MP's disagreement the only agreement

The final report of the parliamentary select committee reviewing Mixed Member Proportional representation is out. AUDREY YOUNG on what it means.

What will change after the MMP review by Parliament.

Virtually nothing. The committee could not reach agreement on the key issues including:

* Whether MMP should be retained

* Whether there should be another referendum on MMP

* The number of MPs

* Whether the Maori seats should be abolished or kept

* A reduction in the party vote threshold for parliamentary representation

* Whether the one-seat threshold (winning one constituency seat before claiming representation in Parliament) should continue

* Changes to the way in which the electoral broadcasting system is administered

* Provision of further state money to political parties.

So the committee backs the status quo?

No. It couldn't even do that. It could not reach agreement to make recommendations one way or the other on the issues above. It essentially agreed to disagree.

Why couldn't it reach agreement?

The select committee, chaired by Parliament's Speaker, Jonathan Hunt, agreed at the outset to make recommendations based only on unanimity or near-unanimity. Near-unanimity meant allowing for the objection of just one small party such as United Future.

Parliamentary parties - Labour, National, Alliance, Act, Greens and United Future - were all represented on the committee. New Zealand First chose not to take part in the review or make a submission to the committee.

The report acknowledges that the result will cause unhappiness: "The committee recognised the absence of decisions and recommendations on many of these issues may disappoint many."

Why were MPs reviewing the electoral system at all?

Wasn't the public promised a referendum to assess MMP? No. That was a common misconception.

The Electoral Act 1993 setting out the rules of MMP required a select committee, to be appointed after April 2000 (essentially after two MMP elections), to decide whether there should be a further referendum on changes to the electoral system.

That act also required the committee to look at Maori representation. Parliament directed the committee in its terms of reference also to look at the number of MPs.

Don't people expect a referendum on MMP?

Yes. According to the committee's own commissioned research, 76 per cent of voters were in favour of a binding referendum and 17 per cent opposed. National and United argued that there was a strong public expectation of one.

Act, Alliance, Greens and Labour held the view that New Zealand's experience of MMP was still relatively brief. The reports says they agreed that any change should be determined by a binding referendum.

"However, they considered that as there have only been two elections under MMP, more time is needed to gain experience of it before major change is contemplated."

Can the issue be revisited?

It will come back into sharp focus in a few months when a private member's bill sponsored by National leader Jenny Shipley gets on to the floor of the House.

Her bill provides for two referendums, the first asking whether voters want a change from MMP and what the preferred option is. If change is wanted, a second referendum will pit MMP against the most favoured other option.

What about the referendum result to cut the number of MPs?

A petition organised by Wellington citizen Margaret Robertson forced a referendum last election on cutting the number of MPs from 120 to 99. It was supported by 81.5 per cent of voters.

But citizens initiated referendums are only indicative, not binding. Mrs Robertson told the committee that "boorish, personal and mindless exchanges" suggested voters were not getting value for money and increased pressure for fewer MPs.

How did the committee justify defying such an overwhelming referendum result?

The committee acknowledged the public dissatisfaction with the conduct of some MPs. But, said the report, "members considered there was no reason to believe the behaviour of MPs would improve simply because there were fewer of them".

Reasons given for keeping 120 included:

* Ensuring diversity of representation for the likes of women and ethnic minorities

* Ensuring a big enough pool of MPs for select committees to effectively scrutinise the executive

* Avoiding even larger electorates

* Protecting effective South Island representation.

New Zealand ranks eighth in the world for women's representation. Before MMP, women's representation was relatively high, but it increased markedly with MMP.

"The Act, Alliance, Green and Labour parties, who favoured the status quo of 120 members, did not consider New Zealand's Parliament was over large in comparison with other countries with similar populations and electoral systems," the report says.

What does the report say about the Maori seats?

It says the committee received no clear or strong message from Maori about the future of the seats.

"In the absence of any such direction from Maori, the Alliance, Green, Labour, National and United parties were of the view that the status quo should remain."

Those parties saw separate Maori seats as one of the distinctive elements of New Zealand's MMP system and said they should remain until Maori deemed them no longer desirable.

Rewind. How did we get MMP in the first place?

New Zealand adopted MMP - Mixed Member Proportional - after a series of events.

After the report of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System chaired by Sir John Wallace, an initial referendum was held in 1992. It was an indicative referendum on various proposed voting systems.

The royal commission endorsed MMP, which won the most support.

A binding referendum between MMP and first-past-the-post was held in 1993. The first MMP election was held in 1996 and the second in 1999.

What are some of MMP's features?

Each party's proportion of MPs in Parliament is based on the proportion of votes it won in the party vote across the country. Voters have two votes: an electorate vote and the important party vote.

The size of Parliament increased from 99 to 120 MPs and the number of electorates was reduced to 67. So 67 MPs are elected by electorates and the party's entitlement is topped up by MPs from its published and ranked party list. That is why they are called list MPs.

A party must get over a 5 per cent vote threshold before it can claim MPs in Parliament or it must win at least one constituency seat.

New Zealand First won only 4.26 per cent of the vote, but has five MPs because leader Winston Peters won his Tauranga electorate seat.

What is the verdict?

The reports presents some polling from UMR Insight.

Tracking a choice between MMP and first-past-the-post since the October 1996 election shows that since November 1996, with the single exception of a survey in December 1999, FPP has been preferred over MMP.

The exception was a poll taken during the honeymoon phase of the present Labour-Alliance Coalition, when MMP was preferred over FPP by 45 per cent to 43 per cent.

A UMR poll question in February this year showed that 17 per cent wanted to stay with MMP as it is, 47 per cent wanted the basic structure of MMP to remain but with some changes on how it operates and 31 per cent wanted another electoral system.