The Butler-Palmer proposal for a New Zealand constitution

Unlike most nations of the world, New Zealand does not have a written constitution. The process of how its government is appointed is governed by ordinary legislation; specifically, the Constitution Act 1986. However, unlike most constitutions, this legislation is not specially entrenched; nor can courts check the validity of legislation against it, since Parliament is considered the supreme body for national legislation. This system is inherited from the United Kingdom, which has a similar constitutional system.

Some opponents of this system claim that it provides little protection for individual liberties (New Zealand's 'Bill of Rights Act' has no validity in the courts), and that it makes the Constitution difficult for ordinary citizens to understand. It was these reasons in particular that appear to have encouraged former Labour Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and constitutional lawyer Dr. Andrew Butler to write a draft of a potential New Zealand entrenched Constitution. The document is available here.

The Constitution contains some interesting ideas, though it is mostly relatively gradual change from New Zealand's current constitutional system. At the moment, New Zealand has a unicameral parliament, elected by mixed-member proportional representation. A government is chosen by, and responsible to, this Parliament. All of these features would be preserved, and strengthened in the case of the electoral system. Nonetheless, changes are made to some parts of the nation's constitutional structure. The largest one of these is the abolition of the monarchy.

Republic of New Zealand

The first parts of the Constitution lay out the most immediate and substantial change; the replacement of the monarchy, with the Queen of New Zealand (who, coincidentally, is also the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Jamaica...) represented by the Governor-General with a Republic. Under the current system, the Queen appoints a Governor-General (by convention, the Governor-General is a non-partisan figure appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day) who then appoints a Prime Minister (generally the leader of the party or parties with majority support in the Parliament).

Under the new system, the Parliament would elect, every five years, a 'Head of State'. It is specifically stated that MPs would have a free vote on this matter, though MPs may still follow party lines on this matter in the hope of gaining a more influential position within the party. This Head of State has the formal power to appoint a Prime Minister, though under the new system they can only appoint the candidate elected by Parliament. They appoint Ministers, though this is on the advice of the Prime Minister only. The same condition applies to the Head of State's power to issue writs for parliamentary elections, to appoint ambassadors, and to promulgate legislation.

Regardless of what my readers may think about the virtues of republicanism, one potentially concerning issue exists with the manner in which legislation is promulgated. Laws passed by the House go to the Head of State for signature. In deciding whether to give approval to legislation, the Head of State must act "on advice from the Prime Minister and Attorney-General". This could potentially mean that Parliament's ability to legislate over the head of the Government could be jeopardised, given that the Prime Minister could simply advise the Head of State to veto legislation that Parliament had passed without his support.

This could be more of an issue in New Zealand's political system. Mixed-member proportional representation means that one party has never had an absolute majority in the House, and as such governments are dependent on support from other parties, perhaps with different ideologies. Were these other parties to disagree with the policies of the government, and were they to attempt to vote with the opposition on a bill, the senior government party, with a minority of seats, could simply veto that bill.

Of course, the general response would be that while New Zealand's (and Australia's) Governors-General have had authority to refuse assent to legislation, they have never done so by convention. This is true, but the Australian Constitution and the New Zealand 'Constitution'  do not include the requirement for the Governor-General to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, and thus the convention would be changed.

A better way of putting this would be to either give the power of promulgating legislation to the Speaker of the House  (as in Papua New Guinea), or to allow the Parliament to override the decision of the Head of State by simple majority and either require them to assent to the legislation (as in Morocco) or allow the Speaker of the House to do so (as in the former Kingdom of Laos). The Head of State could also be simply required to sign the legislation. Any one of these solutions would work just as well as the other, but one should be adopted to ensure Parliament is able to act as a law-making body.

Choosing a Government

The present system of choosing a Prime Minister by the Governor-General appointing the person who has the confidence of the House would be replaced under the new Constitution. Under the new system, the Parliament elects a Prime Minister from amongst its members. The Prime Minister must have majority support from the Parliament, which I take to mean that the Prime Minister would be elected by exhaustive ballot (MPs vote for candidates, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is excluded, a further round takes place amongst the remaining candidates. This process repeats until one candidate has a majority. The candidate who has a majority is then appointed by the Head of State as Prime Minister.

This method of appointing a Prime Minister is quite common in the Pacific region. Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Fiji, Nauru (though this is for the combined Head of State and Head of Government, titled the President) and Tuvalu all 'elect' their Prime Minister in this way. In theory, the system acts the same as the method used in other Commonwealth countries of appointment by the Sovereign; in both cases, the Prime Minister should have majority support in the parliament. However, it does provide some clarity to the process. Attempts to use the method of appointment by the Sovereign in countries that are more politically fractured, such as Nigeria, resulted in political violence and extended litigation; even in Australia, the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 represented a case where the powers of the Sovereign were used in a controversial manner.

In this case, then, this represents a very minor change to existing practice in New Zealand. Nonetheless, it would appear to be sensible to take powers away from a Head of State who is meant to "endeavour to act as a non-partisan symbol of unity"; even more so when that leader is chosen for a fixed term by a simple majority of Parliament.  As is normal practice, the Head of State would then appoint a Cabinet, on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Fixed terms of Parliament, for four years, are established. Early elections may be held if three-quarters of Parliament vote for them, or if a majority of MPs vote no confidence in the Government and no new government receives a vote of confidence for fourteen days. This does give the option, for a government wishing an early election, of faking a vote of no confidence in itself and using its majority to block formation of a new government. Nonetheless, this tactic could not be effectively blocked without making it impossible for Parliament to be dissolved in case of a severe deadlock.

Parliament

The Parliament remains unicameral, and most features are again simply the current practice in New Zealand, but codified. The mixed-member proportional representation system is specified as the means by which Parliament is elected, meaning that it cannot be changed without a Constitutional amendment.

Certain parliamentary offices are specified in the Constitution. The Leader of the House, the Opposition Leader, and the Finance Minister are all in the document, with their roles vaguely outlined. This appears to be an attempt not so much to entrench these offices (which have existed in NZ since the evolution of the modern party despite not being in the Constitution) as to make the Constitution more effective in describing how government operates in the country. A committee system is also entrenched. The committees are given the right to propose legislation, and ministers are prohibited from serving on most of them.

Various other financial offices are entrenched, such as the office of the Auditor-General and the Reserve Bank, which is tasked with "formulating and implementing monetary policy designed to promote stability in the general level of prices" and "promoting the maintenance of a sound and efficient financial system".

Rights and Freedoms

Of course, the main goal of this constitution is to create some rights and freedoms against which legislation can be checked. Oddly enough, this section is towards the ending of the document, a rarity when a Constitution has a bill of rights planned out at drafting (the US's rights and freedoms provisions are towards the end, but they were not put in when the Constitution is written); the only example I can immediately think of is Rhodesia, and those were not strictly rights and freedoms (given that they were qualified to the moon, and were not judicially enforceable anyway).

The rights provided are quite broad, including freedom of expression, the right to privacy, freedom from discrimination on a wide variety of bases, freedom of religion, and rights to a fair trial. These rights, however "may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". This gives some leeway for the government to qualify these rights, though is not uncommon in rights and freedoms provisions around the world. It is also obviously stronger than the current wholly unenforceable Bill of Rights.

Some more rights are provided in the economic area. Free education to the secondary level is guaranteed, and the government is also required to protect the environment (this, as far as I can tell, would be enforceable through the courts). A series of principles for economic policy are laid out, including rights to an "adequate standard of living", social security, and satisfactory health and safety conditions in employment. These principles are explicitly not enforceable through the courts.

The police and intelligence agencies are both specifically mentioned in this section. Both set out that activities of these agencies must be limited by law. Information collected by the security agencies must be approved by a warrant from a 'judicial officer'. Precisely why this provision exists when the right "not to be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with that person’s privacy, family, home or correspondence" is unclear; one would assume that, were judicial review to be robust, the courts
would establish guidelines for surveillance.

Other sections

Local government is entrenched in the Constitution, though with no specific powers being granted; rather, a series of principles for its organisation are set out. The office of an Ombudsman is mandated, as is a requirement that official information "must be made available to the greatest extent practicable".

Amendment of the Constitution is done by a vote of three-quarters of Parliament; quite a high threshold by international standards. The US requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress (and ratification from three-quarters of the states) and India requires two-thirds of both houses and half the states: closer in the region, Vanuatu requires two-thirds of Parliament, and Papua New Guinea requires two-thirds as well, while Australia requires a majority in both houses and passage at a referendum by a majority of voters both nationwide and in at least four States. Back in NZ, a referendum is then required, with a majority of votes sufficient to pass the referendum (this is how I interpreted the provision; it does not state specifically that both are required, or that only one is).

An extra provision is added for legislation that is invalidated by the courts for incompatibility with the Constitution. This legislation may be 'validated', and hence considered to be in accordance with the Constitution, if a law to that effect is passed by three-quarters of Parliament (but no referendum). For a Constitution where much effort appears to have been put into making it easy to understand, such a provision would seem to hide amendments to the document in hard-to-find pieces of legislation.

One of the most interesting, and as far as I know unique, provisions is the requirement that a Constitutional Commission be held every ten years. This Commission is to be composed of six law officers (the Clerk of Parliament, the Chief Justice, the Ombudsman etc.) and six lucky members of the public. It is tasked with investigating amendments to the Constitution, and reporting to Parliament on the matter.

In general, the Butler-Palmer proposal has substantial merit for protection of human rights, as compared to their current protections, and for making the governing process clear. Nonetheless, in an effort to reach this goal some of the provisions appear too vague, while others seem even redundant. This could lead to difficulties when legislation went before the courts. In order for the document to be effective, clarity and specificity should be placed above educational value. The remainder of the document represents effective codification of current practices, though with some questionable changes involved in the process of transition to a republic.

Coalition government in New Zealand

In recent days, the New Zealand Labour and Green parties have signed a memorandum of understanding to co-operate closer. The deal contains an agreement "to work co-operatively to change the government at the 2017 election". Collaboration in Parliament is agreed, and an investigation into a joint campaign is promised.

New Zealand's change of electoral system in 1993 has changed the government formation process substantially. The Greens are a substantial political presence in New Zealand, and for the past few elections it has been considered that Green support will be essential for a future Labour government?

But, is this a good deal for Labour? Will it be good for the Greens? And what will it mean for New Zealand's party system? In order to answer these questions, we need to look at how New Zealand's governing coalitions have been formed in the past.

How it all started

In the beginning, there was SMP (single-member plurality). Each district elected one member, voters had one vote, and the candidate with the most votes won. This system was inherited from the United Kingdom, although the two-round system was briefly used between 1908 and 1913. As would be expected with such an electoral system, a two-party system was established. Electoral competition was predominantly between the centre-right National and centre-left Labour parties. The party that won the most votes would win the most seats, normally with a bonus.

In 1954, the first substantial third party since the creation of the National Party contested an election. The Social Credit Party won 11% of the vote, but their votes were spread to thinly for them to win any seats. It took until 1966 until they won a seat, and that was when they won 14.5% of the vote. A new third party, the environmentalist Values Party entered the scene in 1972

The lack of parliamentary influence of the minor parties, along with the general satisfaction of the main two parties with the system meant that reform was not planned. This changed in 1978, when the National Party government of Robert Muldoon secured 51 of 92 seats, despite winning 39.8% of the vote to 40.4% for Labour (which won only 40 seats). At the same election, Social Credit secured a record result of 16%, but only won a single seat.

A similar result was repeated in the next election, with Labour winning 39% to 38.8% for National, but with Labour winning 43 seats to 47 for National. Social Credit secured their best result, winning 20%, but only won one extra seat.

The Muldoon government lost support before the next election, held in 1984, which resulted in a Labour victory. Labour won 43% of the vote and 56 seats, to 36% and 37 seats for National. The newly formed libertarian New Zealand Party won 12.3%, but no seats, while Social Credit's vote dropped to 7.6%; despite this, the party still held on to their two seats.

It was following this election that Labour announced a Royal Commission into the electoral system. The Commission was given the task of investigating into a wide variety of aspects of New Zealand's elections, including political finance, Indigenous New Zealander (Maori) representation, the term of parliament, the use of referenda, the financing of political campaigns and, of course, the electoral system.

The report of the commission was released in late 1986, with a wide variety of proposals. In terms of referendums, it proposed that government should hold referendums from time to time, and that they should be binding, but that there should be no mechanism for members of the public to trigger a referendum by petition. It proposed that Parliament should be increased to 120 members, and a referendum should be held on extending the parliamentary term to four years from three.

However, the most important recommendation was on the electoral system itself. The report ran through a wide variety of alternatives, rejecting most that would keep single-member districts such as the two-round system and instant runoff voting. Three systems were evaluated: mixed-member proportional representation, mixed-member majoritarian, and the single transferable vote. Oddly, the method of the single transferable vote that was chosen for evaluation involved the much maligned Australian-style (not any more, in most cases) group ticket voting, where voters have the option to vote for a party's preference ticket.

This would have been disastrous (source-NZ Electoral Commission)

Overall, the Royal Commission decided upon the mixed-member proportional representation system, although they stated that a referendum should take place before 1987. The proposed system would have sixty single-member district seats to sixty party-list seats, with a 4% threshold.

New Zealand had, at that point, four Maori electorates. In these electorates, only Maori voters or descendants of Maori voters may register to vote, though there is no restriction on who may stand as a candidate. The report proposed abolishing these seats, and replacing them with an exception to the 4% threshold for parties "primarily representing Maori interests", though how that is defined is somewhat unclear.

Despite the report, no referendum was held at the 1987 election. Labour increased their majority in the 1987 election, winning 57 seats in an expanded 97 member parliament to 40 for National. The Social Credit Party was renamed the Democrats, but their support collapsed to 5.7%, and they lost both of their seats.

At the 1990 election, Labour's support dropped dramatically; they won only 35% of the vote, and 29 seats. The National Party only improved its vote share marginally, from 44% to 47.8%; however, they gained 27 seats from Labour, to end with 67. Two new parties were formed to contest the election; the NewLabour party, led by former Labour MP Jim Anderton, which promoted more left-wing policies than the mainstream Labour party, and the Green Party, which promoted environmental policies. The parties won 5.16% and 6.85% of the vote respectively, but only one member of the two parties was elected-Jim Anderton himself.

The National Party had pledged to begin the referendum process if they won government. In 1992, a referendum took place, with two questions on the ballot. On the first, voters approved (in principle) a new electoral system, with 84.7% support. On the second question, voters were asked what sort of electoral system they would prefer. Mixed-member proportional representation secured 70.5% of the (valid) vote, to 17.4% for the single transferable vote, 6.6% for preferential voting, and 5.5% for a mixed-member majoritarian system.

In order to complete the process, a second referendum took place one year later, held on the same day as the election of that year. The result was a much more narrow vote for the change to MMP; 53% voted for change, which nonetheless constituted an endorsement of the proposal.

At the same election, the National Party was re-elected to government, winning 50 seats off 35% of the vote. Labour dramatically improved its seat total, winning 45 seats, though their vote actually dropped by 0.5%. The newly formed Alliance (a coalition of the NewLabour, Green, and Democrat parties, as well as some smaller left-wing parties) won 18.2% of the vote, but only two seats, while the New Zealand First Party, a nationalist group led by former National MP Winston Peters, won 8.4% of the vote and two seats.

While National were initially able to form a majority government, anticipation of the new electoral system caused a number of new parties to be formed. The most prominent of these was the United Party, a centrist group formed by several Labour and National MPs. Other Labour and National MPs deserted to the established smaller parties.

The MMP Era

The result of the 1996 election, the first held under MMP, resulted in National winning the most seats. They won 34% of the vote, and 44 out of 120 seats. Labour fared poorly, too, winning 28% of the vote and 37 seats. NZ First won 13%, and 17 seats (including all five Maori seats), while the Alliance dropped substantially, and the party won 10% of the vote and thirteen seats. A new libertarian party, the Alliance of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT), won 6% of the vote and eight seats. The United Party was nearly wiped out; it only won 0.9% of the vote, and elected only one MP (former Labour MP Peter Dunne won his constituency, helped by National not contesting).

The result put the New Zealand First party in a pivotal position. Most likely governments would require support from the party. With Peters and other NZ First figures given substantial cabinet portfolios, NZ First went somewhat unexpectedly into coalition with the National Party.

The coalition was not a comfortable one, as NZ First began to lose support in the polls. Following him being sacked from the cabinet, and in an attempt to strengthen his support, Peters announced that he would drop out of the government, which would have theoretically led to the government losing its majority. However, a number of NZ First MPs did not agree with Peters (coincidentally, a fair few of these were cabinet members, who would lose their places), and left the party. These MPs formed the new Maori Pacific Party, and continued to support the National government.

MMP came in for some criticism at this point, especially following the case of one MP, Alamein Kopu. Ms Kopu had been elected as an Alliance MP on the party list, but, following a falling-out with the leadership, left the party. She formed a new party, the Mana Wahine, and decided to support the National Party government. This was criticised, as it was seen that people voting for the Alliance Party did not expect their vote to go to the centre-right National Party. These cases led to a law being passed to allow MPs to have their seats declared vacant if they leave the party they were elected as part of, though that section has now expired.

An election was called for 1999. The National Party leadership had changed hands, and the party was led by Jenny Shipley. Labour was led by Helen Clark. Polls leading up to the election suggested that Labour would win the most seats, though they would still have to form a coalition in order to win government. The Greens had split from the Alliance, and were contesting the election separately; it was unclear whether they would be able to pass the 5% threshold.

Labour did end up winning the most seats, winning 49 seats overall with 39% of the party vote. National's vote held up fairly well; they won 30.5% of the party vote, and 39 seats. The Alliance fell back slightly, winning 7.8% of the party vote, and ten seats; this was likely due to the rise of the Greens, who just crossed the threshold with 5.1% of the vote, as well as winning the electorate seat of Coromandel from National. ACT's vote held steady at 7% and nine seats. Peter Dunne was re-elected thanks to a lack of National Party opposition, though his party won only 0.5% of the vote.

The big loser of the election was NZ First, which collapsed to 4.3% of the party vote. While this put them below the 5% threshold, New Zealand MMP allows a party to win list seats if they win a constituency seat. Peters clung on to his seat of Tauranga by a mere 63 votes, allowing his party to win five seats in the House. The parties formed by defectors performed even worse, with Maori Pacific winning just 0.2% of the party vote, and Mana Wahine's twelve electorate candidates won 0.05% of the vote (though this was better than the party's performance in the Taranaki by-election a year earlier, when the party won seven votes)

Following the election, it was clear that Labour would form government, but less clear how this would be done. The obvious coalition of Labour and the Alliance would have 59 seats, two short of a majority. The Green MPs agreed to support the government, by voting for them on issues of confidence and supply.

The government lasted most of an ordinary parliamentary term; however, a split developed within the Alliance. Jim Anderton left the party, in order to form a new Progressive Party, though he formally stayed within the Alliance. Clark used this in order to call an early election in July 2002.

The results of the election were a resounding first place for Labour, which won 41% of the party vote and 52 seats. National's vote dropped by 10% to 21% of the party vote, and the party only won 27 seats. NZ First made a substantial recovery, securing 10.4% of the vote and thirteen seats, while ACT once again secured 7% of the vote and nine seats. The Greens won the same votes and seats as ACT, though they lost the seat of Coromandel. The most substantial gain was made by Peter Dunne's United Future, which won 6.7% of the vote and eight seats. Anderton's Progressive Party won 1.7% of the vote, which would not normally be enough for parliamentary representation. However, Anderton was comfortably elected in his constituency. The Alliance won 1.3% of the party vote, and did not win a constituency seat, winning they lost all parliamentary representation.

Clark easily formed a coalition with the Progressive Party, but this left her slightly short of a majority. She decided to include United Future in government, though not in cabinet. This nonetheless had a substantial negative effect on the party's support, as would be shown at the next election.

The National Party, under the leadership of Don Brash, made substantial gains at the next election. Labour's vote remained stationary at 41%, and lost one seat. National made large gains, winning 39% of the vote and 48 seats. Most of the minor parties lost support, with NZ First falling to 5.7% and seven seats, and Peters losing Tauranga. The Greens won 5.3% of the vote and 6 seats. During the preceding parliamentary term, a number of Maori MPs had split from Labour, and formed the new Maori Party. This party won four of the Maori seats; however, its 2.1% of the party vote was only enough for them to be entitled to three. For this reason, Parliament was increased by one member.

United Future won only three seats and 2.7% of the party vote; their two list seats were only won because of Dunne winning his own seat. ACT, too, won two seats off 1.5% of the vote thanks to their seat of Epsom. Jim Anderton's party lost one seat, leaving Anderton as the only MP from his party.

The results left the government that would be formed in some doubt. Clark would easily get support from Anderton, but the other MPs would be less certain. Despite expressing distaste for the 'baubles of office', Winston Peters accepted the position of Foreign Minister under a Labour government. The Greens agreed to support the government on matters of confidence and supply, thus allowing a Labour government to take office.

This government lasted its full term, with relatively few hiccups. However, Labour lost support over the term, with National rising to a comfortable lead under the leadership of John Key. The election held in 2008 resulted in National winning the most seats. They won 45% of the vote, and 58 seats. Labour won 34% of the vote, and 43 seats. The Greens improved their support slightly, winning 6.7% of the vote and nine seats. ACT's support also increased, with the party winning 3.6% of the vote and five seats; their seats in parliament was still only secured by their victory in Epsom.

NZ First was the fourth party in terms of votes, with 4%. However, as this was below the 5% threshold, and as Peters did not win an electorate seat, the party did not win any seats. The Maori Party won 2.4% of the vote, but gained one electorate seat to finish with five; as their party vote only entitled them to three seats, this expanded Parliament to 122 members. United Future and the Progressive Party won one electorate seat each.

The coalition formed was a somewhat oversized one of United Future, ACT, and the Maori Party, allowing Key's government to hold a comfortable majority in the House. All three parties were coalition partners, in the sense that they all held ministerial portfolios. This meant that they were heavily connected with the government.

In 2011, another general election was called. The Key government had performed relatively well in the opinion polls, as before, and Labour was struggling. The Greens had improved their support, and NZ First was polling above the threshold, despite their lack of parliamentary representation.

The election gave National 59 seats, with 47% of the vote. Labour fell back, winning 27% of the vote and 34 seats, while the Greens improved their vote share to 11% and won 14 seats. NZ First returned to parliament, with 6.6% of the vote and eight seats.

The Maori Party had lost one seat in the parliamentary term, when Hone Harawira left to form the leftist Mana Party. He was re-elected, and the Maori Party lost another electorate seats. This left them with three seats, one more than their 1.4% of the party vote entitled them to: as a result, Parliament was increased by one member. ACT fell to one seat of Epsom, won due to a deliberately weak National campaign, and 1% of the party vote. United Future performed even worse, winning 0.6% of the vote and Dunne's electorate seat. The new right-wing Conservative Party won 2.7% of the vote, but no seats.

John Key was returned to office, continuing much the same coalition that he had led before the election. Labour continued to struggle in opposition, changing leaders halfway through the parliamentary term. The Conservative Party maintained a fairly strong, but generally sub-threshold position in the polls, provoking debate as to whether the National Party might give the party a free run at an electorate seat to give a new coalition partner parliamentary representation; in the end, this did not eventuate.

The 2014 election was somewhat similar to the 2011 one. National once again won the most votes by a wide margin, winning 47% and 60 out of 121 seats. Labour won only 25% of the vote, and 32 seats. The Greens secured 10.7% and 14 seats, almost identical to their previous results. NZ First improved its support to 8.7% and 11 seats. The Maori Party lost two electorate seats, but they held onto one, and their 1.3% of the party vote entitled them to one list seat. Harawira's Mana Party had merged with the civil-libertarian Internet Party, but Harawira lost his electorate seat, and the party won 1.4% of the party vote, so the alliance won no seats.

Once again, National ran a deliberately weak campaign in Epsom, allowing ACT to win, though they won only 0.7% of the party vote. The same treatment was given to Peter Dunne, who was re-elected in his constituency. However, his United Future party won 0.2% of the party vote (lower than the Legalise Cannabis Party), not enough for a list seat. Thus, Dunne was an overhang, and parliament expanded by one member. The Conservative Party won 4%, not enough to win a seat.

How has coalition government worked?

Since the introduction of MMP, no single party has had a majority, though National came very close in 2014. This has meant governments have of course had to form coalitions with other parties. As you have seen, coalitions have taken different forms; some parties sit in cabinet, others agree to back the government on motions of confidence and supply.

A coalition involves substantial risks for a political party. If the party wants to survive in government, they need to consistently support members from a different party in confidence and supply votes. For parties entering coalitions where there is a substantial ideological gulf between the parties, the largest and most powerful coalition partner will have more influence, and the compromises that need to be made may upset the smaller coalition partner's supporters.

The below chart shows how support for coalition partners has changed following elections.

(note: 1999 figure for loss for ministry members includes NZ First, which left Cabinet before the election)

As you can see, ministry members normally lose support, even in cases where the government gains support. The effect is not consistent for parties that supported the government but did not hold ministries, which could be attributed to their decreased visibility.

The effect of all of this has been to squeeze the support of certain minor parties. The below chart shows support for New Zealand's political parties since the introduction of MMP

At the first MMP election, the major parties received a little over 60% of the vote between them. This figure has risen since then, peaking at 80% in 2005. The figure is currently 75%, still higher than it was before 2005. The long term governing period of the National-ACT-Maori-United Future has done substantial damage to the small coalition partners, damage that appears somewhat irreparable (though, at this point, it is hard to tell).

What does this mean for the Greens?

So far, the Greens have never entered a close agreement with any party. Labour's relatively high vote share before 2008 meant that they could avoid a close agreement with the Greens, and in some cases an agreement with the Greens altogether.

However, it now appears certain that Labour will not be able to form any sort of government in the foreseeable future without Green support. If National loses the next election, the Greens will probably be the single largest coalition partner in NZ history, and will be in a position to make substantial demands of the Labour Party. The issue is what sort of relationship the Greens will want, and the Memorandum of Understanding suggests that it will be a relatively close one.

If New Zealand's history of coalitions suggests anything, a close relationship may have a negative impact on support for the Greens in the future, and could even lead to a party split as it did for the Alliance. On the other hand, the Greens obviously have certain policy goals, and positions in the executive would help them achieve these goals. 

The potential wild card in formation of the next New Zealand government is NZ First. Their leader, Winston Peters, was disdainful towards the agreement. On current polls, his support looks necessary for a Labour-Greens government to be formed in the future. Peters has usually expected fairly high offices under coalitions (Deputy Prime Minister under his 1996 coalition with National, Minister for Foreign Affairs under a 2005 coalition with Labour). Labour will also be fighting harder for his support, as the Greens are ideologically incompatible with National, while NZ First has managed to form government with National in the past.

Close cooperation between NZ Labour and the Greens may have distinct advantages for the Greens, in the form of easier ability to achieve policy goals. However, if this coalition lasts a long time, the past suggests that this will dramatically weaken Green support. Given that NZ First will also be in this coalition, and will likely expect substantial cabinet representation, a coalition between these three parties could lead to an increase in domination of the political system by the two major parties.

New Zealand elections-towards a two-party system? (Updated 22/09)

New Zealand will be holding a parliamentary election on the 20th of September. National Party leader John Key is the incumbent prime minister, and has been leading in the polls with around 45-50% of the vote since the last election. Opposition Leader David Cunliffe, who is leader of the left-wing Labour Party, has been trailing, with his party only having about 25-30% of the vote.
Under New Zealand's previous single-member plurality system, which was used in all elections up to 1996, Key would win a landslide victory, with about 100 seats in the 120 House of Representatives. However, a series of referendums during the 1990s, the new mixed-member proportional system was introduced. This system made New Zealand elections much more proportional.

The Mixed-Member Proportional system

The Mixed-Member Proportional voting system originated in Denmark, where it was used for some elections between 1915 and 1920. However, it was introduced as a system for West Germany after the Second World War.

Under the system, New Zealand is divided into 70 single-member electorates. Voters have two votes: one vote for a candidate in their electorate, and one party, or list, vote. In the single-member electorates, the candidate with the most votes is elected as the electorate member. But after these members are elected, all the party votes are added up. All parties that have either won 5% of the party vote or one single-member electorate have their votes put into a Sainte-Lague proportional representation allocation (an explanation here). The electorate seats that a party has won are subtracted from the total allocation of seats, and the remainders are distributed to party lists, submitted by the party before the election. If a party wins more electorate seats than its proportional allocation, it keeps these seats, and parliament increases in size accordingly.

This system aims to produce an overall allocation of seats that is proportional to votes, and it has meant that there have been no single-party government, and a significant number of small parties have won seats that they would not have won under single-member plurality.

However, recent political developments have reduced the number of political parties in the New Zealand political system, to the point where New Zealand may become a two or three party system in the near future.

Increased Polarisation

The chart below shows how the New Zealand Parliament stood after the 2011 election.

There have been some changes since this election. ACT's single member of parliament, John Banks, resigned over corruption allegations. A New Zealand First MP, Brendan Horan, resigned from his party to become an independent.
While there appear to be many parties, most of them align behind either Labour or National, and the only 'independent' party appears to be NZ First.
Another notable feature of this is that there are not many medium-sized parties. The two largest parties have 77% of the seats, and adding the Greens to this brings it up to about 93%. Why has this happened? Well, it's all part of the movement towards a two-party system.

"Electorate Seat" Parties

About half of the parties in the New Zealand parliament are dependent on electorate seats to win any seats at all. The electorate seat threshold means that winning an electorate seat can get list members into parliament, a useful mechanism for small parties. The Mana Party was the only party to have serious competition from a party in the same ideological column for its electorate seat. No National candidates stood in any of the seats won by the Maori Party, and while National candidates ran in Ohairu-Belmont (United Future) and Epsom (ACT), they mostly ran to get electorate funding, and their opponents received implicit support from the National party leadership.

Why would National sacrifice these seats, some of which were winnable for the party, to get candidates from minor parties elected? The answer is simple. National needs extra list seats to get a majority, and therefore needs ACT and United Future to pass the threshold, so they can get these seats. If ACT and United Future had won no seats, National would need to get very close to a majority to win government.

The Decline of Medium-Sized Parties

Recently, New Zealand has reduced its number of parties significantly. A good measure of this is the 'effective number of political parties'.  In order to calculate this, all of the percentages of the party votes (or seats) are squared, and added together. The number 1 is than divided by this figure.

As we can see, the number peaked in 2002, and has declined since then. It reached a bottom in 2008, and hasn't moved much since then. Why has this happened? Well, one issue is the issue of coalitions. Small parties in coalitions tend to lose votes after being parts of coalitions. After a coalition with National, NZ First fell below the 5% threshold, and had to rely on leader Winston Peters' electorate seat to stay in parliament. The left-wing Alliance splintered after a coalition with Labour, United Future went from 8 to 3 to 1 after Labour government (2001 to 2005 to 2008), and NZ First was forced out of parliament after a Labour coalition.

If Key falls short of a majority, this record may mean that the Greens and Mana Party (in alliance with Kim Dotcom's Internet Party)  pause for thought before jumping to coalition with Labour. In fact, it may be the ability of the Green Party to win votes that prevents New Zealand from becoming a pure two-party system.

Post-election update-22/09/14

The election is over. The National Party have been re-elected, with an overall majority of 61 members in a 121 member Parliament (Peter Dunne is the overhang). The main surprise of the night, however, was the strong performance by New Zealand First, and the poor performance by Labour. NZ First have had the benefit of eight years out of government (the longest stretch since MMP was introduced). The result is their third-best since MMP was introduced.

The effective number of parties in terms of votes has increased (from 3.15 to 3.21)  There are no new parties in Parliament (and the Internet Mana alliance did not enter Parliament, as Hone Harawira lost his electorate race).The Conservatives (a new right-wing party founded in 2011 by Colin Craig) increased their vote to about 4%, but fell short of the 5% threshold. 

The lack of any significant change in terms of Parliament, other than the slight drop for Labour and the increase for NZ First, means that the effective number of parties in terms of seats has fallen from 2.98 to 2.9, which is not a significant decrease, but is part of a trend.

The election may provoke debate over the level of the 5% threshold. A committee set up to review MMP has recommended that the threshold be lowered to 4%.  My table below shows how the results would have differed with a 4% threshold.

With a 4% threshold, the centre-right's total would increase by 3. National would lose two, and thus not have an overall majority, but the Conservative Party's five would cancel that out. Even if Key wanted to exclude the Conservatives from his government, the current combination of National-Maori-United Future-ACT would still have a majority, with 63 seats. Key could probably count on the Conservatives to support him in confidence votes, so this would really not matter.

The change would have a negative impact on the centre-left. Internet Mana only won 1.26% of the party vote, and thus would not be saved by the change. The Greens and Labour would lose two and one seats respectively, weakening any basis for a centre-left government.

If the National party's support drops significantly during the next 3 years, and the Conservatives stay above 4%, there may be some temptation for Key to accept that recommendation and reduce the threshold to 4%, especially if Peter Dunne resigns or loses his seat. Unless a left-wing party appears on the horizon with support above 4% (unlikely), this decision would make tactical sense for the Prime Minister, and would strengthen National's political position in the near future.