Otago Uni expert warns against holding MMP and voting referendums together

An electoral law academic says if the Prime Minister is serious about having a referendum on New Zealand’s voting system, he should not do it at the same time as a referendum on a four-year term. On Thursday, Christopher Luxon told Newstalk ZB there should "definitely" be a referendum on a four-year term, and he was "open for saying we should send it back out to New Zealanders and say are they still supportive of MMP." Luxon said it was "quite right to check-in constitutionally" on whether the Mixed Member Proportional system was still what Kiwis wanted. The last referendum on the matter was in 2011, when 57.8 % of people voted to keep MMP. [Missing Credit]Prof Andrew Geddes. Photo: ODT files University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said Luxon appeared to have "a little bit of a brain explosion", following on from the "problems of the last couple of weeks". In recent weeks, Luxon has not-quite-then-definitely ruled out the Opportunity Party, apologised to business leaders, and had to explain the behaviour of his coalition partners, New Zealand First and ACT. It was still not clear, Geddis said, what alternative there would be to MMP. But a change of voting system would change the entire way governments functioned. "The reason, it seems, for raising that issue now is because of problems that have arisen with how this current governing arrangement seems to have functioned, and the Prime Minister's pique at having some coalition partners who are basically acting up and causing problems for him. "I'm not sure that is a good enough reason to really revisit the entire question of how we elect our representatives and how government then works thereafter." The government had sought to introduce a referendum on a four-year term at this year’s election on November 7, but ended up putting that work aside, citing time constraints and a desire to prioritise law and order policies. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who would be responsible for bringing that legislation to the House, said on Thursday it made sense to look at both issues at the same time. But Geddis said wanting to "tack on" the question of MMP had a problem, in that there would be many people whose answer to one question would depend on the answer to the other. "People might be happy to have a four-year term with MMP, but if we're going to lose MMP, they might want three-year term, and vice versa. “So trying to ask people both what length of term of Parliament you want, as well as 'hey, do you want to change the electoral system', I think, would end up confusing matters, and I think it would really undermine the validity of the referendum and the process," he said. "They're separate issues that should be asked in separate ways. "And if really the government is serious about wanting to ask people whether they want to change the electoral system, that should be dealt with first, because it's only once we know what electoral system we've got that people should really then be able to make up their mind on how long the Parliamentary term should be." [Missing Credit]Labour's Kieran McAnulty. Photo: RNZ ‘What was he thinking?’ Luxon's announcement, including whether it even was an announcement, blindsided his coalition partners and even appeared to catch his National colleagues off-guard. MPs were unable to say whether it was National Party policy or just the Luxon expressing some thoughts, and were unclear on whether this was discussed with the caucus or not. Asked whether she was aware Luxon was going to make such a promise, National's deputy leader Nicola Willis said she was "aware that these were views that he held and that we've discussed in our caucus, and that we've discussed with everyday New Zealanders whose doors we knock on and whose businesses we visit". But backbencher Ryan Hamilton, MP for Hamilton East, said he was not privy to everything the Prime Minister decided. "We've talked about a lot of things. Not that specifically." Hamilton said Luxon was the "captain" and it was within his remit to announce such a policy in such a way. Labour's campaign chair Kieran McAnulty said on Thursday he was not sure whether the Prime Minister had actually intended to do so. "He's had a shocker. They have announced the [Auckland train link] CRL today, and all of a sudden for no apparent reason we're now talking about an MMP referendum. "What was he thinking? This is not the considerations of a political genius." ACT leader David Seymour pointed out that New Zealand got MMP in the first place because of a mistake by David Lange. In 1987, Lange went off-script and promised a referendum on the electoral system, which he later reneged on. His opponent, Jim Bolger, then went on to give his own commitment in 1990. The referendums were held in 1992 and 1993, and MMP was brought in for 1996. "I think the way we ended up with MMP is because David Lange misread his notes and accidentally announced it, so maybe history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes," Seymour said. Geddis said he was sure National would have talked about how it could get its own policies across the line without New Zealand First and ACT. But a party's "internal disgruntled discussions" were different to the change from FPP to MMP, which came after a long period of extreme public dissatisfaction with politics, he said. "To then turn that into a 'we are going to have a constitutional referendum whereby the voters will decide whether or not to do that' — that's a big policy to come up with. ”And it seems very odd that that policy would be made public by the Prime Minister answering a phone-in question on a morning radio show without his MPs apparently knowing that it was going to happen.” [Missing Credit]