Luxon’s ‘Surprise’ on MMP Was 30 Years in the Making
Luxon’s ‘Surprise’ on MMP Was 30 Years in the Making
𝘓𝘶𝘹𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘥.
n Thursday 6 August, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Newstalk ZB that if National is returned to power he would hold a referendum on the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) voting system, alongside one on moving to a four-year parliamentary term.
He framed it as a constitutional “check-in”: after three decades, is this still the system New Zealanders want?
He also linked it to the practical realities of coalition government, remarking that he did not need “some yahoo or numpty” from another party around the Cabinet table if National could secure a stronger mandate on its own.
The remarks surprised coalition partners — Winston Peters called them “inexplicable” and a “power grab” — and even appeared to catch some National MPs off-guard, with mixed signals emerging about whether this was settled party policy or a captain’s call.
That discomfort with MMP is not new. National has long preferred electoral systems that make single-party majorities, like first-past-the-post more achievable.
MMP was deliberately designed to prevent that possibility eventuating again.
In 2020, Labour under Jacinda Ardern won 50.0% of the party vote and 65 seats in the 120-seat Parliament — the first (and still only) single-party majority government under MMP.
The party vote determines overall seat share, the 5 per cent threshold and coat-tailing provisions give smaller parties leverage, and majority governments become rare.
From National’s perspective, this produces more fragmented Cabinets, slower decision-making, and periodic concessions that dilute a centre-right programme.
The historical record is clear. When MMP was first proposed and put to the public in the early 1990s, the National Party was a central force behind the organised opposition.
Senior National ministers and party-aligned figures led the charge against the change.
Ruth Richardson warned it would bring “economic ruin.” Bill Birch called it a “catastrophic disaster for democracy.”
The main anti-MMP campaign vehicle, the Campaign for Better Government, was heavily backed by National-linked business leaders and politicians, with then Telecom chairman Peter Shirtcliffe at the forefront.
Although Jim Bolger’s National government ultimately delivered the 1992 indicative vote referendum and 1993 binding referendum (partly under pressure from earlier campaign commitments), the party’s establishment and most of its senior ranks actively opposed the introduction of MMP both before and during the referendum process.
Once MMP was in place, National had to adapt, yet the preference for cleaner majorities never fully disappeared.
That preference resurfaced under the John Key national led coalition government.
In 2008 National promised a review of the voting system.
The 2011 referendum asked voters whether they wanted to keep MMP.
Key himself said he would vote for the less proportional Supplementary Member system.
The public chose to retain MMP by roughly 58–42.
The result settled the immediate question but did not erase National’s structural preference for arrangements that reduce the veto power of smaller parties.
Luxon’s latest comments sit comfortably inside that tradition.
They also reflect the current government’s experience: managing partners with different priorities has been visible and, at times, awkward.
By floating another referendum, Luxon is testing whether public tolerance for those compromises has shifted after thirty years of MMP.
Whether voters would actually change the system remains uncertain — the 2011 result showed solid support for the status quo — but the underlying National view that proportional representation comes at a cost to decisive government is consistent and long-standing.
Comments
Post a Comment