^{Photo credit: Dean Purcell, Newstalk ZB}

To say the Prime Minister has had a rough couple of weeks is an understatement.

But yesterday’s surprise announcement that, if re-elected, National would hold a referendum about our MMP electoral system, clearly illustrates where the party leader’s focus is – and it’s not the interests of New Zealanders.

In an interview on Newstalk ZB, not only did Luxon suggest that there should be a referendum about MMP without proposing what an alternative could be, he also said he wanted more National Party Cabinet ministers, not “some yahoo or numpty from some other party” at the decision-making table.

Some commentators have argued that his comment was a reflection of his frustration with his coalition partners Act and NZ First. While some people might understand that, particularly with NZ First leader Winston Peters’ recent comments in the House that Chinese-born New Zealand Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan, should go back to where he came from, that’s not a reason to suggest the electoral system should change.

More than 30 years ago, New Zealanders voted to move from the First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system to the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system to not only move away from a situation where a party who won the fewer votes overall could end up the government (due to the number of electorate seats it won) but also to have a Parliament that would be more representative of New Zealand. A more recent referendum on the voting system, held in in 2011, saw nearly 58 percent in favour of keeping MMP – higher than the 54 percent who supported MMP over FPP in the 1993 referendum.

Options for governing
MMP allows for a range of governing arrangements by working with other parties through, for example, a governing coalition, which the Government is now, to a minority government which retains power through confidence and supply agreements with one or more parties – which New Zealand has had in the past.

Luxon chose to form a three-way coalition – and in doing so, committed to working with two other parties to govern. Just because it isn’t going well at a point in time, doesn’t mean you can announce that your solution is to change the voting system.

The issues that matter
What’s more, New Zealand’s electoral system doesn’t appear in the of top issues concerning New Zealanders. In the July IPSOS’ issues monitor the top issues were:

- Inflation/Cost of living

- Healthcare/hospitals

- The economy

- Housing/price of house

- Unemployment

These are the issues that matter most to New Zealanders, not whether we need a new electoral system. The electoral system doesn’t even appear in the top 20. The research also showed Labour as the political party most capable of managing all five of New Zealanders’ top concerns.

Luxon’s surprise announcement has inevitably drawn attention, and time, not only from him but from his Ministers and National MPs. This was time that could have been spent thinking about addressing the issues that mater to voters, whose interests they were elected to represent.

Former Minister Stuart Nash’s campaign to return to Parliament as a New Zealand First MP is now over after he described current Napier National MP Katie Nimon the “laziest MP” he had ever come across for taking maternity leave following the birth of her son.

This latest outburst should be a surprise to no one as he is well known for his inappropriate comments about women. The political reaction to Nash’s comments was fast and furious. The Prime Minister, other senior National Ministers and leaders from across the political spectrum were quick to express their distaste. Nash’s resignation might have come sooner had NZ First Party leader Winston Peters been in the country.

Why is Nash gone but Jones not?

Questions have been asked about why New Zealand First MP Shane Jones, also known for his outspokenness including calling Indians coming to New Zealand a “butter chicken tsunami”. The answer is simple – politics. Jones is a Minister in the National-led coalition Government. Quite simply, National needs NZ First to remain in power.

The impact of the Prime Minister sacking Shane Jones as a Minister is far greater than his coalition partner New Zealand First losing a party candidate, even when that candidate is Stuart Nash.

Party selection

This latest scandal involving Nash, once again raises the questions about party’s candidate selection. Nash was a known quantity. He had been a Minister who had been sacked following multiple integrity issues. Since his departure from Parliament, he has made several public statements that were derogatory to women, including one that cost him his place on a trade trip to New York.

Yet New Zealand First clearly thought he was worth the risk, with leader Winston Peters suggesting Nash was a future prospect for a Cabinet position. Peters may be glad that Nash’s latest offensive comments came before the election rather than after. These types of scandals, especially when there’s more than one, can impact on electoral results as Labour found out in 2023.

What now?

In the leadup to the election we can expect to see more of these “could have made my point far better” mistakes. In fact, just the morning after Nash resigned, newly minted Act candidate former broadcaster Paul Henry, rose to the challenge on breakfast radio by saying who, out of Luxon, Peters or Hipkins, he would shoot, sleep with or marry. No surprises here either, that he named Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins as the person to shoot, Peters as the one to sleep with and Luxon as the one to marry.

While the Hipkins and his colleagues tried to suggest that Henry’s comments were a serious threat to kill Hipkins – something which it clearly wasn’t – there is no doubt that these comments will come back to haunt Henry when he least expects it.

There’s another candidate – New Zealand First’s Michael Laws – who has, in the past, also been prone to inflammatory comments. Remember when he described the former Tongan king as “a bloated, brown slug”? Followed several years later by describing former Governor-General Anand Satyanand as a “fat Indian”. He could be another one who could come under the spotlight. Although this week’s events may give him pause to think before he speaks.

Fuelling the fire

It’s not just New Zealand politicians such as Peters and Jones that are fuelling the rhetorical fire with negative comments about women. Recently Australian Prime Minister Antony Albanese engaged in a similar game to Henry and said on a podcast that he would shag Kylie Minogue. A comment for which he later “unequivocally apologised”. And in the United States President Donald Trump has also made derogatory comments about women. For example, describing a female reporter’s question as “stupid” and another one’s “dumb” in the same day. He also described a female reporter as “piggy”.

There’s been a lot of discussion about the Opportunity Party’s 4.6 % result in the latest 1News Verian poll. It’s the closest the party has polled to reach the 5% it needs to enter parliament without winning an electorate seat.

As you’d expect, The Opportunity Party is happy. Other parties not so much, with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon quoted saying the party “looks like a Labour-Green bunch. They want a land tax, they want to make every New Zealander a beneficiary with a universal basic income.”

Why it matters

If, at this year’s general election on 7 November, the party receives 5% or more, six MPs, including party leader Qiulae Wong, will enter Parliament. It will also be the first time since MMP was introduced 30 years ago that a new party will have entered Parliament without having won an electorate seat.

Of course, there is the possibility that Qiulae Wong will win the Mt Albert seat. The seat, currently held by Labour’s Helen White, was won by the narrowest of margins – 18 votes – over National’s Melissa Lee. Green MP Ricardo Mendedez March also polled well in the seat winning 9,296 votes. It is possible that party vote support could also be reflected in the electorate – only time will tell.

Back to the party vote

If, Qiulae Wong doesn’t win the Mt Albert electorate and the party wins 5% of the vote, six Opportunity Party MPs, enter Parliament.

This matters because it means that other parties will have less MPs.

Using the poll’s results but lifting The Opportunity’s Party vote to 5% here’s what Parliament could look like (Noting the provisos below).

Table created using the Electoral Commission’s MMP seat allocation calculator.

The right block - National, NZ First and Act- would have 57 seats.

The left block - Labour, Greens and Te Pati Māori - would have 61 seats.

There would be a four-seat overhang meaning that Parliament would be 124 seats. Therefore, neither block would have a majority.

The Opportunity Party has said it would negotiate first with the party that won the most votes in this case, Labour.

If The Opportunity Party doesn’t reach the 5% threshold

Table created using the Electoral Commission’s MMP seat allocation calculator.

• Act has one more seat

• Labour has two more seats

• The Greens have one more seat

• National has one more seat

The right block - National, NZ First and Act - would have 59 seats.

The left block - Labour, Greens and Te Pati Māori - would have 64 seats.

There would be a four-seat overhang meaning that Parliament would be 124 seats. Giving the left block a majority.

And that’s why it could be a game changer

If the Opportunity Party wins 5% of the party vote, both sides of the political spectrum will need its support to form a majority.

New Zealand will have a new Queenmaker.

Provisos

As with any numbers, there’s always provisos – and here they are.

• The 1News Verian poll is just one poll

• Numbers are only based on party vote preferences, not electorate vote

• 14% of those polled were undecided or declined to say who they would vote for

• It assumed Te Pati Māori would hold on to its 6 electorates – something which looks increasingly unlikely given the party’s recent volatility.

And the election is still five months away.