DOWNLOAD PDF ELECTORAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN NEW ZEALAND

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : Electoral boundary changes â Constitution â Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand Note: Citations are based on reference standards. However, formatting rules can vary widely between applications and fields of interest or study. The specific requirements or preferences of your reviewing publisher, classroom teacher, institution or organization should be applied. A constitution is about public power, the power of the state. It describes and establishes the major institutions of government, states their principal powers, and regulates the exercise of those powers in a broad way. While all constitutions have these general characteristics, each constitution is affected by the national character of the state it services. The New Zealand constitution: Its main features The New Zealand constitution is to be found in formal legal documents, in decisions of the courts, and in practices some of which are described as conventions. It reflects and establishes that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, that it has a parliamentary system of government, and that it is a democracy. It increasingly reflects the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi is regarded as a founding document of government in New Zealand. The constitution must also be seen in its international context, because New Zealand governmental institutions must increasingly have regard to international obligations and standards. Each can, in general, exercise all the powers of the other. The Act then deals with the Executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. The provisions about the Executive emphasise its parliamentary character. One Minister may also act for another. Parliament - the legislature - consists of the Sovereign and the House of Representatives. The members of the House are elected in accordance with the Electoral Act Each Parliament has a term of three years, unless it is earlier dissolved. The Governor-General has the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament. After each general election, Parliament is to meet within six weeks of the date fixed for the return of the writs. The Constitution Act recognises that Parliament continues to have full power to make laws; a Bill passed by the House becomes law when the Sovereign or Governor-General assents to it. The Constitution Act reaffirms the constitutional principles about parliamentary control of public finance: The provisions about the judiciary also relate back to long-established constitutional principle. To enhance their independence, the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court are protected against removal from office and reduction of salary. Other major sources of the constitution The other major sources of the constitution include: The Queen appoints the Governor-General who, in general, exercises her prerogative powers. Those powers are part of the common law. They exist independently of statutes, although statutes can, of course, limit or even supersede them. Relevant English and United Kingdom statutes, such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement regulating succession to the throne among other matters, all confirmed as part of the law of New Zealand by the Imperial Laws Application Act These statutes also regulate the relations between the state and the individual. Relevant decisions of the courts, for instance decisions upholding rights of the individual against the powers of the state, and determining the extent of those powers. The Treaty of Waitangi, which may indicate limits in our polity on majority decision-making. In other circumstances, the model provided by the Treaty of Waitangi of two parties negotiating and agreeing with one another is appropriate. Policy and procedure in this area continues to evolve. The conventions of the constitution, which in practice regulate, control and in some cases transform the use of the legal powers arising from the prerogative or conferred by statute. The most important conventions arise from the democratic character of our constitution. Constitutional conventions are of critical importance to the working of the constitution, even though they are not enforceable by the courts. In, the Supreme Court of Canada summarised the constitutional position in that country in an equation: Democracy The Queen reigns. This basic equation and the democratic character of the main conventions appear clearly in relation to the powers of the Queen and Governor-General under the law. Thus they may appoint Ministers and other holders of important offices such as the Judges, the Defence Chiefs, the Ombudsmen, and the Controller and Auditor-General, they may dismiss them following certain procedures, they may summon and dissolve Parliaments, they may assent - or not - to Bills passed through the House, and Page 1

2 they may agree - or not - to proposed regulations and other decisions submitted to them by the Executive Council and Ministers. The Queen and the Governor-General are free to take those steps as a matter of law. But, as a matter of convention, they do so only on the advice of the Prime Minister or Ministers who have the support of the House of Representatives - that is, on the advice of those who are elected by the New Zealand voters, and who belong to a party which has a majority in the House; or who are part of a coalition which has a majority; or who, as a minority, are accepted by the House as able to sit on the Treasury benches. There must always be a ministry the government of the day to advise the Queen or Governor-General. If the government loses the support of the House, or if the Prime Minister loses his or her support as the leader of that government, then the ministry or the Prime Minister is likely to change: Or the Governor-General may face a more difficult situation because the position in the House or the governing party is unclear. Situations where the position is unclear were rare in New Zealand under the first past the post electoral system, but have been less rare since the introduction of the proportional representation electoral system. Where that support is unclear, the Governor-General relies on the elected representatives in the House, and especially the party leaders, to clarify by way of public statement whether a party or grouping of parties has the support of the House to govern, or whether fresh elections will be required. In the meantime, the incumbent government continues in office, where necessary acting in accordance with the convention on caretaker government. This is not to deny the important role of the Governor-General in the business of government. Practice and the Letters Patent indicate that the role includes being informed and consulted, and advising and warning Ministers. The office has central symbolic, unifying, and representative roles, as well as the important legal powers mentioned. In a broad sense, it is the ministry or government of the day which governs. The members of the ministry as a whole have the support of the House and must take collective and individual responsibility for their decisions, the decisions that are taken in their name, and the measures they propose. That is the position in law and in convention. That responsibility and power to take decisions results from the electoral process and the political contest. Real power and legal form The decisions often take a legal form that departs from the practical and conventional reality; the decision taken in fact by Cabinet has then to be taken, as a matter of law, by the Governor-General in Council, the Governor-General or a Minister, as the law requires; or the Bill passed by the House through all its readings has to be assented to by the Governor-General to become law. The Cabinet, essentially a body established by convention, has no legal power; and the House acting alone has very limited powers to take decisions with full legal effect. The role of political parties Political parties provide a vital link between the people, Parliament, and the government. The competition for the power of the state, exercised by and through the House of Representatives, is a competition organised by and through political parties. It is party strength in the House after elections that decides who is to govern. It is the parliamentary party or parties with the support of the House and the ability to maintain confidence and ensure supply that provides the government. The importance of political parties in our constitutional system is recognised in the Electoral Act and in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. The relationships between parties, including any agreements they may reach, have become more important under coalition and minority governments. The role of the Prime Minister and Ministers The Prime Minister is the head of government, chairs Cabinet and has a general coordinating responsibility across all areas of government. By constitutional convention, the Prime Minister alone can advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and call an election, and to appoint, dismiss, or accept the resignation of Ministers. Ministers constitute the ministry, or executive arm of government. Their powers rise from legislation and the common law including the prerogative. Ministers are supported in their portfolios by the public service. The role of the public service The role of the public service is stated in some detail in legislation, particularly in the provisions of the State Sector Act, the Public Finance Act, and the Official Information Act, as well as a great number of particular statutes. Constitutional principles and that legislation support four broad propositions among others. Members of the public service: Public servants meet these obligations in accordance with important principles and values such as political neutrality, fairness, and integrity. Independent powers of decision: Other parts of the Page 2

3 broad state sector are not subject to ministerial control and responsibility in the same way that departments and their members usually are. The bodies set up separately from government include regulatory agencies, providers of a wide range of services, state trading bodies, and supervisory, control, and advice agencies. In establishing such bodies, over a very long period, Parliament has recognised and reaffirmed that much public power should not be concentrated. It should be allocated to distinct bodies with varying degrees of independence from the Executive. This separation and independence may help ensure, for instance, a judicial independence of decision, equitable distribution of funds, the pursuit of commercial profit and business efficiency, or effective and credible processes of independent scrutiny, supervision and advice. Towards more open government Over recent decades the processes of government have become more open. Such reasons relate to public interests such as the national security and law enforcement, and to private interests such as confidences and privacy. Underlying the principle are a number of purposes, including enabling the more effective participation of the people of New Zealand in the making and administration of laws and policies, and promoting the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials, with the consequence of enhancing respect for the law and promoting the good government of New Zealand. Individuals, autonomy and majority rule In a range of ways, individuals and communities participate directly in political and governmental processes important to them. There is for instance much emphasis in law and in practice on those exercising public power giving fair hearings to and consulting those affected by the exercise of that power. Also relevant is the enactment of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act A balance has to be struck between majority power and minority right, between the sovereignty of the people exercised through Parliament and the rule of the law, and between the right of elected governments to have their policies enacted into law and the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values. The answer cannot always lie with simple majority decision-making. Indeed, those with the authority to make majority decisions often themselves recognise that their authority is limited by understandings of what is basic in our society, by convention, by the Treaty of Waitangi, by international obligations and by ideas of fairness and justice. The international context Major changes in science, technology, communications, trade patterns, financial systems, population movement, the environment and many other matters of international concern mean that more and more law is made through international processes. The powers of national governmental institutions are correspondingly reduced. This has important consequences for national and international constitutional processes. Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the more significant international treaties before they are ratified by the Executive. Changing the constitution In theory, many parts of the constitution can be amended by legislation passed by a simple majority of the Members of Parliament. That power is, however, restrained by law, convention, practice, and public acceptance. Some limits on constitutional change arise from the international obligations just mentioned. Certain key elements of the electoral system can be amended only if the people approve it in a referendum, or if three-quarters of the Members of Parliament agree. The provisions thus protected concern the three-year term of Parliament, the membership of the Representation Commission, the division of New Zealand into general electoral districts, the voting age, and the method of voting. Accordingly, the amendments made in the last 50 years to these provisions have been made only following agreement between the major political parties in the House or, in the notable instance of the change to proportional representation, following a binding referendum which had itself been preceded by an indicative referendum. It is also accepted, at the level of convention, that those voting requirements also apply to any proposal to amend the protective provision. Similarly, Standing Orders provide that an entrenched provision should be adopted by the House only by the vote which would be required for the amendment or repeal of the provision being entrenched. The Constitution Act itself was enacted with general bipartisan support in the House. And recommendations to the House for new Standing Orders, in accordance with convention, are adopted by consensus in the Standing Orders Committee. Page 3

4 Chapter 2 : New Zealand's Change to MMP â Electoral reform in New Zealand has, in recent years, become a political issue as major changes have been made to both Parliamentary and local government electoral systems. National elections in New Zealand were first held in using a simple version of the first-past-the-post (FPP) electoral system [1] and conducted over a period of two and. Elements[ edit ] The New Zealand constitution is uncodified and is to be found in formal legal documents, in decisions of the courts, and in practices some of which are described as conventions. It reflects and establishes that New Zealand is a monarchy, that it has a parliamentary system of government, and that it is a representative democracy. It increasingly reflects the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi is regarded as a founding document of government in New Zealand. The constitution must also be seen in its international context, because New Zealand governmental institutions must increasingly have regard to international obligations and standards. The Executive the Executive Council, as the Cabinet has no formal legal status, the legislature the House of Representatives and Sovereign in Parliament and the judiciary Court system. The underlying principle is democracy, with political power exercised through a democratically elected parliament â this is often stated as "The Queen reigns but the government rules so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives. This means that the head of state of the United Kingdom under the Act of Settlement is also the head of state of New Zealand. There have occasionally been proposals to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic. Unlike its neighbour Australia, New Zealand has not yet held a referendum on the matter, but a number of prominent politicians including the former Prime Minister, John Key [2] believe that an eventual move to republicanism is inevitable. Opinion polls, however, have shown that a majority of New Zealanders favour keeping the monarchy. The Sovereign appoints the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister, who usually consults with the other leaders of the parties that are in the House of Representatives about the nomination. The Office is largely ceremonial, although the Governor-General holds a number of reserve powers. Increasingly, the Governor-General represents New Zealand abroad and is accorded the same respect and privileges of a head of state. It can be argued that the de facto head of state is the Governor-General while the de jure head of state remains the Sovereign. See politics of New Zealand for a full description of the powers of these institutions. According to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament may pass any legislation that it wishes. Since, New Zealand has used the Mixed Member Proportional MMP system, which is essentially proportional representation with single member seats that can affect the proportionality of the House, but only to a limited degree. The Cabinet, which is responsible to Parliament, exercises executive authority. The Cabinet forms the practical expression of a formal body known as the Executive Council. The Prime Minister, as the leader of the political party or coalition of parties holding or having the support of a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, leads the Cabinet. The Prime Minister and all other ministers take office upon receiving a warrant by the Governor-General. Unlike many other countries, there is no requirement for a formal vote of approval by the legislature before they may assume office. These courts are all of general jurisdiction. There are also a number of specialised tribunals which operate in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, such as the Disputes Tribunal, the Tenancy Tribunal and the Waitangi Tribunal. Law of New Zealand New Zealand law has three principal sources: English common law ; certain statutes of the United Kingdom Parliament enacted before notably the Bill of Rights ; and statutes of the Parliament of New Zealand. In interpreting common law, there is a rebuttable presumption in support of uniformity with common law as interpreted in the United Kingdom and related jurisdictions. Non-uniformity arises where the New Zealand courts consider local conditions to warrant it or where the law has been codified by New Zealand statute. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was established by legislation in October and which replaced the Privy Council for future appeals, has continued to develop the presumption. The place of the Treaty of Waitangi in the constitution is the subject of much debate. The Treaty has no inherent legal status, but is treated in various statutes and is increasingly seen as an important source of constitutional law. Page 4

5 The Treaty of Waitangi Act put the text of the Treaty in statute for the first time as a schedule and created the quasi-judicial Waitangi Tribunal to investigate claims relating to the application of the "principles" of the Treaty. The Act was initially prospective, but was amended in so that claims dating back to the signing of the Treaty in could be investigated. References to the " principles of the Treaty of Waitangi " appear in a number of statutes, although the principles themselves have not been defined in statute. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets out the civil and political rights of New Zealand citizens against the three branches of government and entities and persons exercising public functions. The Act is not entrenched or supreme law, and can in theory be amended by Parliament by a simple majority but may be subject to an emerging constitutional convention that requires general support for any material change. As contact with Europeans increased, there arose a need for a single governing entity. In, the colony of New South Wales was founded. While the Declaration was acknowledged by King William IV, it did not provide a permanent solution to the issue of governance. In Letters Patent were created purported to extend the jurisdiction of the colony of New South Wales to New Zealand, in effect to annexe "any territory which is or may be acquired This strategem was adopted by the Colonial Office in order to allow time for Captain William Hobson to legally acquire sovereignty from the United Tribes of New Zealand by treaty. Several subsequent copies were signed at various places around the North and South Islands. In, New Zealand was established as a colony in its own right. The Act was to be fully implemented in, but was never put in place because the Governor-in-Chief at the time, Sir George Grey, declined to apply it for a number of reasons. Instead, the Act was suspended for five years. Grey ruled with the powers of a dictator for the next five years; appointing Provincial councils at his pleasure. Following the suspension of the Act, the Imperial Parliament moved again to grant New Zealand self-government with the New Zealand Constitution Act, which repealed the earlier Constitution Act. This Act was based almost entirely on a draft by Sir George Grey, the main difference being the appointment of the Governor by the Secretary of the Colonies, and not by the New Zealand House of Representatives. The new Act did not take effect in New Zealand until That New Zealand be divided into six provinces. Each province had an elected Superintendent, and the power to pass sub-ordinate legislation Ordinances. The Governor retained the right to veto legislation, and the Crown also had a right of disallowance within two years of the Acts passage; A General Assembly comprising the elected House of Representatives, appointed Legislative Council Upper House and the Governor was constituted to pass law for the " peace, order and good government of New Zealand"; An Executive Council consisting of the Governor and Ministers. The first enactment of the first Parliament of New Zealand elected under this Act was the English Laws Act of, which affirmed the application of all English statutes in existence as at 14 January to New Zealand; specifically the Bill of Rights, and Habeas Corpus. The powers of the New Zealand Parliament were clarified by the Colonial Laws Validity Act Imperial of, which allowed a measured amount of legal independence. Under the Act, the New Zealand Parliament could pass laws inconsistent with British statutes or the common law, so long as Imperial statute was not specifically applicable to New Zealand. Where this occurred, the New Zealand statute would be void. This mainly related to proposals for new provinces in New Zealand. Several new provinces were then created by the New Zealand Parliament. In the composition of Legislative Council was changed, Councillors were no longer appointed for life; instead for terms of 7 years with provision for reappointment. Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward prompted to move to "raise up New Zealand" and assured that it would "have no other effect than that of doing the country good". The proclamation took effect on the 27 September. The Letters Patent also removed a number of powers the Governor previously held while New Zealand was a colony. In, two enactments of constitutional importance were passed: The latter is now largely repealed, with only certain provisions that codify aspects of parliamentary privilege remaining. In respect of the Governor-General, the Declaration stated that they held: The Governor-General was thus bound by the advice of their responsible ministers. To give effect to the conference declarations, the Statute of Westminster was passed thus lifting the restrictions created by the Colonial Laws Validity Act After much debate, this occurred in with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Page 5

6 Act. This residual power, which was used only for the Amendment Act, was abolished with the passing of the Constitution Act, which repealed the Constitution Act. As a result of these changes, New Zealand became a "Realm" legally independent of the United Kingdom, with a legally separate Crown. It was not until the Letters Patent, the first amendment of the Letters Patent since, that New Zealand was correctly described as the Realm of New Zealand, which includes the self-governing territories of the Cook Islands and Niue. On the election of a National Government promising to abolish the Legislative Council in, the Council was stacked with the so-called "suicide squad" to allow the passage of the Legislative Council Abolition Act by the House of Representatives to abolish the Upper House. The society presented a petition to Parliament for a written constitution in Reforms of the â Labour Government[ edit ] Immediately following the general election in which the Labour Party gained a parliamentary majority, a constitutional crisis arose when incumbent Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon of the National Party refused to implement the instructions of Prime Minister-elect David Lange to devalue the New Zealand dollar to head off a speculative run on the currency. The crisis was resolved when Muldoon relented three days later, under pressure from his own Cabinet, which threatened to install Deputy Prime Minister Jim McLay in his place. Following the constitutional crisis, the incoming Fourth Labour Government formed an Officials Committee on Constitutional Reform to review the transfer of power. As a result of the Committee, the Government released the Bill of Rights White paper and also introduced the Constitution Act, the first major review of the New Zealand Constitution Act for years. Prior to this Act, only 12 of the 82 provisions of the Act remained in place. The Act consists of five main parts, covering the Sovereign, the Executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and miscellaneous provisions. The Fourth Labour government also began the process of electoral reform. It convened the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in Two referendums were held during the s on the issue, with MMP being adopted in and implemented in However, the Act is neither entrenched nor supreme law as was mooted in the White Paper of and can be repealed by a simple majority of Parliament. Reform[ edit ] Because it is not supreme law, the constitution is in theory comparatively easy to reform, requiring only a majority of Members of Parliament to amend it, as illustrated by the abolition of the Legislative Council in Certain aspects of the constitution are entrenched, after a fashion. Section of the Electoral Act declares that the law governing the maximum term of Parliament itself part of the Constitution Act, along with certain provisions of the Electoral Act relating to the redistribution of electoral boundaries, the voting age, and the secret ballot, may only be altered either by three-quarters of the entire membership of the House of Representatives, or by a majority of valid votes in a popular referendum. Section itself is not protected by this provision, so a government could legally repeal Section and go on to alter the entrenched portions of law, both with a mere simple majority in Parliament. However, the entrenchment provision has enjoyed longstanding bipartisan support, and the electoral consequences of using a legal loophole to alter an entrenched provision would likely be severe. Further, and even though not subject to legislative entrenchment, material change to other aspects of the constitution is unlikely to occur absent broad-based support, either through broad legislative agreement or by referendum. Referendums in New Zealand There is no requirement for a referendum to enact constitutional change in New Zealand, except for the electoral system and term of parliament. Many groups advocate constitutional reform by referendum, for example New Zealand Republic supports a referendum on a republic. In one such referendum was held, on the question of whether the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced from to Electors overwhelmingly voted in favour of the proposal. However, there were no moves to amend the Electoral Act in line with this result until when a bill was introduced by New Zealand First MP Barbara Stewart to reduce the size of Parliament to The bill passed its first reading by 61 votes to 60, but was voted down at its second reading after it was recommended by Select Committee that the bill be dropped. The lack of implementation of referendums has led to calls for such referendums to be made binding on the government of the day, similar to the direct democracy seen in Switzerland. Referendums on constitutional issues in New Zealand outcome in bold: Page 6

7 Chapter 3 : Electoral reform in New Zealand - Wikipedia Voting systems are not usually the subject of editorials, letter-to-the-editor and petitions. MMP is the exception. Yet the move to a new electoral system for New Zealand was not entered into lightly or rapidly. An observer schooled in the orthodoxies of constitutional-design best practice might expect to see some significant problems in terms of how public power in New Zealand is authorized and imposed. However, contrary to such expectations, New Zealand has managed to combine unified and intensive forms of public power with a genuinely free and open society, which has an unbroken history of fairly contested democratic elections and subsequent peaceful transfers of governmental power dating back to the s. Public decision-making power is concentrated in ways that an observer schooled in the orthodoxies of constitutional design best practice might expect to cause some significant problems. Nevertheless, New Zealand has managed to combine unified and intensive forms of public power with a genuinely free and open society, which has an unbroken history of fairly contested democratic elections and subsequent peaceful transfers of governmental power dating back to the s. This last point is an important one. That is to say, rather than placing formal legal constraints on governmental power that are overseen and enforced by the judiciary, New Zealanders still value a form of government that is both free to take action needed to deal with matters of social concern and that is responsive to majoritarian concerns. Not only must the component parts of government and the formal relationship between them be understood, but an appreciation of the underlying expectations that New Zealanders have of their governmentsâ what they are for and ought to doâ also is required. It is not by attempting to restrict the legal powers of government that we shall defeat authoritarianism. Only political control, politically exercised can supply the remedy. This crisis led the nation to debate electoral reform and change the way in which members of Parliament MPs are voted into office Section 2. The reasons for this change are examined, as well as the expected consequences of making the change. It argues that the decision to reform the electoral processâ a decision taken only three years after rejecting an attempt to introduce an entrenched higher-law bill of rightsâ was consistent with an ongoing popular constitutional preference for a supreme legislature and active government primarily restrained through accountability to the general public. The third part outlines the effects of moving from a method of choosing representatives that produces single-party majority governments to a proportional one requiring multi-party governing arrangements Section 4. Furthermore, those involved in government have responded changes in how they are elected by developing novel governing arrangements that provide a degree of certainty and stability. The Constitution Act, section 15 1 puts things bluntly: The origins of, and ongoing basis for, legislative power in New Zealand thus require a more complete explanation. As the New Zealand Court of Appeal stated in Parliament is supreme and the function of the courts is to interpret the law as laid down by Parliament. The courts do not have a power to consider the validity of properly enacted laws. For example, in, the High Court declined to intervene to prevent Parliament from enacting legislation that would, without compensation, immediately deprive timber millers of their existing contractual rights to process and sell the wood obtained from felling native trees: Parliament is sovereign and can pass any legislation it sees fit. It cannot strike down such legislative changes once made. There is no supreme law in New Zealand which inhibits those powers. If content of legislation offends, the remedies are political and ultimately electoral. The fact those alternatives seem monumentally difficult, indeed unreal, to particular persons, or to those espousing unpopular causes, is no more than a dark side of democracy. Once there, their judgments as to the best balance to be struck in law between competing social policy considerationsâ including contested claims as to what individual rights requireâ ought to be respected and followed by all other social institutions. Cabinet and party government The classical formulation of the separation of powers doctrine never comfortably fit the Westminster-style government that New Zealand inherited. Questions and debates in the House of Representatives, inquiries by select committees, and ultimately votes of confidence in the government all Page 7

8 enable the members of Parliament to query, evaluate, and in theory remove from office those of their colleagues who hold ministerial power. The abolition of provincial governments and their legislatures in gave New Zealand a highly centralized form of government. Any given problem is potentially a central government one, with local or regional authorities only dealing with it if central government has devolved the power to do so, and any solution that a local or regional authority may reach being susceptible to revision by the center. Consequently, for the last half of the twentieth century, New Zealand combined a highly centralized form of government with a unicameral Parliament possessing formal power to legislate on any matter and dominated by one of two political parties. For example, during the Waterfront dispute, the National Government invoked the Public Safety Conservation Act to promulgate regulations giving it the power to seize union funds, use the armed forces to replace workers, and prohibit meetings or publications relating to the dispute. This power was used extensively by governments from both sides of the political spectrum: So, for example, the National Government that dealt so harshly with the waterfront workers in won a snap election after the dispute was ended with a clear majority of the popular vote. In New Zealand the origins of the Welfare State are to be found not in aristocracy but in democracy. The New Zealand reason for introducing social services is an egalitarian one. Welfare is the socializing of distribution in the interests of social justice. The people of New Zealand elected a Liberal Government in to give them welfare, and they elected a Labour Government in to give them more welfare, and each time the Government obeyed the mandate of the sovereign people. New Zealanders simply are not as distrustful of power as Americans. Importance of elections Much then rested on the function that periodic parliamentary elections played in legitimizing the lawmaking role of members of Parliament in New Zealand, as well as conferring governmental authority on members of the winning party. A measure of their importance is that some core aspects of the electoral system are the only matters in New Zealand law entrenched against repeal or amendment by an ordinary parliamentary majority, 38 leading Keith Scott to suggest that the Electoral Act comes as close to providing a written constitution as New Zealand gets. This feature helped to create and sustain a duopoly of broad-tent political parties, National and Labour, each of which endorsed a candidate in every electorate. The resulting alignment of electoral incentives among political parties, individual candidates, and the voters resulted in single-party majority governments forming after every election from, with the members of the governing party expected to support the legislative policy agenda determined by Cabinet or face being cast into electoral oblivion. The voters in turn effectively were limited to deciding whether to reward the governing party for its performance in office, or instead try to replace it by supporting the only other serious contender for power. Conclusion The above is a general sketch of the institutional arrangements for parliamentary government and underlying constitutional assumptions and attitudes that existed in New Zealand as of the early s. As with all generalizations, it necessarily glosses over some matters and simplifies others. From the above discussion, however, two things should be clear. First, public power in New Zealand took a particularly condensed form, with individuals holding ministerial office not only able to employ both executive and legislative power for the general public good but expected to do so. If public faith in this process was shaken, then the entire governing edifice threatened to crumble. Should government stop working as the people thought it shouldâ if it was failing to deliver policy outcomes and governing practices that met with popular approvalâ then changing the way that governments are selected was an attractive way to fix the problem. The transition to MMP 3. Why change how MPs are elected? The impetus for electoral reform in the s reflected a profound sense of voter disillusionment with the radical policies of successive Labour and National governments. Rather than curbing the powers of the big two parties by way of constitutional reform, with a written constitution and upper house as potential options, MMP provided the less radical alternative of a multi-party legislature and executive. Driven by this public disenchantment with the performance of their elected representatives, a reluctant National Government asked the voters directly which voting system they would prefer to use. At this point, the views of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System became important. The central and unexpected recommendation contained in its resulting report was that the existing voting system ought to be replaced with the MMP model Page 8

9 used in as it was then West Germany. And so in a two-stage referendum process held in and, the electorate ultimately decided by a Each electoral district currently numbered at seventy-one returns to Parliament the candidate receiving the greatest number of electorate votes. These additional list seats are filled from a list of candidates ranked by each party and publicly announced before the election. Although only a handful of parties have won more than 5 percent of the party vote in each of the seven elections held under MMP, the waiving of this requirement for parties that get at least one electorate MP elected has enabled additional small parties to enter Parliament. Consequently, the number of parties in Parliament has grown from the four that gained seats at the last first past the post election in, to seven at the election. In turn, having more parliamentary parties with representation proportional to their overall level of support in the community means that no one political party has been able to win a majority of parliamentary seats, and thus the right to govern alone. Parties instead have been required to cooperate in order to provide the majority support needed to form and maintain a government in office. This outcome was not unexpected. A diversity of alternative political vehicles also would increase the ability of the voters to discipline parties they believe are not performing as promised. From the late s through to the early s, the background expectation that governments would use their power within the bounds of general public acceptance, and the assurance that any government that exceeded those limits could be replaced with one that would respect them, broke down. The public then opted to change their voting system to MMP in the hope that a more fractured Parliament would better restrain the executive government. So, the theory went, forcing different parties to work together would slow the rate at which government can act and limit what governments might do, without having to adopt any additional institutional arrangements or reevaluate the basic foundational principles of the constitutional order. This last point is important to note. A proposal to create a supreme law bill of rights allowing the courts to invalidate legislation was rejected. Executive government therefore remains highly centralized and comparatively simple in form. Parliamentary government under MMPâ different, yet the same 4. Entering into any particular governing arrangement, as well as the form and content of such an agreement, is a purely political calculation. The interpretation and enforcement of any agreement also is an exclusively political matter, as the courts would almost certainly refuse any oversight role on public policy grounds. These enhanced agreements involve the support parties putting their votes behind the governing party or parties on key matters of confidence and supply, thereby providing the majority needed for a government to enter and remain in office. However, MPs from the support parties do not formally join the government, do not sit in Cabinet, and claim the continued right to oppose and criticize the government on any policy issues that they have not expressly committed to support. Further complicating matters, the leader or leaders of the support parties also receive a ministerial role, thereby gaining some control over executive government decision making in a particular policy field and the enhanced public profile that ministerial office confers. The major governing party obtains the parliamentary votes needed to wield executive authority, along with assurance that the major legislative planks of its election platform can pass through Parliament. Furthermore, maintaining a gap between the government and its support partners permits the major governing party to secure support from multiple parties across the political spectrum. Doing so not only provides the government with a parliamentary buffer should relationships sour, but also provides different options for the support needed for enacting future legislative proposals. In return, this governing arrangement gives each smaller support party some victories in terms of advancing legislation and obtaining control over an aspect of executive government policy by way of ministerial positions for their leaders, while also allowing it to distance itself from unpopular governmental decisions. This latter consideration is important, as the universal experience of smaller parties that agree to support a larger one in government has been that their share of the party vote falls at the next election. Although these enhanced supply and confidence arrangements confer mutual benefits, they are by no means a relationship of equals. The major governing party has the upper hand when negotiating terms and apportioning the spoils of electoral victory. After most MMP elections, one of the two major parties is in a position where it has multiple paths to the majority needed to govern. A major party always has the option of publicly declaring Page 9

10 that a minor party is making it impossible for government to function. Consequently, while the multi-party nature of government under MMP has resulted in a somewhat more restrained executive, it has not unduly hampered the ability of governments to form and perform. The brute facts of governmental power still apply in the proportional representation environment. Gaining ministerial office allows the leading members of a political party to exercise executive power towards the ends they prefer. A minor party thus faces a stark choice; it can either agree to support a major one in government and thus gain some share of public power, or not do so and spend the parliamentary term on the opposition benches trying to remind the voting public of its existence. Unsurprisingly, minor parties have preferred the former state of affairs to the latter. The success of the Labour and National Parties in negotiating and managing multiple support agreements with various minor parties after each MMP election then has enabled them to maintain cohesive and stable governments with sufficient parliamentary support to advance their policy agendas. Such governments may not be quite as all-powerful as their first-past-the-post predecessors, but neither are they weak and divided entities held in thrall to the competing demands of the various component parties that permit their existence. In one obvious respect it has had a marked impact: The iron rule of Westminster constitutionalismâ governments must obtain majority support in Parliament for all matters of confidence and money supplyâ not only dictates who can form the government after each election, but also applies to that government continuing in office. Whereas the combination of first past the post voting and strong party discipline made this parliamentary support a certainty, under MMP there always is the possibility that parties may change their allegiances and so bring a government down. This possibility may be remote for reasons of practical politics, while as has been seen governing parties consciously seek relationships with multiple support parties to guard against it. Its mere existence does, however, change the way in which the executive government must approach the legislative branch. Page 10

11 Chapter 4 : Electoral system of New Zealand Revolvy The Constitution of New Zealand is the sum of laws and principles that make up the body politic of the realm. It concerns the relationship between the. The meaning of Te Tiriti is complicated by the fact that the Maori and English texts of the agreement are not entirely consistent in their meanings. Practically, in the years since, the English interpretation was generally privileged. Thus, New Zealand officially became a British colony and was ruled by a governor until, when the British government passed the New Zealand Constitution Act However this changed in when New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world to allow women the right to vote. Initially, these seats were created on an interim basis with a provision for their removal after five years had passed. The only qualifiers to this were that to be eligible to vote, one must have resided in New Zealand for 12 months and in a specific electorate for 6 months. Second-Ballot System [ edit ] The second-ballot system was introduced in the Second Ballot Act and was one of the first substantive reforms to the mechanism by which winning candidates are elected to Parliament to be seen in New Zealand. When the leading candidate did not achieve this, a second ballot would be held a week later featuring only the two leading candidates, to assure an absolute majority of votes was achieved. However, this system only remained in place for five years as it was abolished in due to its supposed inequitable nature in the emerging party environment of Parliament. However, in the newfound party context that had solidified throughout the second-ballot era it had somewhat unforeseen effects. While initially three main parties existed the Liberal, Reform and Labour parties, the system quickly solidified into a two party system wherein the Reform and Liberal parties combined to create the National Party to oppose the Labour Party. Palmer had promoted proportional representation as a law professor in his book Unbridled Power? During the election campaign, Labour promised to hold a referendum on MMP at, or before, the next election. Although Labour was returned to power in that election, it failed to proceed further on the matter due to its own internal divisions. In May, Labour MP John Terris submitted a private members bill to force a binding referendum on the electoral system, but the bill was defeated. Voters were asked two questions: The government appointed a panel chaired by the Ombudsman to oversee the campaign. The panel issued a brochure describing each of the voting systems appearing on the ballot, which was delivered to all households, and sponsored other publications, television programs, and seminars to inform the public. Meanwhile, the Electoral Reform Coalition campaigned actively in favour of the MMP alternative originally recommended by the royal commission. These measures made it possible for voters to make an informed choice on what was otherwise a complicated issue. This led New Zealanders to vote overwhelmingly for change Such a result could not be ignored by the government, but rather than implementing MMP as the government was urged to do by the Electoral Reform Coalition, it opted to hold a second binding referendum on reform. This referendum featured a direct choice between FPP and MMP and was planned to be held to coincide with the next general election in Question One in the Referendum[ edit ] The first question asked voters if they wished to retain FPP or change electoral systems. The result was Part A Choose one proposal: Page 11