An expert panel has recommended major changes to elections, including lowering the voting age, lowering the MMP threshold, and capping the value of donations.
The Independent Electoral Review released their interim report this morning, with consultation from the public open until July 17.
The panel was convened by the Justice Minister, but has operated independently of government in coming up with their recommendations.
It was chaired by lawyer and company director Deborah Hart, who said it represented a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to review our whole electoral system, to ensure that it’s fairer, clearer, and more people can take part in it”.
Their recommendations followed the general theme of enhancing access to democracy under the principles of the Bill of Rights.
After the consultation phase is finished, the panel will reconvene and release their final report in November, after the 2023 election has taken place.
Several aspects were out of scope for the panel, including the MMP system itself, the existence and future of the Māori electorates, and the establishment of an upper house of Parliament.
“We’re looking at the same system working better, and I think that’s what Kiwis want – they want us to future proof the system,” said Hart.
Four-year term referendum
Among the headline recommendations was a call for a referendum on a four-year parliamentary term, increasing from the current three years.
Hart said a range of views on the issue came back to the panel, with some arguing longer parliamentary terms would allow governments to accomplish more, while others said regular elections act as a necessary check on politicians.
“We’ve heard a lot about the parliamentary term, and people were pretty evenly split on whether it should be extended or not.”
Hart said any referendum should be accompanied by a “well-resourced education campaign”, giving voters a clear idea of the various arguments for and against an extension.
New Zealand’s parliamentary terms are on the shorter side, with terms in the United Kingdom and France lasting five years, while terms in Germany, Australia and Canada lasting four years.
However, many other jurisdictions have other checks and balances on the power of Parliament, such as an upper house which can scrutinise legislation passed by Parliament.
Four-year terms have become an increasing point of discussion in New Zealand, with both major party leaders in 2020 – Judith Collins and Jacinda Ardern – favouring the switch.
MMP threshold to 3.5%
The draft recommendations also included lowering the MMP threshold to 3.5%, coupled with the abolition of the ‘coat-tailing’ rule that allows electorate seat winners to bring other MPs with them into Parliament.
If the threshold was set at 3.5%, about 100,000 votes would be required – based on the 2020 election – to win seats in Parliament, for a caucus of about four MPs.
“We heard a lot about the one seat rule, that it’s really unfair,” said Hart.
“But it is a way small parties have been brought into Parliament. They won’t need it so much when the threshold has been lowered to 3.5%.”
Previous recommendations for the electoral threshold have included lowering it to 4%.
In the MMP era, several election results might have looked quite different.
All else being equal, Christian Heritage would have crossed the threshold in 1996, the Conservatives would have made it in 2014, and NZ First would have remained in Parliament in 2008.
At the same time, at various points ACT, Te Pāti Māori, United Future, and Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition would have become one-man bands.
Other parliaments elected under MMP-type systems have a range of thresholds. Italy sets it at 4% – with other provisions for parties in formal electoral coalitions – while Germany, Fiji, and Taiwan are all at 5%.
Lower thresholds tend to result in greater numbers of parties getting into Parliament. For example, Israel’s threshold is set at 3.25%, and there are currently 12 parties represented in the Knesset.
Major donation changes
Major changes are being proposed to the system of donations to political parties and candidates.
That would include a cap on donations to a maximum of $30,000 to any party and their candidates over the course of an electoral cycle.
In practice, that would mean someone could donate $30,000 to Labour and $30,000 to National, but could not donate $30,000 to Labour and an additional $30,000 to the local campaign of Chris Hipkins.
“Kiwis have told us very clearly that they want a contest of ideas, not a contest of cash,” said Hart.
A more fundamental recommended change would require donations to come only from registered voters. Currently, donations can be made by businesses, trusts, and unions, among other groups.
This reflected concerns of the panel that some groups could use donations to secure greater access to politicians.
“We heard a lot of unease from New Zealanders about the smoke and mirrors of donations – they want transparency.”
Changes would also be made to the allocation of state funding for political parties, which at the moment takes place under broadcasting allocations, which can be spent on TV and radio ads.
The panel proposed abolishing the broadcasting allocation, while reallocating and “modestly increasing” the amount of funding provided to parties for more general purposes.
Changes to who can vote
Make it 16’s Thomas Brocherie said it was a good move as it aligned with other responsibilities such as driving, having a job and paying tax. (Source: Breakfast)
Another major recommendation of the panel was changing the voting age to 16, based on the view that it would increase long-term participation in the democratic system.
“We give 16-year-olds all kinds of responsibilities,” said Hart, citing driving, holding a firearms licence, holding a job and paying tax.
“We think there’s not a good reason why they cannot vote.”
A recent legal challenge by the Make it 16 group resulted in the Supreme Court finding the existing voting age of 16 is “inconsistent with the bill of rights”, though under the law it doesn’t automatically follow that a change in the age limit is required.
A poll conducted in 2022 by Curia Research, on behalf of the Taxpayers Union, found a large majority of voters are against lowering the voting age to 16.
The panel also recommended changes to the voting rights of prisoners.
Currently, those serving sentences of less than three years can vote, however those serving longer sentences cannot. The panel said all prisoners should have the right to vote.
“We were very mindful of the Waitangi Tribunal that said this particular rule is inequitable particularly to Māori, who as compared to non-Māori get charged more and imprisoned more,” said Hart.
A full rundown of the proposed changes, and the opportunity to submit, can be found on the electoral review website.
SHARE ME