August 10, 2026 • 12 mins
As debate continues about Luxon's political future following last week's MMP reform comments, there's growing discussion about whether a referendum is needed.
In a piece in Newsroom, Otago University political commentator Dr Michael Swanson argues MMP has delivered fairer representation and coalition Governments are doing exactly what proportional representation was designed to do.
He joined Kerre Woodham to outline New Zealand's possible options amid the ongoing election season.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry Wood and Morning's podcast from
News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd b now last.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Week's MMP gate took on a life of its own
after the prime ministers said to me just in the
final seconds of our show, now, I'd be open to
holding a referendum on MMP if re elected well, and
a subsequent piece in newsroom Attager University political commentator doctor
Michael Swanson argues MMP has delivered faarah representation and coalition
(00:34):
governments are doing exactly what proportional representation was designed to do.
Instead of scrapping the system, he says politicians should focus
on lowering the party vote threshold, tightening finance rules, and
consider other recommendations that are already sitting on the table.
Doctor Michael Swanson joins me, now a very good morning
to you.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Good morning Kerry.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
But I saw a I shouldn't read social media, but
I did, and somebody's going, yeah, of course that right
wing bitch and want bloody passed the closet back.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
I've never wanted first past the post because that delivered
even more unfair results than MMP has done. But I
do think MMP as it stands does need to be juged.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
One hundred percent degree.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
You know, we just have to look at what happened
prior to MMP, where I think it was every election
from nineteen fifty one onwards was won by a party
that received less than half of the popular vote.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
In one case, I think it was thirty nine percent,
wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Oh it was?
Speaker 4 (01:39):
It was down below forty a couple of times there. Yeah,
And there's a couple of times there where you know,
you had third parties Social Credit the most famous of all,
getting fifteen to twenty percent of the vote and getting
two seats. You know that that's not what you want
to go back to. That's not at all what what
you want to end up with. But absolutely MMP as
it stands is, you know, it's it's creaking a bit.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Yeap, it really is. And people are getting fed up
with Winston Peters.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I think you they are, Yeah, And I think this
is the thing.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
People sit there and say, well, why is a party
that only received eight percent, you know, having such a
big say in government.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
But that's not necessarily MMP's fault.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
There's another part there around the coalition building and all
of that process that goes into it and where the
parties actually, some of the bigger parties have effectively stamped
their authority to the level that they should have in
those processes.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
So in the case of Winston Peters being able to
manipulate perhaps an experienced party leaders like to sender Adern
like Chris Luxen, do you think he's just better at
playing the game than they are?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I think if you look at his record, he.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Is a master at that sort of back office wheeling
and dealing kind of process. You didn't see that same
kind of issue when it came to the likes of
Helen Clarke or John Key, and those were people who
were far more sort of they kind of understood the
mechanics and the gravity of the situation that they were in,
(03:19):
and they sort of pushed back in the right places.
And we haven't seen that under as you pointed out
without during all Luxon.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
When it comes to suggestions that we that we adopt
other parties who have MMP, they have their largest the
party that receives the largest number of votes gets to
do the negotiating. But when you've already got parties ruling
out working with other parties, there isn't a great deal
of horse trading to be done.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Now, and that's part of the problem, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
It's that sort of well, we kind of already know
what we're going to get, and we don't often have
in our system another sort of option in there. That's saying,
you know, the Opportunity Party is a really rare thing
in the New Zealand political discussion. You know, whether you
like them or not, what they are doing is something
that has been completely different to the way politics has
(04:11):
been done under MMP for you, especially in the last
term or so. So it's not something we see here.
It is something you see much more in places like
Germany or in other proportional representation, not necessarily MMP, but
in other proportional representation systems like the Netherlands or in Scandinavia,
(04:32):
where they are far more open to doing a minority
government arrangement with certain deals in certain spaces across the spectrum.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
When the referendum came around, I don't know if you're
even old enough to vote in that, but I was.
I voted for STV because I was all very wonky
back in those days, all very policy wonky, and I
did explore all the different options and thought it was
wildly exciting and went for STV. Would that have been
(05:04):
a better system with benefit of hindsight or not? Do
you still think MMP's the best system for governor to
govern a country.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
I'm not sure it would have been better. It probably
would have probably would have delivered really similar kind of
outcomes in many situations. The only thing with STV, and
we see this in local elections, is that, weirdly, it
takes a lot of explaining to tell people that you
rank and you do all these things, and it's already
(05:36):
one of those things where we've added a second vote
in nineteen ninety six and that seems to still not
quite be understood what that does to this day. So
I'm not sure that STV would have been any simpler
in terms.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Of I don't think it would have been some people.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Understand, but whether it delivers, and we've said, well, we've
seen in places like Ireland who use STV that it
doesn't necessarily have the ability to stop that my minority
taking a majority of seats, so they have these rogue
sort of elections where sometimes you get an FPP result
(06:15):
from an STV election.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
It's not every time, but it does happen.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
What would make MMP better in your mind, doctor Swanson.
Speaker 4 (06:25):
I think that well, the first one that I always
talk about is getting rid of the coattailing rule. So
that's for those who aren't aware, that's the one if
a party receives less than five percent, they don't get
any seats unless they win an electorate seat, and then
there's extras get bought in depending on whether they win
(06:46):
one point five or three percent of the vote, and
that kind of thing that just seems completely at odds
with what proportional representation was supposed to do, where you
need to win a proportion of the vote to get
certain amount of seats. So that's the first one. Linked
with that though, is lowering the threshold. Now we've had
the nineteen eighty six Royal Commission, we had the twenty
(07:08):
twelve Electoral Commission Review and the twenty twenty three Independent
Electoral Review all said that it should be either there
were different ones, but they were three point five four percent,
And that's to try and open the door to different groups,
different perspectives, because we've had elections where you know, you
(07:30):
have anywhere from five to ten percent of the vote
that doesn't actually have representation in Parliament, So dropping that
slightly would open that door.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Doesn't that run the risk of having lobby parties where
they're just single issue lobby parties.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
If they managed to get one hundred plus thousand voters,
I think it is slightly more than a lobby vote
at that point, because that's a big call. You know,
at the moment it's one hundred and fifty thousand votes
is effectively what you need to get to five percent.
So that's just a talking over one hundred thousand votes
to get to that point.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
The Protestant political Party in New Zealand at the turn
of the century came dangerously close to five I think
they got five percent, but that was uspose different times.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
It was a different time. But at the same time,
what the whole point of MMP was. We talk a
lot about how it diversified parliament to create more women,
more mari, more pacifica. But at the same time it's
also open the door for a more sort of obvious
route for political perspectives to be represented. That's been the
(08:43):
biggest thing for it. You know, the likes of ACT
in New Zealand first and the Greens would probably not
be the size they are without this kind of system
in place. So it opens the space for those groups,
whether you like them or not, to have that representation
and to have that voice in Parliament.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Yes, I think, I think. I think possibly people are
looking to raise the threshold of the caliber of politicians
along with raising the threshold of you know, of parties
getting into into Parliament. Because it's all very well and
good having these people in there on those perks, on
(09:27):
those allowances, with that super when nineteen billion dollars if
you take into local councils as well, has been wasted
because of poor decision making. People are a bit fed.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Up, absolutely they are. And I sit here and have
the same problem. I look at some of the some
of the sort of the The one that gets me
is the people who have been staffers and go on
and all that. There's a place in there for those people,
but there is a growing proportion in that space. We
(10:00):
also have a history and this is not just under MMP,
but this is a long term of it being a
lot of lawyers and accountants, and you want that expertise
in there, but you want to have a really broad
base of expertise to draw on. That was what the
list was supposed to do, but as we've seen it
has sort of evolved into a space where it is
(10:25):
very much a political beast the list rankings and who
gets high rankings on lists. So it was supposed to
be a place where parties could say, you know what,
we're going to bring in a certain range of expertise
and this is how we will get them into that space.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Is there anything wrong with the Prime Minister looking at
our electoral review, like when he said every generation we
should check in. I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
I think the problem is if you're checking in every generation,
we are checking in a lot more than anyone else
it usually does. It's a very rare thing, you know,
if you look at the UK and there's an argument
there but that they should, but they don't really not
that often anyway, especially going to a referendum or anything
(11:16):
of that sort. The other thing there is that it's
only been since twenty eleven that we had the last referendum,
and since then we've had two reviews in that process.
So there's plenty out there to say what we should
or shouldn't do, and there are other methods. There are
more sort of direct democracy kind of methods that we
could go through where they have citizens assemblies, citizens juries,
(11:39):
those kinds of things to try and pick apart some
of those without going hey everyone, we need to have
a question on this.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
That is quite a blunt instrument.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Really, I thank you very much for your expertise. Dr
Michael Swanson, Honorary Research Fellow in the Politics Program at
the University of the Targo.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on art Radio.
You're listening to the Kerry Wood and Morning's podcast from
News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd b now last.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Week's MMP gate took on a life of its own
after the prime ministers said to me just in the
final seconds of our show, now, I'd be open to
holding a referendum on MMP if re elected well, and
a subsequent piece in newsroom Attager University political commentator doctor
Michael Swanson argues MMP has delivered faarah representation and coalition
(00:34):
governments are doing exactly what proportional representation was designed to do.
Instead of scrapping the system, he says politicians should focus
on lowering the party vote threshold, tightening finance rules, and
consider other recommendations that are already sitting on the table.
Doctor Michael Swanson joins me, now a very good morning
to you.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Good morning Kerry.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
But I saw a I shouldn't read social media, but
I did, and somebody's going, yeah, of course that right
wing bitch and want bloody passed the closet back.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
I've never wanted first past the post because that delivered
even more unfair results than MMP has done. But I
do think MMP as it stands does need to be juged.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
One hundred percent degree.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
You know, we just have to look at what happened
prior to MMP, where I think it was every election
from nineteen fifty one onwards was won by a party
that received less than half of the popular vote.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
In one case, I think it was thirty nine percent,
wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Oh it was?
Speaker 4 (01:39):
It was down below forty a couple of times there. Yeah,
And there's a couple of times there where you know,
you had third parties Social Credit the most famous of all,
getting fifteen to twenty percent of the vote and getting
two seats. You know that that's not what you want
to go back to. That's not at all what what
you want to end up with. But absolutely MMP as
it stands is, you know, it's it's creaking a bit.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Yeap, it really is. And people are getting fed up
with Winston Peters.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I think you they are, Yeah, And I think this
is the thing.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
People sit there and say, well, why is a party
that only received eight percent, you know, having such a
big say in government.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
But that's not necessarily MMP's fault.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
There's another part there around the coalition building and all
of that process that goes into it and where the
parties actually, some of the bigger parties have effectively stamped
their authority to the level that they should have in
those processes.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
So in the case of Winston Peters being able to
manipulate perhaps an experienced party leaders like to sender Adern
like Chris Luxen, do you think he's just better at
playing the game than they are?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I think if you look at his record, he.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Is a master at that sort of back office wheeling
and dealing kind of process. You didn't see that same
kind of issue when it came to the likes of
Helen Clarke or John Key, and those were people who
were far more sort of they kind of understood the
mechanics and the gravity of the situation that they were in,
(03:19):
and they sort of pushed back in the right places.
And we haven't seen that under as you pointed out
without during all Luxon.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
When it comes to suggestions that we that we adopt
other parties who have MMP, they have their largest the
party that receives the largest number of votes gets to
do the negotiating. But when you've already got parties ruling
out working with other parties, there isn't a great deal
of horse trading to be done.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Now, and that's part of the problem, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
It's that sort of well, we kind of already know
what we're going to get, and we don't often have
in our system another sort of option in there. That's saying,
you know, the Opportunity Party is a really rare thing
in the New Zealand political discussion. You know, whether you
like them or not, what they are doing is something
that has been completely different to the way politics has
(04:11):
been done under MMP for you, especially in the last
term or so. So it's not something we see here.
It is something you see much more in places like
Germany or in other proportional representation, not necessarily MMP, but
in other proportional representation systems like the Netherlands or in Scandinavia,
(04:32):
where they are far more open to doing a minority
government arrangement with certain deals in certain spaces across the spectrum.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
When the referendum came around, I don't know if you're
even old enough to vote in that, but I was.
I voted for STV because I was all very wonky
back in those days, all very policy wonky, and I
did explore all the different options and thought it was
wildly exciting and went for STV. Would that have been
(05:04):
a better system with benefit of hindsight or not? Do
you still think MMP's the best system for governor to
govern a country.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
I'm not sure it would have been better. It probably
would have probably would have delivered really similar kind of
outcomes in many situations. The only thing with STV, and
we see this in local elections, is that, weirdly, it
takes a lot of explaining to tell people that you
rank and you do all these things, and it's already
(05:36):
one of those things where we've added a second vote
in nineteen ninety six and that seems to still not
quite be understood what that does to this day. So
I'm not sure that STV would have been any simpler
in terms.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Of I don't think it would have been some people.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Understand, but whether it delivers, and we've said, well, we've
seen in places like Ireland who use STV that it
doesn't necessarily have the ability to stop that my minority
taking a majority of seats, so they have these rogue
sort of elections where sometimes you get an FPP result
(06:15):
from an STV election.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
It's not every time, but it does happen.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
What would make MMP better in your mind, doctor Swanson.
Speaker 4 (06:25):
I think that well, the first one that I always
talk about is getting rid of the coattailing rule. So
that's for those who aren't aware, that's the one if
a party receives less than five percent, they don't get
any seats unless they win an electorate seat, and then
there's extras get bought in depending on whether they win
(06:46):
one point five or three percent of the vote, and
that kind of thing that just seems completely at odds
with what proportional representation was supposed to do, where you
need to win a proportion of the vote to get
certain amount of seats. So that's the first one. Linked
with that though, is lowering the threshold. Now we've had
the nineteen eighty six Royal Commission, we had the twenty
(07:08):
twelve Electoral Commission Review and the twenty twenty three Independent
Electoral Review all said that it should be either there
were different ones, but they were three point five four percent,
And that's to try and open the door to different groups,
different perspectives, because we've had elections where you know, you
(07:30):
have anywhere from five to ten percent of the vote
that doesn't actually have representation in Parliament, So dropping that
slightly would open that door.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Doesn't that run the risk of having lobby parties where
they're just single issue lobby parties.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
If they managed to get one hundred plus thousand voters,
I think it is slightly more than a lobby vote
at that point, because that's a big call. You know,
at the moment it's one hundred and fifty thousand votes
is effectively what you need to get to five percent.
So that's just a talking over one hundred thousand votes
to get to that point.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
The Protestant political Party in New Zealand at the turn
of the century came dangerously close to five I think
they got five percent, but that was uspose different times.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
It was a different time. But at the same time,
what the whole point of MMP was. We talk a
lot about how it diversified parliament to create more women,
more mari, more pacifica. But at the same time it's
also open the door for a more sort of obvious
route for political perspectives to be represented. That's been the
(08:43):
biggest thing for it. You know, the likes of ACT
in New Zealand first and the Greens would probably not
be the size they are without this kind of system
in place. So it opens the space for those groups,
whether you like them or not, to have that representation
and to have that voice in Parliament.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Yes, I think, I think. I think possibly people are
looking to raise the threshold of the caliber of politicians
along with raising the threshold of you know, of parties
getting into into Parliament. Because it's all very well and
good having these people in there on those perks, on
(09:27):
those allowances, with that super when nineteen billion dollars if
you take into local councils as well, has been wasted
because of poor decision making. People are a bit fed.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Up, absolutely they are. And I sit here and have
the same problem. I look at some of the some
of the sort of the The one that gets me
is the people who have been staffers and go on
and all that. There's a place in there for those people,
but there is a growing proportion in that space. We
(10:00):
also have a history and this is not just under MMP,
but this is a long term of it being a
lot of lawyers and accountants, and you want that expertise
in there, but you want to have a really broad
base of expertise to draw on. That was what the
list was supposed to do, but as we've seen it
has sort of evolved into a space where it is
(10:25):
very much a political beast the list rankings and who
gets high rankings on lists. So it was supposed to
be a place where parties could say, you know what,
we're going to bring in a certain range of expertise
and this is how we will get them into that space.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Is there anything wrong with the Prime Minister looking at
our electoral review, like when he said every generation we
should check in. I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
I think the problem is if you're checking in every generation,
we are checking in a lot more than anyone else
it usually does. It's a very rare thing, you know,
if you look at the UK and there's an argument
there but that they should, but they don't really not
that often anyway, especially going to a referendum or anything
(11:16):
of that sort. The other thing there is that it's
only been since twenty eleven that we had the last referendum,
and since then we've had two reviews in that process.
So there's plenty out there to say what we should
or shouldn't do, and there are other methods. There are
more sort of direct democracy kind of methods that we
could go through where they have citizens assemblies, citizens juries,
(11:39):
those kinds of things to try and pick apart some
of those without going hey everyone, we need to have
a question on this.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
That is quite a blunt instrument.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Really, I thank you very much for your expertise. Dr
Michael Swanson, Honorary Research Fellow in the Politics Program at
the University of the Targo.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on art Radio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com