An independent review into New Zealand's electoral system has proposed a raft of changes.
They include giving the vote to 16-year-olds and making it easier for small parties to get into parliament.
But new disciplines would be imposed on small parties, such as losing the right to bring in extra members if they win one electoral seat.
These proposals were drafted by the six-person Independent Electoral Review Panel, chaired by the lawyer and director, Deborah Hart. The panel to review electoral law was appointed by the then Justice Minister Kris Faafoi in May 2022.
Its proposals are now open to submissions and a final report will come out by November.
One issue the panel looked at was the position of minor parties. At present, they must win at least 5% of the party vote to get into parliament, which means they move from no representation to six MPs or more by just getting a few extra votes.
The panel wants that margin to be reduced to 3.5%. It says that threshold will still allow stable Governments to be formed.
On the other hand, the "coat-tail" rule would be abolished, meaning parties that win an electorate seat will no longer be able to bring in extra MPs if they reach 3% or 4% of the party vote but still fall short of 5%.
"Lowering the threshold will broaden representation by allowing more minor parties into parliament," the panel says.
The panel also heard arguments about the three year Parliamentary term, which is frequently accused of contributing to short-term thinking.
So the panel is now calling for a referendum on whether this should change, saying it is 32 years since the last time a referendum was held.
The panel also comes out strongly against the 'Waka Jumping" rule, which was pushed by New Zealand First. This law means MPs can lose their seat if they leave or are removed from their party.
"In our view, MPs have the right to freedom of expression and of association and should be able to express dissent with the views of their party," the panel wrote.
"Getting rid of these rules would protect those rights and act as an important check on parties and on the government."
The panel also calls for the right to vote being reduced so that people aged 16 and 17 could also cast a ballot.
The current threshold of 18 was found by a court to be discriminatory. The panel thinks it is also a source of discrimination against Maori, who have more young people in their ranks than the population at large. This means the Maori population have fewer MPs to represent them than the average.
The panel also wants to allow Maori voters to be able to switch from the general to the Maori role at any time, even up to and including election day.
The panel also wants people to be able to spend more time abroad before losing the franchise.
"People have more ways than ever before to stay connected," the panel says.
"We think most citizens overseas would continue to be invested in and affected by government policies beyond a single electoral cycle and we recommend extending it to two electoral cycles."
Another proposed change would allow political activity to take place on election day.
And a further suggestion includes allowing electronic vote counting of preliminary results, which would start the long term move towards digitally run elections.
The panel also address the vexed question of party finance. It wants to restrict donations to individuals. This would mean that companies, trade unions, trusts, and other organisations could not make a financial donation.
"Donation and loan amounts are currently uncapped," the panel goes on to say.
"We recommend they are capped at $30,000 per party for each election cycle. We also recommend reducing the amount of money that can be donated anonymously from $1,500 to $500."
In addition, large donors should have their grants divulged on a weekly basis. And there should be state funding of all parties to balance any inequities.
The panel also recommends setting a cap on political advertising of $3.5 million for all parties, which it says reflects actual spending done by National and Labour.
Electorates are currently allowed to vary in size at present to make them reflect the geography of an area. The panel recommends increasing this tolerance from 5% to 10%.
The report also addresses the risk of foreign interference in New Zealand elections. It says the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) did not identify systemic, state-sponsored interference activity in the 2020 election.
"However, the NZSIS has confirmed a small number of states engage in interference activities against our national interest, including by targeting our political sector.
"We recommend addressing an existing vulnerability in our system by preventing third party promoters using money from overseas persons to fund election advertising in the three months before an election."
87 Comments
Yet they are not old enough to be held accountable for their crimes, so why would you let them make decisions for the country if they are not even compos mentis enough to make decisions for themselves? If you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to go to jail.
I used to be supportive of the vote16 (I'm 67 & started fulltime work at 16) however now that the judiciary with the connivance of psychobabble 101 & defence lawyers have decided that serious offenders committing eg multiple rapes are still kids until age 25 & not responsible for their actions I've changed my mind & I'm sure many others have too.
I also used to think that a longer term would be better for a longer govt focus - before this current Govt started secretly undermining NZs democracy with no electoral mandate.
Agree, STV vastly superior, actually mitigates the 5% threshold issue to some extent as you could always put your last selection as for Nat/Lab. Hence the removal of the 'wasted vote' reason not to vote for what you actually want.
I wonder why 3.5% is the number for stable government though, why not 1/120th 0.8%. Are they saying current politicians wouldn't be able to work together constructively with minor parties? If so, voters may fix that every 3 years. I think the threat of smaller parties eroding the base of larger ones might focus the minds of the larger ones.
I think your second paragraph raises an interesting point. The lower the threshold the closer we get to a pure democracy basis. politicians will need to actually convince others that their position has actual merit. Any mention of getting rid of the list seats? These go against democratic principles.
Agree, a similar system is in place in Australia with preferences. Gets a bit tedious when you are having to rank 20+ candidates though, although I doubt we would have the same problem in NZ as we dont seem to have many independent or small party candidates as Australia. Candidates can also then direct preferences by making their preferred political partners known before the election, that way we avoid another Winston situation where an individual basically gets to choose the Govt not the voters.
I doubt we would have the same problem in NZ as we dont seem to have many independent or small party candidates as Australia
I think the reason we don't have many is due to the system, more would throw their hat in the ring if we had the Aussie system. As a voter I'm in favour of having more choice. Do you have to rank every candidate for the vote to be valid?
Yes, I agree STV is the way to go. The whole essence of representative democracy is that we select who will represent us in the legislature. It should mean more smaller electorates where candidates should be better known by the electors, and conversely the elected PM should know his/her electorate more intimately.
Would get rid of the "party machine " which is the most powerful element of the MMP scene, to whom the list MP owes their loyalty/is subject to party control.
At the moment just who does the list MP represent? Certainly not the electorate!
21 sounds like a much more reasonable minimum Voting age. 16 encourages political parties to target children who lack much world experience. Being too young for adult court should automatically mean being too young to vote!
we could consider votes being based in net tax paid up to say 100,000 per person, that way those who contribute more get more say in how the money is spent and voting for tax cuts reduces your future voting power!
Guess you’re not a fan of universal suffrage then?
Under your system do stay-at-home parents get no say? Got cancer and had to take time off work? No vote for you.
The point of our democracy is that those who are bound by its laws get a say. One person one vote. Anything else is frankly bullshit.
3 points.
1. No nation in the world has universal suffrage, all exclude at least some people.
2. By definition universal suffrage accords votes to adults. In New Zealand you are legally an infant until 20. This would imply that by advocating for universal suffrage you are advocating for the voting age to be tied to the age at which one can be tried as an adult.
3. One can still opt to pay net tax regardless of the absence of any legally mandated obligation to do so.
What I am implying is that tying your voting power to how much tax you paid is a stupid idea and an affront to the concept of one person one vote. It would make outcomes a lot worse for most New Zealanders considering the median wage is $60k and create far more problems than it would ever solve.
Basically a return to feudalism where the serfs have to beg for scraps from their rich masters. Fantastic plan mate, way better than a liberal democracy. Rob the lower classes of their voice in government. That always works out great.
And it scales based on how much tax you paid right? It would create and amplify geographic disparities Poor people aren't distributed uniformly across a country. There are poorer areas and richer areas. Disenfranchising poor people would undercut the representation of poor areas (and everyone who lives there, regardless of their income). It would encourage and accelerate geographic wealth disparities, including the emergence of slums, ghettos, and gated communities.
And Is this tax done purely off of income tax? Doe GST count. How do you administer this? It's basically means-testing voting, and then to add even more complexity weighting it based on how much tax was paid. As I said above stay-at-home parents would be screwed. Single parents would also be screwed. The upper caste of this system could vote to completely eliminate minimum wage and worker protections and those most effected wouldn't be able to do a single thing about it. I could go on and on.
Imagine having 4 years to weaponise the high school education curriculum to ensure a poltical outcome. Pump them full of propaganda, and then bus them to the ballot box. Critical race theory, colonisation, climate change, social justice, censorship of free speech ....
Its already bad enough that we let 18 year olds vote. Most of those are still in high school and have zero experience of "adulting".
What an utter wrought from these people who as indipendent as a truck load of labour MP's. Look at the Herald poll about 16 year olds voting. 79% were against it but these so called independents are for it.
IMAGINE WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF LABOUR GET INTO GOVERNMENT AGAIN.
Why do assume youth will vote for Labour? A few teenagers that I know are upset they have to pay any tax at all, so they seem like future ACT/National voters to me.
No surprise by your Herald survey - its 70-year old readers are opposed to anyone who doesn't look like them or share their interests. Ignore.
This so much a set of recommendations from a group of safe political insiders who want to reinforce the current cosy arrangements.
How can it be seen as credible, for there is nothing to add protections for the citizens, beyond the coat-tailing provisions, and it does little but attempt make our current sclerotic systems a bit more efficient, while it does not make parliament a better servant of the people.
No mentions of binding referenda to stop undisclosed agendas, recall legislation provisions to rein in MPs who go wildly off-piste, or discussion about an upper house - but they want to extend the number of MPs.
"No mentions of biding referenda to stop undisclosed agendas, recall legislation provisions to rein in MPs who go wildly off-piste"
Maybe because none of these things are an actual issue that needs fixing anywhere other than in the imaginations of some of the population
By an large i think most of this is worth while with a few points needing to be discussed. As indicated earlier I am against the electoral term being extended. If short term thinking is a problem with political parties then the media in their role of informing the public, should then be able to call them out on it.
I am curious about the comments with respect to Maori voters; "The panel thinks it is also a source of discrimination against Maori, who have more young people in their ranks than the population at large. This means the Maori population have fewer MPs to represent them than the average. " Given that currently as a group, per capita Maori currently have more representation than any other ethnic group, this statement is patently false. If age is the discriminator then it could be argued that none of the young are well represented? But then when looking critically as a whole is anyone in the country well represented by our politicians, considering what they have achieved over the last 100 or so years?
That bit about being a source of discrimination against Maori caught my eye too - what nonsense, the discrimination is based on age, not race. The only reason I can think of for not lowering it is that I selected FPP instead of MMP in what must have been my first opportunity to vote on anything. Young and dumb (inexperienced).
The line can be blurry. For example, when bowel cancer screening was introduced it was pitched to kick in before the majority of cases occur as you'd expect (I think from 65 years old). However, when you look in detail the majority of Maori bowel cancer cases occur before the age of 65 and would be missed by the screening program. A simple decision based on age, but with significantly different racial impacts.
I do think that applying the same argument to voting age is a bit of a stretch.
That bit about being a source of discrimination against Maori caught my eye too - what nonsense, the discrimination is based on age, not race
Agreed. And here folks, we have raw evidence of the level of our society that the victim mentality has reached. Some call it woke, others call it empathetic and understanding but I call it as it is, an assault on logic and reason in the name off victimising certain groups to wrongly push legislative change. If this doesn't scare you, it should. It is at the height of our government. reaches all parts of it, and if our public servants cannot express their opinions against it for fear of being ostracised, which is the current state of affairs, then we are in need of a radical cultural shift.
Pretty sure you also complain about short term policies, be it immigration/housing etc, which will continue under 3 term governments. They won't change making short term policy until they are forced to live with it for longer... and why should they? You get what you ask for and if you ask to be governed for a short term, you will get short term governance. No surprises.
And if governments were to do something really bad, there are other ways of ousting if they do something so bad there is a general revolt. What usually happens in such a scenario is that a vote of no confidence would happen or the Governor General would dissolve parliament or a party would reneg on a confidence and supply agreement forcing a snap election or something similar. These happen from time to time in every democracy, we had this happen for various reasons, from memory after the waterfront dispute in 1950s and a couple of times since then (1980s and early 2000s?). We are pretty stable though so it doesn't happen much.
Having a democracy is a risk, that the people you vote into power aren't crazy, but even if they are, you can force them out anyway. We aren't going to descend into chaos by having a 4 year term and I doubt we will get do-nothing governments. Governments might get more ambitious and imaginative however as they can actually deliver something in one term and much bigger things in two terms. However when looking at projects that are 7-8 years until implementation, most governments scoff at the idea here as it's 2 elections away at least.
Then there's the problem that politicians only really work for 2 years under a 3 term arrangement, they take 6 months to settle in and then another 6 months of election preparation on the other side. That's 1/3 of their time as basically ineffective, I would far prefer this to be cut to 25%.
Bad policy is bad policy. No I generally don't complain about short term policies. My biggest concern is the gullibility of the public to accept blatant bribes that give the Government to space to enact bad policy. I don't accept bad policy is due to short term thinking. I think it is more likely to be due to bias and favouritism backed with poor advice and research. And how often is bad policy undone, once enacted?
And your analogy is flawed; consider that you get a job and your employer tells you that you have 90 days to prove yourself, but you feel that is too short and ask for 6 months. What do you think the response will be? The politicians have a job to do and they spend a lot of time convincing the public they can deliver. I suggest that they need to be able to put their money where their mouth is and be prepared to hit the ground running. After all they have already spent enough time talking about their plan for what they will do when in power. Or is that plan just smoke and mirrors? If they are smart enough to present it, then they are smart enough to figure out how to deliver it promptly.
And what ways are there to get rid of a government in NZ before an election? Do we have to have a violent rebellion to achieve that. Extending the electoral term reduces a government's accountability to the people and therefore undermines democracy. Why would anyone want that?
Almost all policy that is short term win is bad, usually because it results in long term damage. If you are fine with it, then you are fine with immigration changes on a whim to satisfy current demand and to help grow absolute GDP ignoring infra, selling products by extractive policies that socialise the negative outputs, sacrificing long term productivity for short term political expedience. You might see these as simple "bad policy", which it is, but it's bought on because special interest groups can so regularly call their members to vote for the other side that says they will do it in the election, which is always just around the corner. So we lurch from poor policy to poor policy from big parties and suffer long term damage everywhere.
My analogy is NOT flawed. Your analogy is accurate regarding work, IF all you do is flip burgers or make simple widgets. Those immediately measurable tasks can be judged simply. However if you promise to transform a large businesses processes to make it more profitable and use its assets better, but are given only 90 days to do it... you are going to come up with long term terrible, but short term look great policies. You will sell assets to pump up the balance sheet, for instance, to make your performance look good. But you will then have to exit before the company goes under because that asset was core to its future (see, for instance, previous sales of train systems in this country). Your suggestion that running a government means we should see results in 90 days is, frankly, ridiculous. It takes time to effect change and you have to be seen as responsible for that change at the end, if you want well thought out sensible policy.
I literally gave you examples of non violent ways government can be changed, you have taken it to the extreme to suit your argument. Violence as a method to change government is a last resort, that's way way down the long list of ways a government here is likely to be changed.
Blobby I didn't say or even imply I was fine with bad policy, and i would suggest that with a four year term the approach would not change one iota, as interest groups continue to influence policy decisions. It's just take longer to get them removed if they could.
You really do like twisting words don't you? I didn't say that politicians should be able to deliver in 90 days, I said that they should be prepared for the three year term and work on that principle. If they really need more time for better policy then communicate with the people of this country with transparency. A three year term effectively gives the people a chance to make a decision as to whether they agree with the policy choices the government is making or not. If any government is not capable of do that, then do we really want them in power? I agree it takes time to effect change, but should any government be able to implement significant change without being able to be challenged by the people of the country?
The examples you gave require any opposition party to go against the government in confidence and supply, but what if the government did not need the opposition in confidence and supply? A simple majority government like the current Labour government? A No Confidence vote wouldn't achieve anything either. So not good examples, but demonstrate a certain naivety in your faith in the politicians.
Should we have literacy tests as well.
Pretty much.
You might be taking my meaning wrong here but I don't think we should be introducing any barriers to voting. The literacy test is an example of something awful that should never be repeated, yet many people in this comment section seem to think they should get to pick and choose who gets to vote.
One person one vote. Anything else is a perversion of democracy.
Tightening up donations is great, but still second best to a public funding system that completely removes the requirement to court the wealthy and set policy based on the need to attract donations. A few dollars each is a small price to pay to remove a (the?) major path for corruption in our politics.
Eliminating the coat tail rule is idiotic.
The party has already got a presence in Govt by way of its electorate MP, and sufficient voters have voted their party vote to get them another seat or two. But you want to ignore those voters valid votes. So much for democracy.
It won't, because it hurts major parties, who choose what gets implemented. The longer term will undoubtedly be on the ticket as they then get to be less accountable! Sometimes I wish we ran these things similar to a company-shareholder relationship, where the shareholders have the power to completely replace the board if they do a whole lot of things they said they wouldn't and don't do the things they said they would....
The 3.5% rule would likely favour National.
Based on past elections these are the parties that would have got in under this rule:
- Conservative (4% 2014)
- NZ First (4% in 2008)
- Christian Coalition (4% in 1996)
You've got two parties that would almost certainly support National, and one that has swung both ways.
Maybe TOP and Christian Heritage if people were less concerned about wasted votes (2.4% in 2017 and 1999 respectively), but no real change there.
Neither Greens nor ACT appear to be flirting with the 5% threshold any more, but there were times this would have made them more comfortable, but they're a bob each way in any case.
- Donation can only be made by by registered voters.
- All donations greater than Zero, must be declared.
- Drop MPs to 100 (50 electorate/50 List)
- Electorate MPs aren't part of the party - they should be independent representatives of their electorate rather than party lackies filling up seats.
- Reduce threshold to 2% i.e. 1 List seat
- Voting age to 21
- Term change to 4 years.
- Term limit of 4 terms per MP.
- MPs must be over 21 at start of first term, and under 65 at start of last term.
- MP leaving mid term is a bi-election regardless of time served/remaining.
yes, 6 is a bit controversial.
Re the leaving, I think there is a point. We should not ever be in a position whereby an electorate is not formally represented. The point of a representative is to represent. You cannot do that with a vacant position. Even if it is only for a week.
THe only other alternative is to enforce the term. i.e. once elected you cannot leave. or there must be a nominated proxy designated for each candidate and declared prior to the election. esentially a 2IC, that is called up if a MP cannot meet their obligations. It should not just be a generic "party" vote
So we are going to get a more plutocratic electoral system?
The panel basically outlined how third parties will be the basis for donations and campaign spending increasingly. Expanding the vote to everyone over 16 and to more people than ever. Removing the requirement to state a name for a ballot and removing the ability of scrutineers to question voters about their identity. So what, there are no limits on how many times I can vote and under what name?
A lot of these recommendation seem very odd to me, lots of them will ultimately result in private third party actors being empowered while traditional party structures are weakened.
My favourite, "R42. Allowing a person’s vote to be counted if they have voted in advance and die before election day." - Don't die, you'll end up voting Labour.
The panel also comes out strongly against the 'Waka Jumping" rule, which was pushed by New Zealand First. This law means MPs can lose their seat if they leave or are removed from their party.
"In our view, MPs have the right to freedom of expression and of association and should be able to express dissent with the views of their party," the panel wrote
Spot on.
Vote for a person, not party machine which can be dominated by one strong individual.
List MPs only exist at the dis/pleasure of their party vote. They can dissent however if they walk out of the party to another party or as an independent then they have no electoral mandate & they need to go.
Elected MPs should be able to remain in Parliament as independent for the same reason.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.