|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 1: Results of the 1996 New Zealand Election |
||
|
Party |
% of total vote |
Total seats gained |
|---|---|---|
|
National |
33.9 |
44 |
|
Labour |
29.6 |
37 |
|
NZ First |
13.4 |
17 |
|
Alliance |
10.8 |
13 |
|
ACT |
4.9 |
8 |
|
United |
1.5 |
1 |
|
Christian Coalition |
2.9 |
0 |
|
Others |
3.0 |
0 |
|
Total |
100 |
120 |
In December 1996, National and New Zealand First formed the first Coalition Government under MMP. A formal agreement was drawn up which laid out the principles guiding the operating process and policy direction of the Coalition. Winston Peters, Leader of New Zealand First, was made Deputy Prime Minister and given the specially-created portfolio of Treasurer.(3) The Ministry was drawn up with 20 Cabinet ministers and 6 ministers outside Cabinet. National had 15 inside and two outside Cabinet while New Zealand First were allocated five inside and four outside Cabinet. It was also agreed that in October 1998, National's share of cabinet positions would decrease to 12, while New Zealand First's would increase to eight, with both parties having three ministers outside Cabinet. However, with the collapse this increase did not occur.
The partnership between the National and New Zealand First parties enabled National to retain power. However, it was impossible to predict the results of forming a government with New Zealand First for several reasons. First, most of the New Zealand First Members were inexperienced first-term politicians, some of whom proved ill-prepared for the pressures that come not only from being part of a government but with executive positions. Second, New Zealand First voters were a diverse group which demanded a very broad range of policy positions, not all of which could be implemented. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Winston Peters as the 'populist and mercurial leader' of New Zealand First had never been a predictable character and had a history of undermining collective responsibility.(4) Originally from the National Party, and a protégé of Sir Robert Muldoon, he had not had a good relationship with the then Prime Minister Jim Bolger. While Bolger and Peters did manage a congenial relationship during the first year of government, this deteriorated considerably after Jenny Shipley took over as Prime Minister in November 1997, culminating in the sacking of Winston Peters by Shipley on Friday 14th August 1998.
The sacking arose over the sale of Wellington Airport, which was publicly opposed by Winston Peters, who walked out of Cabinet with four other New Zealand First Ministers. While National did agree to prohibit the sale of certain state assets in the original Coalition Agreement, Winston Peters had not protested over the sale of Auckland Airport (a much larger aviation investment) two weeks earlier. Commentators maintain that the split was not unexpected, with tensions evident within Cabinet over increased spending options, and with New Zealand First losing its support amongst the voters. It was argued that Winston Peters needed to leave the Coalition to re-find his constituency and re-establish his integrity. It remains to be seen if this strategy has been successful.
Implications
Even prior to the adoption of MMP, New Zealand's constitutional conventions allowed for the possible formation of minority governments. For example, there is no constitutional requirement for the government to hold a majority of seats in Parliament, nor is there a provision precluding a government below a certain size. Indeed, in the nine months prior to the 1996
election, the National Government was in coalition with the United Party. While it is unlikely that one party will ever gain a majority to form government under MMP in New Zealand, this does not necessarily make the country any less ''stable'' than under the previous majoritarian system. What is apparent however, is that senior politicians had little experience in both crafting and managing coalition arrangements.(5) This will no doubt change over time.
An incumbent government does not require Parliament's explicit endorsement to remain in office; it can continue until it loses a vote of confidence. Furthermore, governments in New Zealand do not require an absolute parliamentary majority in order to win a vote of confidence. All that is required is a simple majority. Thus if a party or parties sympathetic to the government is prepared to abstain in such a vote, as is now an option under new standing orders, it is perfectly possible for a minority government to survive opposition censure.(6) After the Coalition collapse, Prime Minister Shipley had supply guaranteed until February 1999 and so a vote of confidence in the Government was not required. After the minority government had established itself, the Prime Minister did call for a confidence vote, arguably to demonstrate to the public that her government remained in control. This vote of confidence was passed.
Ending the Coalition has allowed National to reshuffle its Cabinet to allow for more coherence. One New Zealand First Member has retained a place within the inner Cabinet. National continues to have the support of some remaining New Zealand First members, as well as from two other parties, the right wing ACT Party and the United Party. This has provided them with at least 58 votes in the Parliament. These numbers may change again in February when a by-election is required to replace a resigning National Party member (who has become Mayor of Auckland).
Conclusion
It is often commented that proportional representation electoral systems bring with them unstable government. Stability, in this sense, refers primarily to majority government-where one party can govern in its own right. While without a majority in the Parliament, the immediate future of the National Government in New Zealand does seem assured. An election is not required until the end of 1999, but if one is held earlier, this cannot be considered an indication of unstable government under MMP. In Australia, governments seldom go their full term and often go early or threaten early elections as a result of a deadlock between the House of Representatives and the Senate. February 1999 would be the earliest likely election in New Zealand, nine months earlier than scheduled.
While the MMP system does seem capable of producing stable governments in the New Zealand context, the public has been telling pollsters for some time now that it is unhappy with the existing electoral system. By May 1998 only 30 per cent of voters favoured MMP compared with 42 per cent support in late 1996. It is not clear whether this dissatisfaction is a result of the system itself or the character of this particular Coalition Government. For example, the majority of New Zealand First supporters expected and preferred the party to align with Labour and so were unhappy with the Coalition from the start (New Zealand First support dropped from 14.2 per cent in 1996 to two percent in 1997).(7) Either way, the fate of proportional representation in New Zealand will be decided by Parliament prior to 2002, as required by the Electoral Act 1993. There is also the possibility that a referendum on the MMP system will be held prior to this date-a move being pushed by a United Party MP and receiving some support from the general public.(8)
