It was fairly predictable that New Zealand would be facing a period of political uncertainty, and perhaps instability, after its first proportional-system election. That does not mean proportional voting systems are to be condemned out of hand. Electoral systems have to balance fairness against simplicity and stability.
The first-past-the-post system that the proportional system replaced had many defects, particularly in the nation without the balancing influence of other sources of power like an Upper House or state legislatures. Typically, it meant that a party with less than 40 per cent of the vote would get 60 per cent of the seats and get unchecked majority government to do what it likes for three years. New Zealanders got sick of some of the extreme policies that this system produced and opted for a new proportional system.
The new system has its defects and will need some fine tuning.
Under the new system, New Zealanders vote for 60 single-member constituency seats in the old way with a cross for the candidate they want and the candidate with the most votes getting the seat. They also vote for a party on the national list for a further 60 seats. These are allocated to parties as a top up to any constituency seats to that the overall result is that each party gets a quota of MPs in exact proportion to its percentage of the party-list vote.
It has meant that several small parties now have MPs. The likely 120-seat split is National 44 seats, Labour 37, NZ First 17, the Alliance 13, Act eight and United one.
There are many combinations of coalitions and majorities. But there are no natural political alliances among the groups to form a stable majority. Winston Peters’ NZ First party, which appears to hold the key, is neither leftist or rightist. Rather it seems to pick the extreme of left or right on any given issue. The centre position is not attractive enough for the dynamic Mr Peters. He was a former National Minister, but had an extreme falling out with Prime Minister Jim Bolger. Most of his other MPs are also Maori or part Maori and Labour-sympathising.
But even if he joins Helen Clark’s Labour Party in coalition, the two fall short of a majority and would require tacit support from Jim Anderton’s leftist Alliance. It would be a volatile mix. Mr Anderton says he will not join a coalition, but he will demand a price for support. As the Alliance support high public ownership and a more regulated labour market, presumably the price will come in that form.
But the majority-forming exercise is as likely to be personality- and job-focused than policy focused. Labour’s deputy leader Michael Cullen has already acknowledged that the deputy prime ministership would go to the leader of the minor party in a coalition. That seems an enticement to Mr Peters.
Mr Peters and NZ First are in a stronger position than the Alliance to set terms for coalition or minority government. The Alliance has nowhere to go if it withdraws support from a Labour-dominated government because it can hardly support the Nationals against whom they are opposed on virtually every policy issue. So threats of withdrawing support unless certain policies are legislated are not likely to intimidate Mrs Clark.
NZ First, however, is in a much more powerful position. If it withdraws support from Labour, there would be a change of government to the Nationals. NZ First, despite the Peters-Bolger animosity, shares some policy planks with the Nationals.
In all, it puts more power in Mr Peters’ hands than his 17 seats should warrant.
It is likely that New Zealand voters and politicians will need a few elections to sort out their new system. It need not be a fiasco; much will depend on the quality of the political leaders and the maturity of their actions. Mr Peters, with his history of mercurial conduct, might well find the new environment more difficult than he imagines and it might well expose his shortcomings tot he electorate before the next election.
Whatever the personalities, the result shows the need for a few stabilising reforms. Much now depends on the exercise of discretion and reserve powers by the Governor-General. Two critical questions when there is no clear majority are the selection of a Prime Minister and when should an election be granted in preference to a transfer of power.
In a system that does not usually give a majority, it is usually better that the Parliament meet as soon as possible after an election and that its first business is to elect a Speaker and then to appoint a Prime Minister. It is usually better in a proportional system to have fixed terms, as in the ACT. It is also better to insist that any no-confidence motion names the new Prime Minister, as in Papua New Guinea. These procedures can eliminate a lot of uncertainty.
Also, in the light of the weekend’s election, New Zealand might be better off with preferential voting in both the candidate lists. There was evidence of a fair amount of strategic voting last weekend. It meant many voters were not able to vote for the candidates they wanted in order, but felt they had to vote for the candidate who had a good chance of beating the least desired candidate. Thus someone might vote Labour instead of National to shut out an Alliance or NZ First candidate, or vote NZ First instead of Labour to shut out National and so on. Others would not waste a vote for a minor party, or if they did were unable to express an effective preference for either of the two major parties.
The single-vote ticket does not truly express voter opinion in a way that preferential voting does.
Preferential voting would also be better in the national list so that voter intentions of those who vote for parties that do not make the 5 per cent cut-off are expressed.