Comments on: Green with envy

By: Stephen L

Stephen L — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:56:17 +0000

Graeme Orr is half right. There were actually two referenda on introducing MMP. The government didn’t want to do it, but a complicated process found them locked into allowing a vote on some sort of change, so they had two referenda a few years apart, with both having to pass for MMP to get up.

The first referenda voted by a huge margin (can’t remember the percentage but 85% could well be right) to dump the old system, and chose MMP from a list of four options. Personally I think at least one of the other options was much better than MMP, but MMP was dramtically better than the system it replaced.

There was then another referendum. This time a very expensive scare campaign was run to tell people what a disaster MMP would be. Support dropped from the huge level the previous time to 53% (I think, about that anyway), but it still passed.

I think Nationals and Labour would be very scared of outright dumping something that passed at two referenda. I don’t know that there would be a problem with some more minor changes – I can certainly think of ways the process could be improved, but it would be hard to argue that reversion to the old system without a referendum was anything other than a slap in the face to the voters.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:56:54 +0000

It’s important to remember, with the Maori seats, that the proportion of New Zealand which is indigenous is far more than in Australia. The 7 Maori seats are allocated so that they have a similar number of voters as the 62 general seats. In comparison, we’d struggle to find enough indigenous Australians to fill two HoR seats.

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:39:16 +0000

Didn’t realise the MMP referendum passed so easily, Graeme. I’m not a fan of the system but can understand the NZ public’s enthusiasm, given that they had previously suffered under the dictatorship of a unitary system with a winner-takes-all unicameral parliament.

By: Graeme Orr

Graeme Orr — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:05:12 +0000

I’m not sure NZ Labour and Nationals could just combine to end MMP.

Not because there’s any constitutional entrenchment. But politically because it would so clearly be a partisan axe to something that received 85 (yes 8 x 10 + 5) percent support in a binding vote in 1993. (And that after an independent commission of inquiry).

There’d have to be a groundswell of public antipathy to MMP for them to risk undoing it without a referendum.

By: Ronald Wilson

Ronald Wilson — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:31:42 +0000

Darryl,

Most ministers aren’t in Cabinet. There’s Ministers and Cabinet Ministers.

The strange thing is that Foreign Minister isn’t in Cabinet as it’s often considered as the #3 or #4 spot after Prime Minister and Treasurer (maybe Health 3rd).

Ron

By: Darryl Rosin

Darryl Rosin — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:42:19 +0000

I’m reading that Winston Peters will be Foreign Minister but will remain *outside* cabinet (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/clark-defends-peters-appointment/2005/10/18/1129401247913.html)

Can anyone explain how that works? I confess to being hazy on the actual legal foundation for Cabinet, but how does someone get sworn in as a Minister *without* being a member of cabinet?

By: David Walsh

David Walsh — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:42:13 +0000

(Maybe there is a cynical lesson here for the coalition and the ALP to swap preferences in the Senate).

Not unless they’ve already forgotten 1975.

By: B. S. Fairman

B. S. Fairman — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:53:32 +0000

If such a deal was to be done it requires both the major parties to believe they have an equal chance at governing after the next election. Before the last election it looked as if Labour was going to lose, hence they didn’t really want to give the Nationals an easy ride if they weren’t going to be in government.

By: Sceptic

Sceptic — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:15:30 +0000

William raises an interesting point. I can’t understand why the Labour and National parties don’t combine to end the MMP experiment. It’s in their interests to do so to allow either to govern from a position of majority. At least the loser could comfort themselves with the knowledge that their time will eventually come.

At the moment both sides appear to be in a position of terminal frustration whether they be in government or opposition. (Maybe there is a cynical lesson here for the coalition and the ALP to swap preferences in the Senate).

I express this view while being ignorant of public acceptance of MMP in NZ. Maybe it is politically unacceptable to change the system. Maybe the populace like the system. It looks like a dog’s breakfast to me but what do I know?

The dilemma the Greens face is whether they remain pristine but ineffectual, or try to implement some of their policies while conceding their some of their principles as a bargaining chip. Logic tells you that at some point a political party needs to achieve policy delivery if it is going to survive and thrive. Then again compromise may cause their core vote to bleed elsewhere.

My opinion is that if a political party (such as the Greens) doesn’t engage with other parties then they will never achieve anything and will eventually wither. There may also come a time when policy differences with other parties converge under different leadership. Maybe the Greens should show some initative now to take advantage of an opportunity in the future.

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:42:53 +0000

There’s an instructive precedent for the Green Party’s position in NZ with the Greens in Tasmania before they were nobbled by “electoral reform” in 1998. So little did Labor enjoyed its period of government in accord with Bob Brown’s Greens (from 1989-92) that they ended up preferring opposition, and refused to deal with the Greens when they got their hands on the balance of power again in 1995. That led to an all-but-unworkable minority Liberal government propped up by the Greens, followed by the Labor-Liberal electoral reform deal that was bound to happen sooner or later. I would be interested to know if there are any constitutional hurdles to a similar deal between Labour and the National Party in New Zealand – my understanding is that there are not.

Another precedent to bear in mind is that of Jim Anderton’s Alliance, which suffered repeated splits between those who were willing to compromise with Labour and those who preferred the purity of the impotent.