And about time too. That ought to be the unanimous verdict on Andrew Little’s flagging of a referendum, the result of which — it can be safely assumed — will be the much-despised “coat-tailing” provision being wiped from the country’s law books.
In taking the first steps towards terminating what in official parlance is tagged as the harmless sounding “one electorate seat threshold”, the Justice Minister is eradicating something which has stained the fabric of New Zealand’s democracy for far too long.
All the indications from polling data and submissions to the review of MMP conducted by the Electoral Commission back in 2012 suggest an overwhelming majority of voters would back the necessary amendments to the Electoral Act.
As currently written, that law stipulates that a political party must capture a minimum 5 per cent share of the overall number of party votes cast nationwide in order to be entitled to be allocated seats in the new Parliament.
If at least one of the candidates that the party stands in the 71 electorate seats emerges the victor in such a constituency contest, however, the 5 per cent threshold lapses.
This rule invariably has no bearing on the number of seats which fall either Labour’s or National’s way.
The two major parties end up holding almost all of the electorate seats. Their party vote is likewise always way above 5 per cent even when it sinks to historic lows — as was the case with National in 2002 and Labour in 2014.
It is a very different story for minor parties.
Take the 2008 general election. ACT secured just 3.7 per cent of the party vote. Rodney Hide’s victory in the Auckland seat of Epsom —the product of an electoral accommodation with National — and the consequent removal of the 5 per cent threshold saw four candidates on ACT’s list becoming MPs along with their party’s leader.
Justice Minister Andrew Little told TVNZ’s Q+A programme it makes sense to hold the three referendums together.
In marked contrast, Winston Peters’ failure to recapture his one-time stronghold of Tauranga saw New Zealand First failing to secure any seats in the new Parliament despite the party registering 4.1 cent of the party vote — a greater share than that picked up by ACT.
The inherent unfairness of the one-seat threshold, coupled with the fact that it leaves the electoral system highly vulnerable to manipulation, are reasons aplenty for this back-door means of getting into Parliament to be blocked.
Little’s intention to make abolition of the one-seat threshold a matter to be determined by referendum is very much the right thing to do.
He has cautioned that at this stage a referendum remains in the category of “possibility”. More behind-the-scenes work needs to be done before final decisions are made.
If a referendum is not yet a foregone conclusion. The result if there is one most definitely is.
The public does not take kindly to people getting what to them seems to be a free ride into Parliament.
The one-seat threshold thus tarnishes the integrity of Parliament. But that has been the case since MMP was introduced two decades ago.
Why is it suddenly a big issue now?
The “coat-tailing” provision has its origins in Germany’s northern province of Schleswig Holstein which is home to a large ethnic Danish minority.
To ensure that minority is represented in the Bundestag, Germany’s 700-seat plus parliament, the country’s law decrees that the 5 per cent threshold of the party vote no longer applies if a political party manages to win three constituency seats.
The puzzle is why the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which recommended New Zealand adopt German-style MMP, thought it necessary to mimic the aforementioned mechanism.
It is a mystery because the commission put far more weight on a separate recommendation designed to ensure the country’s biggest minority was not shut out of political discourse and decision-making.
To be more exact, the commission recommended that the Māori seats be abolished, but the 5 per cent threshold be waived for parties which were predominantly engaged in tackling issues most relevant to Māori.
Subsequent calls for the one-seat threshold to be dumped — including the one made by the Electoral Commission following its review of MMP — have gone ignored.
The parties in Parliament have long been split over the matter.
National and Act have clung to the concept because it has consistently provided support partners for minority National governments.
Labour and the Greens oppose it for the very same reason.
What appears to have changed is the stance taken by New Zealand First.
Peters and his colleagues have long been reluctant to countenance a reduction of the party vote threshold to 4 per cent despite the Electoral Commission’s confidence that a lower threshold would not turn out to be an invitation for instability.
New Zealand First, however, has gradually hardened its antipathy towards the one-seat threshold.
That said, Peters has not been averse to exploiting the provision as insurance should his party fall short of the party vote threshold.
That was clearly very much part of the rationale for Peters standing in the Northland by-election in early 2015.
Peters emerged victorious in that contest. But his by-election majority of close to 4500 votes somehow transmogrified at the 2017 general election into a near 1400-vote gap between the National candidate and the trailing leader of New Zealand First.
The defeat would have been hard to stomach. It said a lot about voter loyalty. It said there was not a lot of it.
It might have been the final straw which broke the camel’s back when it came to Peters fighting any more debilitating electorate battles.
Without the backstop of the one-seat threshold, the post-election slump in support for New Zealand First has obliged Peters to back a reduction of the party vote threshold for the sake of his party’s survival.
The risk for Labour is that a 4 per cent threshold makes it easier for political minnows to get a toehold in Parliament.
Take Colin Craig. His Conservative party registered 3.97 per cent of the vote at the 2014 election. Had a 4 per cent threshold been in operation, a mere 700 or so more votes cast his way would have guaranteed him a seat in the House.
National currently has no friends with whom it can forge a government. Cutting the threshold increases the chances of potential new friends making it into Parliament.
A couple of questions linger in the political ether.
Does Little’s motive for holding a referendum residesin a genuine desire to improve the electoral system?
Or is he once again finding himself being Peters’ puppet — as was the case when his holding the Justice portfolio obliged him to steer Peters’ abhorrent anti-party legislation through Parliament?
The difference this time is that Little is doing the right thing even if the motives are no less questionable.
SHARE ME