament. We’ve achieved 30% representation. MMP has been responsible for increasing that representation. Which is one of the reasons I support and will choose MMP when I cast my vote in the referendum on 26 November.

The right to vote is a precious thing. Let’s all exercise it. Wisely.


To MMP or not to MMP

Posted by Raymond Huo on August 19th, 2011

While juggling between functions today at Auckland University I got the opportunity to read an interesting article in ‘Uninews’ about the different voting systems which will be listed in this year’s referendum.

A group of researchers from The Centre for Mathematical Social Science have created an election simulator which will help voters understand the consequences of their referendum vote.

The simulator showed that either National or Labour would have won a clear majority while the Greens, with the third largest party vote in 2008, would have had few or none seats in Parliament if recent elections were held under some of the voting systems in this year’s referendum.

The article stated:

These scenarios, and others, can be tested using an election simulator created by researchers at The Centre for Mathematical Social Science to help voters understand the consequences of their referendum vote

The simulator can be used by anyone who plans to take part in the voting system referendum

A lot of descriptive information about the upcoming referendum has been made available to voters, explaining, for instance, that coalition governments are more or less likely under particular voting systems. But as scientists interested in collective decision-making, we wanted to know more precisely what the voting systems would mean in terms of seats in Parliament and we think that voters should have this information too.

I believe the simulator will certainly serve as a dry run to see whether the riding-so-high-John-Key will be able to govern alone or get a stronger mandate than National got in 2008.

The dry run will help the informed voter better appreciate some scenarios of inconvenient reality should the current polls be translated into actual seats.

Some of the voters will be alerted: hey, if they now realise that they would return a Government that will put a choice between borrowing $300plus million a week or sale of our family silver.

If it’s choice you really wanted? What a choice is that? A choice? Yeah right!

Find the voting simulator online at: Cmss.Auckland.ac.na/2011-referendum-simulator.online


John Key and MMP

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 26th, 2010

An interesting story in the Sunday Star Times today

THE PRIME Minister’s chief of staff told anti-MMP campaigner Peter Shirtcliffe last year that John Key supported moving to a Supplementary Member system, and that there were no “impediments to progress” in caucus, minutes leaked to the Sunday Star-Times show.

This is interesting in light of John Key’s comments last week that he thought the ACT party’s meltdown was likely to see people vote MMP out. This was of course a classic tactic to divert the debate away from the actual issue (the fact he is supporting Rodney Hide who covered up David Garrett’s actions) to try to make it about MMP.

In what we now know as business as usual for Key he has played every side of the argument with MMP, and we have heard lots of platitudes about him not taking a strong stance. Many people have had suspicions for some time what he really thinks. Its time for him to front up to the public about where he stands.

(For the record I support MMP, though I would like to see a couple of changes, in particular the electorate lifeboat, that, for example saw ACT get 5 MPs despite failing to get to the 5% threshold because Rodney won Epsom).


Thoughts on Australia

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 22nd, 2010

This morning Australian’s have awoken to the very real possibility of a hung parliament. While there are still several seats that are too close to call, it looks highly likely that neither Gillard’s Labor nor Abbott’s Coalition will make it to the magical 76 required to form a majority government. To us over the ditch, this is nothing unusual. We haven’t had a majority government since about 1994, and the last leader to govern with a comfortable majority was Jim Bolger from 1990-1993.

Once the final count has been completed the most likely outcome for Australia looks to be a minority government supported by independents. But the real question is who gets to lead that government, does the incumbent get the first chance to have a go, should it be the party with the most seats, should Labor’s loss of majority give Abbott the first chance?

It will be interesting to see how the Australian public react to whatever government emerges from these results. If the government ends up being led by the smaller of the two major parties (even if there is only a seat in it) the voting public may well react against them. There will be lessons for us over here in New Zealand. So far under MMP all of our governments have been led by the largest party in Parliament, but that’s not guaranteed.

In 1996 we could have ended up with a Labour/NZ First/Alliance government, even though National was the bigger of the two major parties. In 2002, despite their disastrous result, another percent or two and National could have led a centre-right coalition despite Labour being the much bigger party. Under MMP we could well end up with the biggest party in Parliament leading the opposition, not the government. What happens in Australia over coming weeks could provide a few clues as to how the public would view that.


Thoughts on the UK election

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 8th, 2010

Like all political junkies I was fascinated by the UK election results as they rolled in yesterday. Most of my active involvement in politics in NZ has been under MMP (I first voted in 1996), so I always find FPP election results quite extraordinary.

Just think about the raw vote numbers in the UK as they currently stand. The Conservatives have 36.1% of the vote and 306 seats. Labour have 29% of the vote and 258 seats. The Liberal Democrats have a respectable 23% of the vote but only have 57 seats. Conservative Leader David Cameron argues he has a mandate to form a government despite only having just over a third of the vote.

Under a proportional system, the seat allocation would be more like Conservative 235, Labour 189, LibDem 149 (For the sake of simplicity I’ve only included the 3 big parties, of course in a truly proportional system the smaller parties would all get seats too).

Between them Labour and the LibDems have over half the vote. The LibDems are widely seen as being to the left of Labour, so how can the Conservatives claim they have the moral authority to move the country to the right?

Let’s translate this into a hypothetical NZ example. Let’s go back to 1996 and create result of say National 39%, Labour 35%, the Alliance 15% and ACT 4%. National would be bigger than Labour, but the combined Labour/Alliance vote would be 50% to National/ACT’s 44%. Could National claim they had a mandate to govern? I don’t think so.

It highlights for me how lucky we are to have a much fairer system in New Zealand. Everyone’s vote counts (unless you vote for a party that gets less than 5% support overall and doesn’t win an electorate seat).


MMP debate

Posted by Maryan Street on September 13th, 2009

There was a good debate on the floor of the conference today about the impending MMP referendum and about the form of our democracy more generally.

One of the things I felt moved to speak on was the need to have a system where any List MP who leaves the original party which put them into Parliament, must leave Parliament also. This “Gordon Copeland provision” we have at the moment is not morally or ethically defensible and I disagreed with it in 1993. If you leave your party of origin while in Parliament, you should have the courage of your convictions and leave Parliament altogether I say. Then stand again under another party name.

This particularly applies to List MPs, like me, who are only there by virtue of their party’s selection and the party votes of the public. Constituency MPs are elected by a different means and the public’s right to unelect a sitting member can be exercised at a byelection or at the end of a Parliamentary term.

So this is one turkey who believes in early Christmases. Even turkeys can have principles!


Electoral reform discussion

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 12th, 2009

We had a really interesting discussion at one of this morning’s remit workshop on electoral reform. There was strong support for the idea that Labour should initiate a debate on how to improve the way the MMP system operates. I didn’t hear anyone speak in favour of a return to First Past the Post (FPP) and a number of people raised concerns about the Supplementary Member (SM) alternative that has been suggested.

We have now had 5 general elections under MMP, the first result in a National-led coalition, the second, third and fourth resulted in a Labour-led minority government, and the fifth has resulted in a National-led government. I think Kiwis understand MMP, and I think they are voting strategically. However I also agree that improvements can be made that will help to address some concerns. Among the things we discussed were:

  • increasing the number of electorates and decreasing the number of list MPs
  • making the party vote threshold apply without exception, which would mean that a party that wins an electorate seat but does not cross the threshold would not get extra list MPs
  • entrenching the Maori option
  • notifying those whose special vote was disallowed because they were not on the electoral roll that this had occurred and inviting them to enrol

There was also an interesting discussion on ‘waka jumping’ and whether proportionality should be maintained throughout the parliamentary term. While people generally felt that someone who ‘waka jumps’ from their party should not be allowed to remain in parliament, there was concern about the implications of trying to maintain proportionality in the case of by-elections.

Overall it was a really useful workshop. Personally I am strongly in favour of retaining MMP but I agree that some really useful changes can be made that will make the system better.


MMP – What’s at stake?

Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on September 9th, 2009

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?