With so many parties ‘ruling out' working with other parties, is MMP losing its way?
Part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of the worst excesses of the political executive. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive.
There has been a lot of 'ruling out' going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, Act's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party.
Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own, indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori.
And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to 'completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing'.
Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago.
Under the old 'first past the post' system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice.
Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary.
Government by decree
By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party that might be able to govern with either major player.
In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an ' elected dictatorship ', part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive.
For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s.
Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill.
Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign 's fears before the electoral system was changed – that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy – the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that.
It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one.
But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from Act (the Treaty principles bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation) and NZ First (tax breaks for heated tobacco products).
Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes Act and NZ First have managed to secure will erode – at least in some quarters – faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements.
The centre cannot hold
Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/Act/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left.
In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate 'commonsense' party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now.
In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player. The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and Act may be small, but they are not minor.
In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase.
For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar.
The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand – lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies – needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
New Zealand Government Feigns Neutrality In US-Israeli War Against Iran
New Zealand's right-wing National Party-led coalition government is seeking to portray itself as uninvolved in the murderous US-Israeli assault on Iran and neutral in the escalating war in the Middle East. On July 13, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon described Israel's unprovoked missile strikes against Iran as 'unwelcome' and 'potentially catastrophic.' He told reporters, 'The risk of miscalculation is high. That region does not need any more military action… What we want to see is the parties coming together and having a conversation.' Speaking to Radio NZ on June 17, however, Foreign Minister Winston Peters refused to condemn Israel's ongoing attacks, which by then had killed hundreds of people. Asked whether his government 'supports Israel taking this unilateral action,' Peters replied: 'we do not take sides in a conflict of this nature.' He called for 'de-escalation and diplomacy' but added that 'Iran is not an innocent player in this.' He said both sides were engaged in 'provocative behaviour.' Such statements amount to a falsification of what is taking place and a defence of Israel. The regime in Israel, led by fascist criminals, is engaged in a genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza and has waged illegal wars against Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. Its aim, working with the full collaboration of the US, is to expand Israel's borders and redivide the entire Middle East in favour of the imperialist powers. The pretext given by Israel—that Iran was close to producing a nuclear weapon—is a transparent lie, just like the lies that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' that were told to justify the criminal US-led invasion and destruction of Iraqi society. After President Donald Trump demanded the 'unconditional surrender' of Iran's government and said there were no plans to kill its leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'for now,' the New Zealand Herald asked Peters on June 18 whether he would support a US strike on uranium enrichment in Iran. The foreign minister replied that 'we do not believe in war when we haven't fully exhausted negotiations and diplomacy.' He added that New Zealand was a 'small country, way out here in the Southwest Pacific… I wish New Zealanders would understand our limitations here.' The reality, however, is that New Zealand is actively supporting Israeli and US military operations in the Middle East. In January 2024, a group of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel were sent to Saudi Arabia to assist in the US bombing of targets in Yemen, in response to the Houthi forces' efforts to stop ships from supplying the Israeli war machine. New Zealand is a minor imperialist power allied with the US and a member of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, raising further questions about its involvement. Asked during a press conference on June 16 whether New Zealand had received advance notice from the US about the attack on Iran, Peters replied, 'Well, we don't make those discussions public.' If the NZ military had foreknowledge of the illegal Israeli missile strike and kept quiet, that would make it complicit in the attack. The far-right Platform podcast's host Sean Plunket asked Peters the next day whether or not the NZ military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia had 'provided any intelligence or material support to the Israeli operation' against Iran. The foreign minister replied: 'Even if I could confirm that, I would not be doing that,' because to do so would endanger the lives of these personnel. The entire political establishment is nervous about widespread anti-war sentiment in New Zealand, which has been expressed in repeated protests against the genocide in Gaza. The opposition Labour Party's deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni told RNZ on June 17, 'we don't support what Israel is doing and we don't support [Iran's] response either.' Like Peters, she called for 'diplomacy' between the two sides. Sepuloni expressed support for the government's decision to join Canada, Australia, the UK and Norway in imposing sanctions on Israel's extreme right-wing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. She called for 'greater sanctions,' including on companies operating illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories. All of this is completely hollow and is intended to divert attention from the fact that Labour continues to support the military alliance with the US, which is funding and supplying Israel's military and supports the complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza and war against Iran. Previous Labour Party-led governments have sent troops to the criminal US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2022 Jacinda Ardern's Labour-led government, which included the Greens, sent hundreds of troops to Britain to assist in training Ukrainian conscripts to fight in the US-NATO proxy war against Russia. Labour agrees with the current government's plan to double military spending over the next few years, from 1 to 2 percent of GDP—at the expense of social programs that working people rely on. The aim, spelled out in numerous official documents and statements, is to prepare the military for joint operations with the US and Australia, particularly against China, which is considered the main 'threat' to US global hegemony. The war against Russia over Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, the war against Iran and the military build-up against China are all interconnected fronts in a rapidly developing world war aimed at seizing resources and markets and resolving the crisis of capitalism centred in the US. New Zealand's ruling elite is preparing to deepen its involvement on all these fronts, behind the backs and against the will of the population, who are overwhelmingly against war. The working class must take action to stop the war, but for this it needs its own socialist political party and strategy—in opposition to all the capitalist parties including Labour and its allies. The only way to put an end to war is through the unified action of the international working class to abolish the source of war: the capitalist system. Those who agree with this must take the decision to become politically active and join the Socialist Equality Group, which is fighting to build a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution, in New Zealand. By Tom Peters, Socialist Equality Group 22 June 2025
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
US Starts New Horror Show For Israel
The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa is calling out for New Zealanders to condemn the US bombing of Iran. PSNA Co-Chair, Maher Nazzal, says he hopes, but does not expect, that the New Zealand government will be critical of the US for its war escalation. 'Israel has once again hoodwinked the United States into fighting Israel's wars. 'Israel's Prime Minister has declared Iran to be on the point of producing nuclear weapons since the 1990s. It's all part of his big plan for expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine to create a Greater Israel, and regime change for the entire region.' 'Israel knows Arab and European countries will fall in behind these plans and in many cases actually help implement them.' 'It is a dreadful day for the Palestinians. Netanyahu's forces will be turned back onto them in Gaza and the West Bank.' 'It is just as dreadful day for the whole Middle East. Trump has tried to add Iran to the disasters of US foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The US simply doesn't care how many people will die.'
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Analysis: Tensions And Timing Test Luxon On First Official China Visit
, Deputy Political Editor in Beijing Analysis - Luck was not on Christopher Luxon's side for his first official trip to China. Even before the visit began, the prime minister was battling for control of the narrative, as a suite of former political leaders - including Helen Clark and Don Brash - accused the coalition of antagonising China through its embrace of the US. A clearly irritated Luxon batted away the warning - "maybe listen to fewer former politicians" - but the commentary persisted. In fact, the superpower struggle was given more prominence by events unfolding in the Middle East as Israel launched open warfare on Iran, with the US and China backing opposing sides. No surprise New Zealanders at home showed more interest in US President Donald Trump's "will-he-won't-he" contemplations than in Luxon's Shanghai sales pitch. Then came news of the Cook Islands diplomacy crisis right on the eve of Luxon's big sit-down with President Xi Jinping. Luxon had to have been cursing the timing, as his pre-meeting media conference was consumed by questions about the government's decision to suspend funding to the Pacific nation after its controversial agreements with China earlier this year. He tried valiantly to characterise New Zealand's issue as being solely with the Cook Islands government, but it was impossible to ignore China's contribution as one-half of the deals in question. That was evidenced by a pointed response from China's Foreign Ministry: that its cooperation with the Cook Islands "should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party". Was the trip a success? Such comments were not repeated, however, in the brief public parts of Luxon's high-level meetings at the Great Hall of the People. The leaders on both sides were direct in their opening remarks but not at all confrontational. President Xi Jinping acknowledged "ups and downs" in the relationship while Luxon pointedly noted the importance of "stability in our region". But both also stressed the value of their ties. Premier Li Qiang even welcomed the "candid" nature of the conversations. Certainly, there was nothing to suggest China is contemplating economic retribution, as some have suggested. Supporters of the government's approach will see that as proof its strategy is working. Its critics will caution it means only that there is still time to change course. To understand China's perspective, one can look to the state media for an indication. On Thursday, state tabloid Global Times hosted a piece by Qin Sheng, associate professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Qin said the China-NZ relationship could provide an example of "healthy interaction" in a world of "rising geopolitical rivalry and pervasive uncertainty". At the same time, he warned that the US was "actively wooing" New Zealand to join its "small circles aimed at containing China" including AUKUS pillar two. "For New Zealand, it is important to see the broader picture and ensure that its choices align with the prevailing trend of history." From a personal perspective, the PM would've been thrilled that Xi had been "impressed" by him in their first meeting at APEC last year. Alas, that sentiment is unlikely to filter through to the NZ public in any meaningful way. All travelling media noted the paltry audience interest in the stories filed as they landed on the afternoon of the public holiday Matariki. More bad luck. Broadly speaking, business leaders in the delegation were enthused and positive about the China visit, but there were some quiet grumblings. Two particular gripes came up multiple times in conversations. The trip's length - just two nights in Shanghai and one in Beijing - was considered too brief from a business perspective. It was hard not to notice the extra empty seats on the 757 returning home with several delegates clearly deciding to stay on in Beijing a little longer. Several businesspeople also questioned Luxon's strategy for luring back Chinese tourists and his characterisation of the issue as a "marketing challenge". When speaking to reporters, Luxon repeatedly insisted the problem was that New Zealand lacked "share of mind" in China and simply needed more promotion. The blame, he said, lay with Labour for being too slow to come out of Covid-19. Never mind that China itself had been slower. Those spoken to by RNZ suggested the more pressing concern was cost - and pointed out the coalition had hiked visa fees and tripled the International Visitor Levy. What next? Luxon's focus will now shift to the NATO forum which is he due to attend in the Netherlands in the coming days. In his final media conference in Beijing, Luxon made clear he considered his attendance there to be quite separate from his China mission. But he must know the two are very much connected and will be viewed as such. In recent comments, NATO chief Mark Rutte has grouped China together with Russia, Iran and North Korea, as effective foes of the West. Asked about the remarks, Luxon said he had seen "no evidence" of those four powers actively working together against the West. One wonders how that "difference of opinion" - as Luxon put it - will go down when the PM arrives at the Hague. Just last week, China expert Jason Young told RNZ that one of New Zealand's biggest challenges over the next two decades would be navigating that tension between its Western security partners and its largest trading partner China. There can be no relying on luck for that.
