Electoral reform in New Zealand

Electoral reform in New Zealand has been a political issue in the past as major changes have been made to both parliamentary and local government electoral systems. A landmark reform was the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, implemented in 1996 following a public referendum.

National elections in New Zealand were first held in 1853 and were conducted over a period of two and a half months. At this time, the country was divided into 24 electorates, who elected one, two or three members () depending on their population. In the multiple-seat districts, block voting was used; in the single-seat districts, basic first-past-the-post (FPP) was used.

This mixed system was in use for a long time, with major diversions being only a change to the second ballot system (a type of two-round system), used for the and and swiftly repealed in 1913.

In referendums in 1992 and 1993, New Zealanders voted to adopt the MMP system, a form of proportional representation combining single-member electorates and list MPs. This was first used in . Proportional representation led to an increase in minor parties entering Parliament, making multi-party governments the norm. Since the introduction of MMP, there have been occasional proposals for further reform or reversal of PR. In a 2011 referendum, New Zealanders voted to retain MMP.

Overview

The first-past-the-post voting (FPP) electoral system, used in New Zealand for much of its history, was a simple plurality system, in which voters marked their preference for the candidate they wish to represent the electorate they live in. The candidate or candidates that garners the most votes through this process is then elected to Parliament. Generally, elections conducted in this manner result in an absolute majority, in which the party who wins the most votes wins a majority of seats and has the absolute power in the house. The only deviation from this in New Zealand during the FPP era was before the 1890s during which each member was independent and as such no political parties existed.

A bill was put forward in 1887 to divide the country into two districts, each of 20 members, and to use STV to elect the members. However, it failed to pass.

With the appearance of a New Liberal Party and the Independent Labour League, the old-time two-party system crumbled significantly. As early as the 1890s, in such ridings as Ashburton the successful candidate had been elected with less than half the votes cast in the district – in 1893 with as few as 32 percent of the vote.

In the 1905 election, for the first time, all members were elected in single-member districts. Concern for fairness and avoidance of the bad effects of vote spitting led NZ to try out a majoritarian system of voting.

The second-ballot system used from 1908 to 1913 was a modification of the existing FPP system. A first election was held same as under FPP, but it guaranteed that a candidate to be elected, must garner over 50% of the votes in their district. The party vote is what ultimately decides the number of seats each party gains in parliament, with any shortfall between the number of electorates won and the party's overall percentage of the party vote made up by list party members elected.

The impetus to change from FPP to MMP was largely due to the excessive disproportionality FPP elections are prone to. Prominent examples of this include the 1966 election, in which the Social Credit Party gained 9% of the vote and yet won only a single seat. Furthermore, this disproportionality often lead to the successful party winning less overall votes than the opposition, but gaining more seats. An example of this is the 1978 election, in which the Labour Party won more than 10,000 votes (0.6%) more than the National Party but gained 11 fewer seats in Parliament.

Due to these factors, in 1979 the Labour Party adopted policy to seriously consider the adoption of proportional representation in place of the contemporary FPP system. While changes resultant from this were extremely delayed, the undercurrent of support for electoral reform continued and were bolstered by the commissioning of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1985 which ultimately recommended a change to MMP. and was implemented before the next election in 1996.

Parliamentary electoral reform

Authority for government in New Zealand is derived from Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi), which was signed in 1840. The meaning of Te Tiriti is complicated by the fact that the Maori and English texts of the agreement are not entirely consistent in their meanings. While the English version is generally interpreted to have ceded absolute sovereignty, the Māori version only cedes governorship. Practically, in the years since 1840, the English interpretation was generally privileged. Thus, New Zealand officially became a British colony and was ruled by a governor until 1852, when the British government passed the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852. This Act established settler self-government in New Zealand by the way of a bi-cameral Parliament consisting of an appointed Legislative Council and a House of Representatives. Following this, the first government was elected using a simple first-past-the-post electoral system, with single and multi-member districts. Importantly, political franchise was only extended at this time to male land owners over the age of 21, which disqualified many Māori due to their communal ownership of land. Furthermore, no women were extended the right to vote. However this changed in 1893 when New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world to allow women the right to vote.

Establishment of Māori electorates

In response to Māori antagonism towards the governments of the time due to their general lack of franchise, in 1867 the Māori Representation Act was passed, which established four additional Māori electorates throughout the country. Each of these would each elect a single member to Parliament,

Introduction of universal suffrage

Universal male suffrage was introduced in 1879 by the passing of the Qualification of Electors Act, which abolished the previous requirement to own land. As such, all European men aged over 21 were now eligible to vote in New Zealand's elections. The only qualifiers to this were that to be eligible to vote, one must have resided in New Zealand for 12 months and in a specific electorate for 6 months. This had an immediate and profound effect on the number of registered voters as they rose from 82,271 (71%) of the adult European population in 1879 to 120,972 (91%) in 1881. With this, New Zealand became the first self-governing nation in the world to grant women the vote. This ushered in an era wherein National and Labour parties dominated New Zealand politics, with only a small number of independent and other party candidates being elected.

Debates around electoral reform

This ushered in an era of relative stability for many years, until the electoral reform debate began in earnest following two successive general elections in 1978 and 1981 in which the National Party won a majority in Parliament with less than 40% of the vote and a lower overall share of the vote than the opposing Labour Party. Other examples of this are evident in both the 1911 and 1931 elections.

In its 1984 campaign platform, the Labour party committed itself to appoint a royal commission on electoral reform if elected. Labour won that election and in 1985 Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer established a Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Palmer had promoted proportional representation as a law professor in his book Unbridled Power?, also published in 1984. The Royal Commission's 1986 report, entitled Towards a Better Democracy recommended the adoption of an MMP electoral system. Recognising that a parliament dominated by the major parties might fail to implement a sweeping reform of this sort, the commission also proposed a referendum on the issue.

Sensing Labour’s vulnerability on the issue, the National opposition criticised the government inaction, and National Party Leader Jim Bolger promised to carry on with a referendum if elected in 1990 and do so before the next election in 1993. Although there was even less support for reform among National parliamentarians than in the Labour Party, the new National government elected in 1990 was, like its predecessor, stuck with a rashly made campaign promise.

1992 electoral system referendum

In 1992, a non-binding referendum was held on whether or not FPP should be replaced by a new, more proportional voting system. New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly for change and indicated an overwhelming preference for MMP.

Voters were asked two questions: whether or not to replace FPP with a new voting system; and which of four different alternative systems should be adopted instead (see question one and question two, below). The government appointed a panel chaired by the Ombudsman to oversee the campaign. The panel issued a brochure describing each of the voting systems appearing on the ballot, which was delivered to all households, and sponsored other publications, television programs, and seminars to inform the public. Meanwhile, the Electoral Reform Coalition campaigned actively in favour of the MMP alternative originally recommended by the royal commission. These measures made it possible for voters to make an informed choice on what was otherwise a complicated issue.

This led New Zealanders to vote overwhelmingly for change (84.7%) and to indicate a clear and overwhelming preference for the MMP alternative (70.5%). Such a result could not be ignored by the government, but rather than implementing MMP as the government was urged to do by the Electoral Reform Coalition, it opted to hold a second binding referendum on reform. This referendum featured a direct choice between FPP and MMP and was planned to be held to coincide with the next general election in 1993.

Question one in the 1992 referendum

The first question asked voters if they wished to retain FPP or change electoral systems. The result was 84.7% favour of replacing FPP, and 15.3% against.

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 95%;"

|-style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| colspan=4 align=center | Voting method referendum, 19 September 1992: Part A Choose one proposal:

|-style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

! Response !! Votes !! %

| Retain FPP I vote to retain the present First Past The Post system.

| align=right| 186,027

| align=right| 15.28

| Change System I vote for a change to the electoral system

| align=right| 1,031,257

| align=right| 84.72

|- style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| align=right| Total votes || align=right| 1,217,284 || align=right| 100.00

|- style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| align=right| Turnout || colspan=2 align=right|

Source: Nohlen et al.

Question two in the 1992 referendum

The second question asked voters which new system should replace FPP. Voters could choose between the following (as listed on the ballot):

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP); also known as the seat linkage compensatory mixed system used in Germany (there called personalized proportional representation, and later under the name "additional member" system adopted in Scotland, and Wales); in which roughly half of the seats are elected by FPP; and the remainder are filled from party lists to top-up the local seats so as to ensure a proportional overall result;
Single Transferable Vote (STV); a proportional system used in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, the Australian Senate, Northern Ireland, lower houses in Tasmania and ACT, and upper houses in NSW, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia; in which the country or province or state is divided into multimember constituencies; and each voter casts a single vote and ranks candidates in declining order of preference;
"Supplementary Member" system (SM); commonly called the Parallel voting system, used in Japan, Russia and Italy; a semi-proportional mixed system with list proportional representation used to fill some seats; and a larger proportion of seats elected by FPP.
"Preferential Voting" (PV); used in Australia and Fiji elections; similar to FPP but with voters ranking candidates in descending order of preference in single-seat constituencies (also called Instant-Runoff Voting).

As noted earlier, an overwhelming majority of those favouring a new electoral system voted for MMP. The percentages of the vote cast for the four possible electoral system options offered in the second question were:

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 95%;"

|-style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| colspan=4 align=center | Voting method referendum, 19 September 1992: Part B Choose one option:

|-style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

! rowspan=2| Response !! rowspan=2| Votes !! colspan=2|%

|-style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

! valid !! total

| Preferential Voting (PV) I vote for the Preferential Voting system (PV)

| align=right| 73,539

| align=right| 6.56

| align=right| 6.04

| Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) I vote for the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP)

| align=right| 790,648

| align=right| 70.51

| align=right| 64.95

| Supplementary Member (SM) I vote for the Supplementary Member system (SM)

| align=right| 62,278

| align=right| 5.55

| align=right| 5.12

| Single Transferable Vote (STV) I vote for the Single Transferable Vote system (STV)

| align=right| 194,796

| align=right| 17.37

| align=right| 16.00

|- style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| align=right| Total valid votes || align=right| 1,121,261 || align=right| 100.00 || align=right| 92.11

|- style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| align=right| Invalid/blank votes || align=right| 96,023 || – || align=right| 7.89

|- style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| align=right| Total votes cast || align=right| 1,217,284 || – || align=right| 100.00

|- style="background-color:#E9E9E9"

| align=right| Turnout || colspan=3 align=right|

Source: Nohlen et al.

1993 electoral referendum

thumb|right|A pro-MMP poster from the 1993 referendum campaign.

The second, binding, referendum was held in conjunction with the general election on 6 November 1993. Although reform had been strongly favoured by the electorate in 1992, the campaign in the second referendum was hard fought, as opposition to the reforms came together under an umbrella organisation called Campaign for Better Government (CBG).

Many senior politicians in both major parties and businesspeople were opposed to MMP: Bill Birch, then a senior National Cabinet Minister, had said MMP would be "a catastrophic disaster for democracy", and Ruth Richardson, former Minister of Finance in Jim Bolger's government said MMP "would bring economic ruin". Peter Shirtcliffe, chairman of Telecom New Zealand at the time and leader of the CBG, said MMP "would bring chaos".

The Electoral Reform Coalition (ERC) was the main advocate for the adoption of MMP, and had support from several people, including the Green Party co-leader Rod Donald. MMP faced an uphill battle, as acknowledged in the pro-MMP poster to the side, since the proposed model was for increase in the number of MPs from 99 to 120. The CBG responded to the proposed increase in the number of MPs with a controversial television advertisement showing 21 faceless list MPs with paper bags over their heads.

The ERC also had a "David and Goliath" battle financially. With the CBG being backed by a large business lobby, they had large amounts of money to spend. While the CBG could spend large on television, radio and full-page newspaper advertisements, often with fear-evoking graphic images, the ERC had limited funds and concentrated more on advocating in communities.

At the same time, the country's largest newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, came out in support of the MMP proposal in the last week of the campaign, and press coverage overall was extensive and largely favourable. The Alliance heavily supported MMP, featuring "vote MMP" on all of its election billboards.

|width = 40%

|align = right

The CBG's backing of business leaders and politicians proved to be damaging to their cause, giving the impression that they were "a front for the business roundtable". the New Zealand public came to see MMP as a way to curb the power of governments to engage in dramatic and unpopular reforms. Cartoonist Murray Ball reflected this perception in a cartoon starring his characters Wal Footrot and Dog, with Wal telling The Dog (and by extension the viewer), "Want a good reason for voting for MMP? Look at the people who are telling you not to..."

Given the link between the success of the referendum and anger at the status quo, politicians took lesser roles in the 1993 campaign, realising that their opposition to reform only increased voters' desire for change.

In the face of a strong opposition campaign, the final result was much closer than in 1992, but the reforms carried the day, with 53.9% of voters in favour of MMP. ERC spokesperson Rod Donald reflected in 2003, "Had the referendum been held a week earlier I believe we would have lost."

Introduction of MMP

The first election using the MMP system was held in 1996. Districts were re-drawn as in this election there were 34 fewer district members than had been elected in the 1993 election. As well, the Parliamentary seating had to be reconfigured as overall there were to be 21 more members than had been elected in 1993.

Under MMP, each voter has two votes: the first vote is called the party vote and voters use this vote to express their support for a particular party. The second vote is the electorate vote, which is used to express support for a candidate to represent the voter's electorate in Parliament.

New Zealand's MMP system allocates top-up seats only to parties that have achieved an electoral threshold of 5 percent of the nationwide party vote, or success in an electorate, to ensure their proportion of the seat is about equal to its vote share. Parties who meet this threshold are entitled to a share of the seats in Parliament that is about the same as its share of the nationwide vote.

Coalition governments were rare, but not impossible under the FPP system. Most of the time a single party won majority government even if it did not win a majority of the vote. The majority governments elected in New Zealand have been mostly false-majority governments. Not since 1935 has a government been elected by a majority of the votes.

As an example of a coalition government under FPP, in 1931–35 there was the United/Reform coalition. Following the 1996 general election it took six weeks to form a coalition, showing that this is not a quick process.

MMP is arguably a more democratic system than FPP. Supporters of MMP criticised FPP for creating elective dictatorships, and promoting the excessive power of one party government. Supporters consider MMP to provide increased representational fairness, and better-considered, wiser, and more moderate policies because of cooperation of the leading party and minority parties.

Furthermore, MMP is considered to increase the representation of a diverse population, enabling a higher percentage of Maori, women, Pasifika and Asian people in Parliament.

However, supporters of FPP believe FPP provides a more stable Parliament, and avoids a minority party "kingmaker", as was the case in 2017 with New Zealand First determining who would lead the government.

Prior to the switch to MMP, New Zealand largely had a two party system, with government interchanging between Labour and National since 1935.

Under MMP, National and Labour lost their complete dominance in the House, with the 2020 election – the ninth since the introduction of MMP – being the first to give a single political party a majority of the seats (with very close to a majority of the votes). This had meant that electoral results have usually required political parties to form coalitions to govern. Indeed, since 1998 there have been minority coalition governments relying on supply and confidence from parties outside of government.

With the introduction of MMP, due to New Zealand's unique provision for parties to win list seats if they win at least one local seat despite getting less than the 5% threshold, there has been a widening of political parties represented within the House.

Prior to the 1996 election, there were four parties in the chamber. After the switch to MMP, the 1996 election gave seats in Parliament to six parties. The Act New Zealand party and United New Zealand was elected to Parliament for first time, joining the earlier elected Alliance, National, New Zealand First and Labour parties. Within a few years eight parties had seats in the chamber, after the Greens separated from the Alliance for the 1999 election, and after the creation of the Māori Party in 2004, and with the continued use of MMP.

The number of political parties was then expected to fall (as happened in Germany after its adoption of MMP), but instead seven or eight parties consistently had seats (see the table below). This was the case until the 2017 election where the number of parties in Parliament fell to five, the lowest it has been since MMP was introduced.

The 2017 election saw a severe decrease in the vote share for the two larger minor parties that were returned to parliament. This could be attributed to political scandals and the popularity of the Labour leader candidate, Jacinda Ardern, and evidence of the beginning of an overall decline.

The transition to MMP increased the democratic accountability and tightened the relationship between votes cast and the seats. The change decreased the disproportionality of New Zealand's elections.

{| class="wikitable"

!Election

!Disproportionality

!Number of Parties in Parliament

| 1972 || 12.06 || 2

| 1975 || 12.93 || 2

| 1978 || 15.55 || 3

| 1981 || 16.63 || 3

| 1984 || 15.40 || 3

| 1987 || 8.89 || 2

| 1990 || 17.24 || 3

| 1993 || 18.19 || 4

| colspan=3 | MMP introduced

| 1996 || 3.43 || 6

| 1999 || 2.97 || 7

| 2002 || 2.37 || 7

| 2005 || 1.13 || 8

| 2008 || 3.84 || 7

| 2011 || 2.38 || 8

| 2014 || 3.72 || 7

| 2017 || 2.73 || 5

| 2020 || 4.15 || 5

| 2023 || 2.63 || 6

2011 referendum

As part of the lead-up to the 2008 general election, the National Party promised a second referendum to decide whether or not to keep MMP. Upon gaining power, the party legislated that the referendum would be held alongside the 2011 general election, which took place on Saturday 26 November 2011. The referendum was similar to the 1992 referendum, in that voters were asked firstly to choose whether to keep the MMP system or to change to another system, and secondly to indicate which alternative system would, in the case of change, have their preference.

Nearly 58% of voters voted to keep the MMP system in preference to any of the other four options, compared to 1993, where just under 54% had favoured MMP in preference to keeping FPP. On the second question, nearly one-third of voters didn't vote, or cast an invalid vote. Of those who did vote, nearly 47% favoured the former FPP system.

2012 review

On the back of the majority of voters voting to keep the MMP system, a review into the workings of the system by the Electoral Commission was automatically triggered. The Commission released a public consultation paper on 13 February 2012 calling for public submissions, with particular emphasis placed on six key areas. On 13 August 2012, the Commission released its proposal paper, recommending changes to some of the six areas. After submissions on the proposals were considered, the final report was presented to the Minister of Justice on 29 October 2012. It is up to Parliament to decide whether to enact any of the recommendations.

{|class="wikitable"

! Area !! August proposals !! October report

| Basis of eligibility for list seats

Reducing the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent.
Abolishing the one-electorate-seat threshold.

| As August; also

There should be a statutory requirement for the Electoral Commission to review the operation of the 4% party vote threshold and report to the Minister of Justice for presentation to Parliament after three general elections.

| By-election candidacy

| Status quo: sitting list MPs can stand in electorate by-elections

| As August

| Dual candidacy

| Status quo: someone on the party list can simultaneously stand in an electorate

| As August

| Ordering of party lists

| Status quo: closed list rather than open list

| As August; also

Political parties should be required to give a public assurance by statutory declaration that they have complied with their rules in selecting and ranking their list candidates.
In any dispute relating to the selection of candidates for election as members of Parliament, the version of the party’s rules that should be applied is that supplied to the Commission under section 71B as at the time the dispute arose.

| Overhang seats

| Abolishing the provision of overhang seats for parties not reaching the threshold. The extra electorates would be made up at the expense of list seats to retain 120 MPs

| Abolish, provided the one-electorate-seat threshold is abolished

| Proportionality

| Identifying reduced proportionality as a medium-term issue, with it unlikely to be affected until electorate MPs reach 76, around 2026 based on 2012 population growth.

| Consideration should be given to fixing the ratio of electorate seats to list seats at 60:40 to help maintain the diversity of representation and proportionality in Parliament obtained through the list seats.

2024 Independent Electoral Review

In response to generally declining voter turnout, a number of commentators have proposed changes to the electoral system.

Former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer has expressed support for the introduction of compulsory voting in New Zealand, as has existed in Australia since 1924. It is believed that such a measure will improve democratic engagement, although former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern opposed it on the grounds that citizens should vote because they're engaged, not because they are compelled to.

Palmer has also expressed support for lowering the voting age to 16, considering that this may provide a platform for increased civic education during high school years. The Independent Electoral Review Panel was established in May 2022 and has its own website.

The Ministry of Justice published the final report of the Independent Electoral Review on 16 January 2024. The new National Party justice minister Paul Goldsmith ruled out implementing changes such as lowering the voting age to 16, allowing prisoners to vote, and increasing the size of parliament.

Local government elections

Up until the 2004 local elections, all territorial authorities were elected using the bloc vote (although often referred to as first-past-the-post). In 2004, at the discretion of the council, they could use the single transferable vote. Eight local bodies used STV in the 2007 local body elections. However, only five territorial authorities used STV in the 2013 local elections.

Almost all regional authorities in New Zealand use FPP. However the Greater Wellington Regional Council used STV for the first time in the 2013 elections, becoming the first time that a regional authority used STV. The poll option had been seen as a barrier to establishing Māori wards. Twenty-four councils had sought to establish Māori wards since 2002 and only two had been successful. The government enacted the change against advice from the Department of Internal Affairs, which recommended more time was provided to consult on the change.

References

External links

Independent Electoral Review (commenced 2022)
Campaign for MMP
New Zealand's Change to MMP by Paul Harris
Proportional Representation in NZ – how the people let themselves in
NEW ZEALAND: A Long-Established Westminster Democracy Switches to PR by Nigel S. Roberts

Overview

Parliamentary electoral reform

Establishment of Māori electorates

Introduction of universal suffrage

Debates around electoral reform

1992 electoral system referendum

Question one in the 1992 referendum

Question two in the 1992 referendum

1993 electoral referendum

Introduction of MMP

2011 referendum

2012 review

2024 Independent Electoral Review

Local government elections

See also

References

External links