Philip Temple: Election dates should be fixed and predictable

Opinion

Election year had scarcely begun before speculation was rife about when the Prime Minister would name election day, which could be at any time up to the final legal limitation in late September.

Favourite picks have been mid-September or mid-July, between the end of the Lions tour and the start of the Tri Nations. On a weekend, anyway, when not too many people would be upset about having to take time off sport and vote. But, principally, whenever it best suits Labour.

So for four months, political parties have been jockeying for position and, all over the country, institutions and companies have put planning and decisions on hold until one person makes the call about when we vote.

And this may go on for another two to three months yet. The only people to benefit from this deplorable situation are political commentators.

In a 2005 MMP democracy, this is not good enough. Leaving the decision about election day to the Prime Minister is a pernicious hangover from the days of first-past-the-post voting, something tainted most recently by the dubious manoeuvrings of Tony Blair.

But even in the United States, that bastion of first past the post, for all its corruptions, at least voters have certainty about when their elections will be held. The presidential election, for example, must be held every leap year on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

In New Zealand we must have a general election no more than three years after the last one, with a leeway of up to seven to eight weeks thereafter, related to the time allowed for the issuing and return of the election writ. Within that span of three years or so, the Prime Minister may call an election whenever he or she wants.

The only rare variation to this would be if the incumbent government lost a vote of no-confidence in Parliament, when an election would be held, although an alternative to this could be for the Governor-General to broker a new government from among the parties represented in the House.

None of this has occurred since World War II. And none of our electoral arrangements provides for certain election dates or a defined process of change if a government falls in a crisis of confidence.

In many countries, parliamentary terms and the procedures for changing governments are fixed and clear. Voters, and the institutional and business community, have certainty and can get on with their lives and work accordingly.

The system in Germany, on which our MMP is based, is probably the one to guide us. There, an election must be held after a fixed period of four years and the electoral law does not allow the Prime Minister (Chancellor) to call snap or early elections.

Governments can change during a parliamentary term only under a procedure known as a "constructive vote of no confidence". Meaning that a vote of no-confidence in a government cannot be put unless an alternative government has already been negotiated to take its place.

Another German regulation worth following decrees that, after a general election, parties are allowed 30 days in which to establish a workable government. Despite Winston Peters' wonky take on MMP process, parties there usually signal before the election which coalition option they would prefer. Everyone has a clear idea of what is going on.

The Government is keen to regulate voters' lives so that we don't, for example, smoke in the wrong place or exceed the open road speed limit by more than 10 per cent. But it does not like the idea of more electoral discipline to regulate its own behaviour.

It says that it believes in stability, continuity, fiscal prudence and accountability. So why do we have loose-cannon law governing our elections? This sloppy system is no longer good enough.

Hands up those parties that are going to promise a reform of the electoral law providing for fixed-term parliaments, changeable only on a constructive vote of no-confidence. And, as a bonus, for a fixed period after elections within which a government must be formed.

Let us vote on all this. Whenever the Prime Minister says we can, of course.

* Philip Temple is a Dunedin writer and commentator.