New Zealand politics

This is  a short backgrounder of NZ politics and the trashing of democracy by the Key government - especially for overseas readers.

Making a mockery of democracy
Minority parties at the seat of  government

by Seemorerocks

How does the brand-new leader of a right-wing party, who has never been in parliament (or even politics, as far as I can see) - and whose party got 0.67 per cent of the vote in the last election - potentially get a seat of Cabinet, a ministerial salary and a limo?

How is it the Māori Party, United Future and ACT received a combined 2.18 per cent of the popular vote?

That might take some explaining, especially for overseas readers - so I will have a go.

Until the mid- 1990's New Zealand had the same electoral system of Britain - the First Past the Post system whereby the seats in parliament were apportioned according to the number of electorate seats.  This meant, essentially, that it was a system of "the winner takes all"

It was a formula for stable government.  It was also undemocractic as essentially amounted to an elected dictatorship and the elections were a safe horse race between two parties - the National and Labour parties.

This worked well until the 1993 election when we saw the spectacle of the National Party winning the election although it had a clear minority of votes (due to the unpopularity of its neo-liberal policies).

The prime minister of the time, Jim Bolger, in a rush of blood to the head promised a referendum on the voting system and in 1996 the public of New Zealand duly voted in a change of voting system to MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system - proportional representation based, largely, on the German system.

From now representation would be based on a complex formula based on the number of electorate seats won and the proportion of votes received.

A peculiarity of the NZ system was that only parties with over 5% of the vote and those that won a seat would have representation.

MMP gave a leg-up to the Green Party into parliament, who have, since then, increased their proportion of the vote.

The politicians of the two main parties have hated it because they could no longer rule on their own but would have to enter into coalition with minor parties - which led to horsetrading after each election to determine who could rule.

Which brings us to this government and its relationship with a right-wing party called ACT.

Rodney Hide

In its first term ACT's leader, Rodney Hide won the Epsom seat in Auckland and the party won sufficient seats to bring in several MP's into parliament. Rodney Hide was the minister who presided over the destruction of Auckland counciils and the creation over the head of public opinion, of the Auckland "super-council".

L

Don Brash

By the time of the 2011 election ACT's support was in free-fall. Hide had been chucked out as leader and replaced, first by Don Brash (who had headed the National Party through the 2005 election) and then by John Banks (also an ex-National MP and until recently mayor of Auckland).

It was also clear that National needed coalition partners to allow it to continue ruling.

John Banks

This led to the most famous cup of tea in New Zealand politics.

This was a meeting held by new ACT leader, Banks and PM Key at a cafe in central Auckland.  Thanks to a reporter inadvertently  leaving his recorder on the table the details of this conversation were able to be leaked to the public.

The arrangement was that the National Party would tell their loyal supporters to allow the National candidate to lose and to give the vote to Banks and ACT instead.

ACT won 1.07% of the popular vote but won Banks a seat in parliament thanks to the coat tail provision of MMP which provided for this very same situation.

Banks was taken straight into Cabinet by the Key government and the government immediately announced that it would introduce charter (or "partnership") schools as part of the government's "confidence and supply agreement" with ACT - a right-wing policy that was unannounced and not part of National's manifesto.

Banks (leader of a party with 1.07% of the vote) was one of the most influential members of the government until he was overtaken by scandal which involved the non-disclosure of donations by millionaire Kim Dotcom to Banks' mayoral campaign.

Having not been charged for fraud by the police Banks, shortly before this year's election was indicted as a result of a private prosecution by Graham McCreedy 
(a case taken over by the public prosecutor).

One would have thought that this scandal might have been the end of ACT and its perverse role in New Zealand politics.

John Banks stood down (and I think that is the last we have heard from him for a while), ACT voted in an unknown leader, Jamie Whyte who once again stood for the Epsom electorate.

As the third ACT candidate for the electorate, it seems that each new successive leader is inheriting the seat of  Epsom 

Jamie Whyte

Once again, (this time without the 'cup of tea') National's candidate, David Seymour,  agreed to lose and National, once again, exhorted its supporters to vote for the ACT candidate who went on to win the seat.

That (not so briefly) is why we have the strange phenomenon of the leader of a political party with out any popular support potentially having a seat at Cabinet - we will have to await the conclusion of 'negotiations' to see.

As an aside to this, the government put the electoral system to a referendum once again, no doubt in the hope that the hated MMP would be voted out and a de facto National dictatorship could be voted in.

The public once again voted for MMP and a subsequent inquiry recommended reforms to the system which reduced the 5 per cent threshold but would do away with the "coat tail provision" which would allow the likes of Rodney Hide, Jamie Whyte, Peter Dunne to enter government without popular support.

Needless to say, (after having called for the referendum) the Nats refused to accept the recommendations.

....

ACT have made it a conspicuous part of their policy to get rid of the Overseas Investment Commission and allow open slather on foreign purchase of land.

I wonder if this might be the next policy that National 'has to take on as part of its confidence and supply agreement with ACT.