UnitedFuture Submission on MMP reform

1.     THRESHOLD

We propose reducing the threshold to qualify for Party List seats from 5% to 3%. 

 The threshold of electoral support to qualify for party representation varies widely amongst countries using Proportional Representation in their elections, from –

• No threshold (e.g. Netherlands where threshold is effectively 0.67%  = 1 seat)
• 2%  (e.g. Denmark)
• 3%  (e.g. Spain)
• 4%  (e.g. Slovenia)
• 5%  (e.g. Belgium)
• 7%  (e.g. Russia since 2005, previously 5%)
• 10% (e.g. Turkey, within each province)

 Thresholds of specific electoral percentages are often modified by special rules applying to ethnic minorities, provincial representation, or other internal subdivisions like islands..

 Smaller countries commonly allow relatively small minorities to be represented, because they tend to have a much higher degree of tolerance for distinct communities within their country.  Countries with sharply divided ethnic, linguistic, regional and/or religious communities tend to use higher thresholds, because they have deliberately designed their electoral systems to favour broad coalitions over smaller parties that represent a single distinctive community.

 Any threshold has the effect of encouraging supporters of smaller parties (polling near or below the threshold) to vote for their second or third preference to avoid wasting their vote.  Democracy in electoral representation is raised by setting a threshold as low as practicable.

We support that a party which wins an Electorate seat qualifies for Party List seats.

 In Germany, three electorate seats are required to qualify for list seats, except for indigenous ethnic minority parties. The German lower house has about five times as many seats as in New Zealand, so three seats represent about 0.5% of the total, versus 0.8% in New Zealand.

 The difficulty that any Third Party has in winning electorate contests is much underestimated.  Third parties have won only 9% (39/417) of electorate contests (including by-elections) since the introduction of MMP, although winning 25% (186/731) of total (list and electorate) seats, based on their share of the total vote. In over half of the 39 electorate contests where Third Party candidates have won, these candidates had previously been elected as MPs for one the two major parties. Few if any of these MPs will continue to contest elections past 2020.

Predominantly Maori parties are most likely to be disadvantaged by removing this provision, because of the difficulty they will have in reaching the threshold of 5% of total votes.

 
 2.     LIST MPs STANDING IN BY-ELECTIONS

We support allowing List MPs to stand in By-Elections, as at present.

 List MPs will always include electorate candidates who were narrowly defeated, and are therefore amongst the most likely candidates for by-elections. Denying List MPs the right to stand as electorate candidates in by-elections cannot be justified. 

3.     CANDIDATES BOTH FOR AN ELECTORATE AND A PARTY LIST

4.     DECIDING THE ORDER OF CANDIDATES ON PARTY LISTS

We propose that all Party List candidates must stand for an Electorate as well as for the List, and that the order in which Party List candidates are elected be decided by voters.

 We propose that Party List candidates must also be Electorate candidates, and that Party List candidates are elected in order of the percentage of Party List votes gained in their Electorate.

 The most unpopular feature of the New Zealand MMP system is that Party List candidates are elected according to their rank on the Party List, determined by internal party processes. The Party List ranking process differs for each party according to its constitution and rules, but is always obscure to ordinary voters because these processes are a variable mixture of internal party voting, individual party rules, and influences from senior party office-holders.

 The most effective democratic option is to give voters control over the ranking of party lists. If every Party List candidate is also an electorate candidate, and their ranking is determined by the percentage of the valid Party List vote gained in the electorate in which they stand, then the voters (not the party) will determine the order of election of Party List candidates. 

 Each party can choose to run its preferred List Candidates in electorates where past results suggest that party polls well, even if they do not win seats. However the parties will need to place greater weight on the likely assessment by voters of candidate’s potential contribution to parliament, because the voters will make the final judgement on the relative merits of List Candidates. Voters have proven willing to elect candidates from diverse minorities where nominated by a party that voters routinely support. Most New Zealand voters regard diversity in a team as evidence of balanced strength, and too much uniformity as a sign of weakness.

 The percentage of Party List vote is proposed (not the number of votes), because the number of voters varies significantly by the type of electorate (although populations are about equal). Central cities have more adults and less children, while rural areas are the reverse. Wealthier electorates usually have higher turnouts, while Maori electorates tend to both lower turnouts and more children. These biases are eliminated by using the percentage of the Party List vote.

5.     A PARTY WINS MORE SEATS THAN ITS PARTY VOTE ENTITLEMENT

We support the existing system whereby 120 seats are distributed proportionately, and parties retain any extra electorate seats won above their proportionate share of votes.

 The alternatives to retaining “overhang” seats are either –

(a)   to deprive one party of the proportionate share of seats to which it is entitled, or

(b)  to disqualify a candidate who has won an electorate contest for their seat

Retaining “overhang” seats in excess of 120 is far better than either alternative.

6. THE RATIO OF ELECTORATE SEATS TO PARTY LIST SEATS

We propose a higher ratio of Electorate to List Seats, by using Preferential Voting.

 The critical factor affecting the ratio of Electorate to Party List Seats is the method of electing Electorate MPs. First-Past-the-Post (FPP) elections award a disproportionate number of seats to the leading party, especially when it has a large lead over the next party. Consequently a relatively large pool of List Seats is required to restore overall proportionality for Total Seats.

When one major party has lost significant support to third parties, the resulting shares of Electorate MPs has been very far from proportional. Second preferences would tend to favour the major party formerly supported, reducing the disproportionality in Electorate seats.

 We propose that Electorate MPs are elected by Optional Preferential Voting, so that the overall results of the Electorate contests is less disproportionate than is delivered by FPP.

This change would allow the Electorate/List ratio of seats to move from the present 70/50 towards about 90/30, which has the additional benefit of reducing the size of electorates. Optional rather than compulsory preferential voting is recommended, so that no votes are rendered invalid due to lack of lower preferences.  Although votes may no longer count once preferences have been exhausted, that also sends a message to the Electorate Candidates. 

 7.     OTHER ISSUES - A List MP leaving a Parliamentary Party vacates the seat

 We propose that if a List MP either voluntarily leaves or is expelled from the parliamentary party through which the MP was elected, that list seat of that MP shall be declared vacant. A majority of the MPs elected for that party at the previous General Election (but including instead any MPs elected at subsequent by-elections or replacement List MPs appointed for that party) shall certify to the Speaker that the List MP is no longer a member of that Party

8. OTHER ISSUES - Register Political Parties based on votes at the previous election

We propose that any party polling over 5,000 votes (or quarter of 1% of valid party votes) is automatically registered for the next general election, provided the Electoral Commission is satisfied that it is substantially the same party. Otherwise a party needs the signatures of 500 enrolled electors, no more than 100 from any one electorate, in order to be registered. This would replace the difficult-to-define provision based on listing 500 financial members

Referendum needed on Maori Seats - Dunne

UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne has reaffirmed his call for a referendum on the future of the Maori seats in light of a report released today.

“I believe the substance of what Professor Joseph is saying in his report is correct, under a system of proportional representation there is no place for seats exclusively based on race,” said Mr Dunne.

“I also agree with his summation that the seats do not do Maori any favours, by focussing Maori politics towards the preservation and winning of the Maori seats implies a disengagement of Maori from the mainstream political process.”

“I am in no doubt that Maori competing for and enrolled to vote in Maori seats would make a much more significant contribution to our MMP system if they were involved in the general role.

“The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1985-6 concluded that the seats had not helped Maori and that they would achieve better representation through a proportional party-list system – which is exactly what we have now got.”

“For Te Ururoa Flavell and the Maori Party to come out and state they wish to entrench the Maori seats completely contradicts the point of MMP in New Zealand and is motivated purely out of political self-interest.”

“It is highly probable that the next election will see a parliamentary overhang of up to four seats as the Maori Party may win all seven Maori seats yet only gain 2 percent of the party vote.”

“The result will be the party with the most seats will need the confidence of 63 seats rather than 61 – making it much more difficult to form the next government.”

“The electoral system should treat all New Zealanders equally – not favour one group over another,” Mr Dunne says.

 ENDS

Report Card - Achievements 2005-2008

Opposition parties just do that – oppose. UnitedFuture works with parties to achieve results.

Read for yourself what UnitedFuture has achieved this term.

Report Card - Achievements 2005-2008

• Report Card - Achievements 2005-2008 (PDF, 50.8 KB)

Note: PDF downloads require the free Adobe Reader application to view.

Electoral Finance Bill

UnitedFuture has decided to support the Electoral Finance Bill now that it has been substantially rewritten by the justice and electoral select committee.

From the time of the Bill’s introduction we have argued that the original Bill’s provisions regarding third party participation in election campaigns were obnoxious and needed to be rewritten to ensure that the registration process applies only to those third parties who genuinely seek to mount campaigns around the election.

We also argued that the definition of election advertising needed reworking to make it clear that it relates only to activities that third parties undertake that could be seen as seeking to influence voters to vote for a specific party or group of parties; and, that $60,000 cap needs to be substantially lifted to enable their campaigns to be somewhat more than token.

UnitedFuture also wanted tighter and more transparent disclosure requirements for individual and corporate donations to political parties, and we called for specific provisions regarding official government advertising during election campaigns to make sure this is not covert election advertising.

In the event, all these concerns have been addressed by the select committee, and we are therefore prepared to support the Bill, without further amendment, through its remaining stages in Parliament, (although we will not support any moves to progress it under Urgency)

A fair and workable electoral financing regime is an important element of a functioning democracy and as the excesses of the last election showed, we do not have that at present, hence the need for change.

UnitedFuture is, however, still critical of the process followed by the government in progressing this legislation.

It has been our belief all the way through that electoral law of this type should be made on the basis of the widest political support possible, which is why we successfully promoted the inclusion of all parties on the select committee looking at the Bill.

However, while we have been satisfied at the degree of involvement we have been able to have in securing the changes we were seeking, we remain disappointed that neither Labour nor National were prepared to lay politics aside and work together on this issue.

Peter Dunne had meetings with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to urge them to engage in all-party discussions regarding the shape and content of the Electoral Finance Bill, but both declined to do so, which indicates to us that both are as guilty as each other of playing politics on the issue, and seeking to preserve their respective positions of advantage.

Looking to the future, UnitedFuture believes there should be an independent inquiry into all aspects of election financing, including the vexed question of state funding of political parties, in time for major change to be implemented for the 2011 election and beyond.

Making MMP work

Since 2002 United Future has been known as the party that 'makes MMP work'. We have provided stability to governments over two terms and have resisted the temptation that affects many parties of promoting instability for political gain. United Future MPs have been and will continue to be well-respected by their parliamentary colleagues and adversaries for their reasonable views, hard work and level-headedness.

Over the last 18 months there has been a noticeable transformation in the way MMP has worked in Parliament; a transformation that United Future has been key in facilitating. For the first time since the inception of MMP in New Zealand the ‘small’ or ‘MMP parties’ have begun working together on issues of common interest. Successes achieved through this cooperation include: a commitment from the Government to repeal the laws of sedition; the defence of access to information through combined opposition to the births, deaths and marriages legislation; and the drawing up of a parliamentary code of conduct.

The experience and leadership of United Future leader Peter Dunne has been a key focal point for all the ‘MMP parties’, and once again proves that United Future is willing to work with all sides to achieve on issues of shared interest.

Gisborne Herald on UnitedFuture