The next general election in 2026 will see the 30th anniversary of the introduction of the MMP electoral voting system. MMP stands for mixed-member proportional and it replaced the “first past the post” (FPP) system we had had previously after a referendum in 1993.
The main intention of MMP was to ensure that those who entered Parliament represented the broader diversity of New Zealand society. Greater representation for Māori and women in particular was at the forefront of the argument put forward in its favour.
Since its introduction, Kiwis have been divided on whether MMP is the right voting system for us. That division even resulted in a referendum in 2011 on whether to keep the system or look for something else. Three-quarters of eligible voters voted in that referendum, and 58% of those wanted it retained.
And so it remains. But is it the right system for our times
As we approach the anniversary, it may be timely to consider whether the MMP system is working for us. That is not to suggest that we return to FPP. But there must be something out there that will work better for our small, innovative but crippled country.
MMP was intended to provide for the representation of wider interests in Parliament, in a ratio proportional to the make-up of the general population. As logical and laudable as that may seem, we have now reached a point where that ratio is out of line with the makeup of the population, and the advocacy of fringe interests risks outweighing the needs of the mainstream.
In any democracy, it is important to cater for and support the needs of those on the edges of our society. However, such support should not come at the expense of the needs of the vast majority. And that is where our MMP system has delivered a Parliament that is “out of whack” with the needs of the country.
New Zealand has historically been governed by one of two centrist political parties. The Labour Party traditionally represented the trade unions, while the National Party represented the business and farming sector. National is seen as financially competent and better for the economy, while Labour is regarded as free spending and better for workers. Those respective positions served the country well as we recovered from two world wars and a depression to build a strong and fair nation over the past century.
But times have changed. The people are more vocal and have the means to broadcast their views. Those who shout loudest are not those who occupy the political centre. Rather, they are those on the fringes. Those who consider themselves as forgotten or under-served. Those who are the minorities.
MMP brought the establishment of additional, fringe political parties who have increasingly sought to leverage the voices of those minorities and make that noise their own. As the centrist parties have garnered political partners, the support of those fringes has become increasingly necessary. As a result, they have been forced to adopt positions on matters that they would otherwise consider incidental to their main priorities.
That has led us to where we now sit.
The country has a series of issues that we haven’t faced at such a scale before. Our economy has major challenges. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report records our GDP growth as second to last of the 40 developed countries assessed. Our current account balance is third from the bottom, just ahead of Cyprus and Greece.
We have problems with health, education, crime and justice, and housing. These are not the issues of minority champions. These are mainstream issues that impact the vast majority of New Zealanders.
And yet we are constantly distracted by the needs of, or the deeds of, those who are representing the minorities.
My great fear for New Zealand is not a Labour-led Government. My fear is what would become of that Government if it is disproportionately influenced by the agendas and antics of its obvious left-wing partners.
Central to those concerns are the recent antics of two political parties. Te Pati Māori, whose predecessor, the Māori Party, was once a strong ally to a responsible Government, has become increasingly extremist and separatist over recent years. And the Greens have abandoned their once environmental agenda and instead have pursued a wide range of mainly global issues, including Palestine, gender rights and refugee support.
The latest twist has seen both parties move away from what we have come to expect as normal standards and behaviours. Te Pati Māori has chosen not to uphold certain aspects of parliamentary behaviour, including its MPs’ refusal this week to attend a second-chance privileges committee hearing into their conduct. Meanwhile, the Greens have had several controversies involving the behaviour of their parliamentary MPs, which have been drawn out to a point of boredom and in many cases, eventually overlooked. To date, no action has been taken that would serve as a consequence or a reminder of the standards of behaviour we should expect.
These two parties alone hold 20 seats in the nation’s Parliament. Can we really believe that over 16% of voters support their current antics?
Which leads us back to the question about representation. The great majority of New Zealanders grew from those centrist roots mentioned above. The great majority of New Zealanders go to work every day, get their kids to school and help those kids with their homework. They’ll make sure everyone is well fed and appropriately sheltered. They are interested in education, health, crime and housing.
Then there are those who cannot help themselves. Health, disability and mental health form the backbone of such troubles. Again, most New Zealanders care about this stuff and want to see our performance in these areas improved.
These people form the majority, and they are the people for whom Parliament’s main efforts should be directed. But the declining calibre of our MPs, the outlying agendas, and the evaporation of standards have meant we are sidetracked at every turn.
One of the biggest features of MMP is that almost half of our MPs are not elected. Of the current Parliament of 123 representatives, 51 are list MPs. These people are appointed by their parties. That means they don’t have to pass the test of their local electorate. To win an electorate seat, you have to be well known, liked, be competent with useful skillsets and capabilities, and have a broad understanding of the needs of your community. In contrast, a list MP needs only to be liked by the small and anonymous committee making the party appointments. If you stay in their good books, you can be there forever!
As a result, the creation of list MPs almost 30 years ago has diluted the quality of our representation. Many are “career politicians” with little experience outside the political process. And yet, in a troubled country, we need better people more than ever before. We need people with executive skills and the ability to get things done. They seem to be in short supply
MMP has had the opposite impact of what was intended, delivering a disproportionate over-representation of minorities and under-representation of the majority.
Yes, we want to be representative. But we also need people who can understand and develop good legislation, who are engaged with a broad community and with in-depth knowledge of important issues. MMP is not delivering enough of these people.
Part of the problem is the increasing prevalence of career politicians, those who emerge from a political science or communications degree, get a job in the office of an MP and eventually find themselves on a party list and into Parliament; all without ever stepping out into the hurly burly of normal life.
And so some suggested solutions emerge.
We might not need to abandon the MMP concept. But could we, for instance, reduce the total number of MPs from about 120, to 90? That would see 60 electorate MPs and just 30 appointed from the party lists. Doing so should improve the connectedness of Parliament with a greater percentage of qualified, connected local people representing their geographic area. A smaller percentage of list MPs would narrow the oversized fascination with fringe issues and enable us to focus more on the big issues.
Next up, what if there was an age limit of when you could enter Parliament, say 35 years of age? That would mean that would-be MPs will have had a working life of at least 10 years before entering politics.
And how about limiting MPs to a maximum of three or perhaps four terms? A term to listen and learn and a couple of terms to contribute and lead. That would ensure we avoid the succession of “lifers” making minimum contributions for prolonged periods, whilst also constantly refreshing the line-up and the ideas.
Many of our politicians will tell us they want a four-year term. But, for the time being, we don’t trust them enough to offer that. They will have to earn that additional year.
Meanwhile, Andrew Barnes, the creator of the four-day week and founder of Perpetual Guardian, told me during our Leaders Getting Coffee podcast that “Parliament should be where you go to give back after you’ve had a successful career”.
Perhaps that would be a good place to start.
Bruce Cotterill, a five time CEO and current Company Chairman and Director with extensive experience across a range of industries including real estate, media, financial services, technology and retail. Bruce regularly blogs on brucecotterill.com - where this article was sourced
Since its introduction, Kiwis have been divided on whether MMP is the right voting system for us. That division even resulted in a referendum in 2011 on whether to keep the system or look for something else. Three-quarters of eligible voters voted in that referendum, and 58% of those wanted it retained.
And so it remains. But is it the right system for our times
As we approach the anniversary, it may be timely to consider whether the MMP system is working for us. That is not to suggest that we return to FPP. But there must be something out there that will work better for our small, innovative but crippled country.
MMP was intended to provide for the representation of wider interests in Parliament, in a ratio proportional to the make-up of the general population. As logical and laudable as that may seem, we have now reached a point where that ratio is out of line with the makeup of the population, and the advocacy of fringe interests risks outweighing the needs of the mainstream.
In any democracy, it is important to cater for and support the needs of those on the edges of our society. However, such support should not come at the expense of the needs of the vast majority. And that is where our MMP system has delivered a Parliament that is “out of whack” with the needs of the country.
New Zealand has historically been governed by one of two centrist political parties. The Labour Party traditionally represented the trade unions, while the National Party represented the business and farming sector. National is seen as financially competent and better for the economy, while Labour is regarded as free spending and better for workers. Those respective positions served the country well as we recovered from two world wars and a depression to build a strong and fair nation over the past century.
But times have changed. The people are more vocal and have the means to broadcast their views. Those who shout loudest are not those who occupy the political centre. Rather, they are those on the fringes. Those who consider themselves as forgotten or under-served. Those who are the minorities.
MMP brought the establishment of additional, fringe political parties who have increasingly sought to leverage the voices of those minorities and make that noise their own. As the centrist parties have garnered political partners, the support of those fringes has become increasingly necessary. As a result, they have been forced to adopt positions on matters that they would otherwise consider incidental to their main priorities.
That has led us to where we now sit.
The country has a series of issues that we haven’t faced at such a scale before. Our economy has major challenges. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report records our GDP growth as second to last of the 40 developed countries assessed. Our current account balance is third from the bottom, just ahead of Cyprus and Greece.
We have problems with health, education, crime and justice, and housing. These are not the issues of minority champions. These are mainstream issues that impact the vast majority of New Zealanders.
And yet we are constantly distracted by the needs of, or the deeds of, those who are representing the minorities.
My great fear for New Zealand is not a Labour-led Government. My fear is what would become of that Government if it is disproportionately influenced by the agendas and antics of its obvious left-wing partners.
Central to those concerns are the recent antics of two political parties. Te Pati Māori, whose predecessor, the Māori Party, was once a strong ally to a responsible Government, has become increasingly extremist and separatist over recent years. And the Greens have abandoned their once environmental agenda and instead have pursued a wide range of mainly global issues, including Palestine, gender rights and refugee support.
The latest twist has seen both parties move away from what we have come to expect as normal standards and behaviours. Te Pati Māori has chosen not to uphold certain aspects of parliamentary behaviour, including its MPs’ refusal this week to attend a second-chance privileges committee hearing into their conduct. Meanwhile, the Greens have had several controversies involving the behaviour of their parliamentary MPs, which have been drawn out to a point of boredom and in many cases, eventually overlooked. To date, no action has been taken that would serve as a consequence or a reminder of the standards of behaviour we should expect.
These two parties alone hold 20 seats in the nation’s Parliament. Can we really believe that over 16% of voters support their current antics?
Which leads us back to the question about representation. The great majority of New Zealanders grew from those centrist roots mentioned above. The great majority of New Zealanders go to work every day, get their kids to school and help those kids with their homework. They’ll make sure everyone is well fed and appropriately sheltered. They are interested in education, health, crime and housing.
Then there are those who cannot help themselves. Health, disability and mental health form the backbone of such troubles. Again, most New Zealanders care about this stuff and want to see our performance in these areas improved.
These people form the majority, and they are the people for whom Parliament’s main efforts should be directed. But the declining calibre of our MPs, the outlying agendas, and the evaporation of standards have meant we are sidetracked at every turn.
One of the biggest features of MMP is that almost half of our MPs are not elected. Of the current Parliament of 123 representatives, 51 are list MPs. These people are appointed by their parties. That means they don’t have to pass the test of their local electorate. To win an electorate seat, you have to be well known, liked, be competent with useful skillsets and capabilities, and have a broad understanding of the needs of your community. In contrast, a list MP needs only to be liked by the small and anonymous committee making the party appointments. If you stay in their good books, you can be there forever!
As a result, the creation of list MPs almost 30 years ago has diluted the quality of our representation. Many are “career politicians” with little experience outside the political process. And yet, in a troubled country, we need better people more than ever before. We need people with executive skills and the ability to get things done. They seem to be in short supply
MMP has had the opposite impact of what was intended, delivering a disproportionate over-representation of minorities and under-representation of the majority.
Yes, we want to be representative. But we also need people who can understand and develop good legislation, who are engaged with a broad community and with in-depth knowledge of important issues. MMP is not delivering enough of these people.
Part of the problem is the increasing prevalence of career politicians, those who emerge from a political science or communications degree, get a job in the office of an MP and eventually find themselves on a party list and into Parliament; all without ever stepping out into the hurly burly of normal life.
And so some suggested solutions emerge.
We might not need to abandon the MMP concept. But could we, for instance, reduce the total number of MPs from about 120, to 90? That would see 60 electorate MPs and just 30 appointed from the party lists. Doing so should improve the connectedness of Parliament with a greater percentage of qualified, connected local people representing their geographic area. A smaller percentage of list MPs would narrow the oversized fascination with fringe issues and enable us to focus more on the big issues.
Next up, what if there was an age limit of when you could enter Parliament, say 35 years of age? That would mean that would-be MPs will have had a working life of at least 10 years before entering politics.
And how about limiting MPs to a maximum of three or perhaps four terms? A term to listen and learn and a couple of terms to contribute and lead. That would ensure we avoid the succession of “lifers” making minimum contributions for prolonged periods, whilst also constantly refreshing the line-up and the ideas.
Many of our politicians will tell us they want a four-year term. But, for the time being, we don’t trust them enough to offer that. They will have to earn that additional year.
Meanwhile, Andrew Barnes, the creator of the four-day week and founder of Perpetual Guardian, told me during our Leaders Getting Coffee podcast that “Parliament should be where you go to give back after you’ve had a successful career”.
Perhaps that would be a good place to start.
Bruce Cotterill, a five time CEO and current Company Chairman and Director with extensive experience across a range of industries including real estate, media, financial services, technology and retail. Bruce regularly blogs on brucecotterill.com - where this article was sourced
9 comments:
Thanks Bruce. We certainly need some change and definitely would not give them 4 years. If we made it 2 years that might sharpen them up. Nah, there's not.much hope. MC
On the money Bruce, but where is the will of our Prime Minister, and his coalition partner NZ First, to even sort out the debacle that surrounds the Treaty and Waitangi Tribunal?
The ultimate "lifer", Winston Peters, is one of the most productive members of parliament whether you like his politics, or not.
Any change of MMP now would need to include the debate on the politically skewing Maori seats. They're 100 years+ over their use by date.
You forget one important point. While it appears the smaller parties are leading us down the wrong path, it is actually not so. The Coalition government had a clear mandate from the people. They didn't want racial division, He Puapua, Three Waters or the coastline given to part-Maori only. These were important issues apart from the economy. It is the Coalition government who has the power to make changes. At present we have a right-wing government on a left-wing trajectory. The government is no longer fulfilling the wishes of the voters.
The big problem is the list. Pleasing the party and its leader is the priority now, even for electorate MP's. No one cares about anything but their place on the list.
Bruce, you’re heading in the right direction, but you really can’t fix rotten by just sandpapering it a bit. The whole system is now corrupted and needs to be abandoned. How about this: a ballot system from the whole adult population, similar to the old compulsory military training selection process; but with a number of the changes you would like to see. For instance, filter the balloted to ensure a minimum age, say 45, also for work achievement, for integrity, for psychological soundness, for intelligence, for freedom from extreme ideologies. I’m sure you can think of other requirements as well. Then limit their service to 6 years, and allocate them to a portfolio, initially as junior minister, then senior minister on a 3 year term. Oh, and reduce the maximum numbers in Parliament to 50. Think of the savings! The role of these reps is to supervise the Dept heads. The latter become the public faces of the Ministries, and if not up to standard get fired, directly by the Ministers. Simple eh?
Definitely believe that "..over 16% of voters support TPM & Green current antics", as much as I believe that 50% of people are below average IQ. The issue from my point of view is not the strength of the minor parties, but the weakness (and dearth of leadership too) of the centre-left and centre-right as is evident also in Australia, Canada, Germany, France, UK, etc etc, which leaves the proverbial tail wagging the dog.
Janine - couldn’t agree more. The mandate was clear. National has it’s fingers in its ears singing la-la-la-la. No idea how they think they can achieve economic growth and foreign investment in infrastructure when practically everything in this country requires increasingly large backhanders to maori to get off the ground and stay the course. Meantime the racially divisive issues you mention remain not only unresolved, but barely mentioned.
I do not agree with the 35 year old qualification. Simeon Brown became an MP in his 20s and David Seymour was 31 when he became an MP.
Post a Comment