[ad_1]
A maximum four-year term, lowering the five percent threshold and abolishing the coat-tail rule could be on the way as part of the Labor-Greens cooperation agreement.
The changes, if implemented, would mean the most widespread alteration of our electoral laws since the first MMP election in 1996 and could drastically alter the shape of our Parliament.
Unlike the coalition and trust and supply agreements that brought the parties together in the last government, this agreement is not very political.
But one area that the Labor Party and the Greens have agreed to consider is reforming our electoral laws.
READ MORE:
* Election 2020: Judith Collins’ lukewarm response to the delay in the elections, while other parties provide support
* Jacinda Ardern will announce the election decision on Monday morning.
* The last day of the coalition: Parliament concludes with brutal jokes and moments of gratitude
The agreement says the reforms will be divided into three areas: the 2012 report recommendations on the MMP, the electoral financing law, and the length of the parliamentary term.
The 2012 review dates back to a referendum on whether to keep the MMP, held in the 2011 elections. When a majority of voters chose to keep the MMP, it triggered a review by the Election Commission on ways to make the MMP work. best.
Peter Drury / Stuff
A reorganization of the electoral law could be under way.
The key recommendations were the abolition of the fractioning rule and the reduction of the threshold from five percent to a threshold of four percent.
Fractionation allows minority parties to win additional deputies in parliament by winning a seat in the electorate. It is often not activated in New Zealand; Minor parties such as ACT, Mana or the Maori Party that win only one, two or three seats in the electorate tend to have low party votes that do not allow them to complete the number of MPs on the party list.
ACT benefited from the rule in 2005 and 2008, when its support fell below 5 percent. In 2008, he won five seats out of 3.65 percent of the vote thanks to leader Rodney Hyde winning the Epsom seat.
NZ First also made use of the rule, garnering five seats out of 4.19 percent of the party’s votes as leader Winston Peters won the Tauranga seat in the 1999 election.
Lowering the threshold from five percent to four percent would have helped Peters in 1999 (and in 2008, when NZ First won four percent, but was left without a seat in Parliament after failing to secure a seat).
That threshold would almost have been enough to pave the way for Colin Craig’s Conservative Party to enter Parliament in 2014, when the party scored 3.97 percent.
Laine Moger / Things
Lowering the threshold, ditching the split rule, and making a government term of four years instead of three could be in the cards.
Lowering the threshold could have other effects. The five percent threshold is so high for some smaller parties that it is believed that voters do not bother to glance at them for fear that their votes will be wasted if the party does not exceed the threshold.
Lowering the barrier to four percent could encourage voters to bet on a new party without this concern.
Supporters of high thresholds argue that they prevent Parliament from fragmenting. Having too many parties in Parliament could create instability, as it would be more difficult for a government to improvise a mandate.
The Labor-green deal says the parties will seek to work with other parties on changes, although with a large majority, Labor does not need anyone else’s support to bring about changes down the line.
ACT’s David Seymour says he is against changes to the threshold and dress rules.
“To change the electoral laws you have to have a really good problem to solve that is not the fate of the political parties,” he said.
Current national leader Judith Collins was Justice Minister at the time the 2012 recommendations were made. Then, National opposed both the change to the coat rule and the drop in the threshold.
Collins said at the time that it was difficult to reach consensus on the change.
“If these parties want change, they should come and talk to each other. It’s not my role, for the love of God.
“I asked them what they would like and they were completely free to go and discuss things with other party leaders. But I am not in charge of these other parties. “
Things
“If these parties want change, they should come and talk to each other,” national leader Judith Collins previously said.
Changing the term of office has more consensus in Parliament. Politicians are likely to choose to extend the parliamentary term from a maximum of three years to a maximum of four years.
National leader Judith Collins endorsed the change in the election campaign. ACT doesn’t have a position on the change, but Seymour said he personally endorsed it.
The length of the parliamentary mandate is one of the few provisions embedded in New Zealand law. Changing it would require a 75 percent majority in Parliament or a referendum (a particularly mischievous government could repeal the provision that strengthens the entrenched provision).
Changing the term of office seems like it would have the numbers to pass Parliament on its own, although there would likely be some outrage if it were not put to a referendum as well.
This would put politicians in a difficult position, given that New Zealanders have twice refused to change the length of a term, first in 1967 (68.1 in favor of three years) and again in 1990 (69.3% in favor of three years).
Letting politicians give themselves one more year in office without re-voting for Kiwis could be seen as bad form.
Robert Kitchin / Things
David Seymour was against changing the fractionation rule and changing the threshold.
Campaign finance is a bit more murky. The financial scandals involved all parties in Parliament except the Greens and ACT.
The Greens have long wanted to increase state funding for elections. This would allow parties greater access to public funds to use for campaigns.
It remains to be seen how this would work. New Zealand has no shortage of registered matches. Giving everyone access to public funds could be a recipe for disaster, but it could seem like an unfair incorporation of the status quo if only the big parties or parties in Parliament could use public funds to campaign.
We already have a system to divide public funds for parties to spend on television advertising based on their level of support. This could become the basis for a larger regime.
However, expect some resistance. One argument against state funding from the right is that it is important to ask some people to put some of their own money behind the politicians they support to run the country.
