
With so many parties 'ruling out' working with each other, is MMP losing its way?
There has been a lot of "ruling out" going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, ACT's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters,
ruled out ever working with the Labour Party
.
Seymour has also advised Labour to
rule out working with Te Pāti Māori
. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has
engaged in some ruling out of his own
, indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon
ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori
.
And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they
could only work with National
if it was prepared to "completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing".
Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago.
Under the old "first past the post" system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation (
MMP
), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice.
Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary.
By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party which might be able to govern with either major player.
In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an "
elected dictatorship
", part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive.
For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s.
Most notably, the coalition has made
greater use of Parliamentary urgency
than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to
avoid Parliamentary and public scrutiny
of contentious policies such as the
Pay Equity Amendment Bill
.
Second, in an ironic vindication of
the anti-MMP campaign
's fears before the electoral system was changed - that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy - the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that.
It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one.
But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from ACT (
the Treaty Principles Bill
and the
Regulatory Standards legislation
) and NZ First (
tax breaks for heated tobacco products
).
Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the
controversial changes
ACT and NZ First have managed to secure will erode - at least in some quarters - faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements.
Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/ACT/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left.
In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate "common sense" party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now.
In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is
roughly half that of the major player
. The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and ACT may be small, but they are not minor.
In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the
latest polls show
), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase.
For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric,
winner-takes-all politics
of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar.
The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand - lacking the
constitutional guardrails
common in other democracies - needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments.
* Richard Shaw is a Professor of Politics at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa - Massey University
-
This story
originally appeared on The Conversation.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Politics Panel for 23 Jully 2025
Wallace Chapman and the Politics Panel discuss and analyse the main political stories of the day. He is joined this week by RNZ's Corin Dann, the NZ Herald's Fran O'Sullivan and former government minister Phil Goff. On the slate today: Nicola Willis says Kiwis are not getting a raw deal from high butter prices (after meeting the CEO of Fonterra); Defence Minister Judith Collins told a crowd of graduating Army recruits last week that they should prepare for "combat"; just 38 percent of respondents to a Talbot Mills poll say the government deserved a second term; is the government using locla councils as a whipping boy and National seems to have found a bright spot in one area of it's party policy: Education. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.

1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Trump announces trade deal with Japan, lowers threatened tariff to 15%
President Donald Trump announced a trade framework with Japan on Tuesday, placing a 15% tax on goods imported from that nation. 'This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it,' Trump posted on Truth Social, adding that the United States "will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan". The president said Japan would invest "at my direction" US$550 billion (NZ$914 billion) into the US and would "open" its economy to American autos and rice. The 15% tax on imported Japanese goods is a meaningful drop from the 25% rate that Trump, in a recent letter to Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, said would be levied starting August 1. Early Wednesday, Ishiba acknowledged the new trade agreement, saying it would benefit both sides and help them work together. With the announcement, Trump is seeking to tout his ability as a dealmaker — even as his tariffs, when initially announced in early April, led to a market panic and fears of slower growth that for the moment appear to have subsided. Key details remained unclear from his post, such as whether Japanese-built autos would face a higher 25% tariff that Trump imposed on the sector. ADVERTISEMENT But the framework fits a growing pattern for Trump, who is eager to portray the tariffs as win for the US. His administration says the revenues will help reduce the budget deficit and more factories will relocate to America to avoid the import taxes and cause trade imbalances to disappear. The wave of tariffs continues to be a source of uncertainty about whether it could lead to higher prices for consumers and businesses if companies simply pass along the costs. The problem was seen sharply Wednesday after General Motors reported a 35% drop in its net income during the second quarter as it warned that tariffs would hit its business in the months ahead, causing its stock to tumble. A staff member distributes an extra edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reporting that President Donald Trump announced a trade framework with Japan (Source: Associated Press) As the August 1 deadline for the tariff rates in his letters to world leaders is approaching, Trump also announced a trade framework with the Philippines that would impose a tariff of 19% on its goods, while American-made products would face no import taxes. The president also reaffirmed his 19% tariffs on Indonesia. The US ran a US$69.4 billion (NZ$115 billion) trade imbalance on goods with Japan last year, according to the Census Bureau. America had a trade imbalance of US$17.9 billion (NZ$29 billion) with Indonesia and an imbalance of US$4.9 billion (NZ$8.1 billion) with the Philippines. Both nations are less affluent than the US and an imbalance means America imports more from those countries than it exports to them. The president is set to impose the broad tariffs listed in his recent letters to other world leaders on August 1, raising questions of whether there will be any breakthrough in talks with the European Union. At a Wednesday dinner, Trump said the EU would be in Washington on Thursday for trade talks. ADVERTISEMENT "We have Europe coming in tomorrow, the next day," Trump told guests. The President, earlier this month, sent a letter threatening the 27 member states in the EU with 30% taxes on their goods to be imposed starting on August 1. The Trump administration has a separate negotiating period with China that is currently set to run through August 12 as goods from that nation are taxed at an additional 30% baseline. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he would be in the Swedish capital of Stockholm next Monday and Tuesday to meet with his Chinese counterparts. Bessent said his goal is to shift the American economy away from consumption and to enable more consumer spending in the manufacturing-heavy Chinese economy. "President Trump is remaking the US into a manufacturing economy," Bessent said on the Fox Business Network show Mornings with Maria. "If we could do that together, we do more manufacturing, they do more consumption. That would be a home run for the global economy."

RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Panel with Jo McCarroll and Mark Knoff-Thomas Part 1
Tonight on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Jo McCarroll and Mark Knoff-Thomas. First they discuss the RNZ story by Guyon Espiner about NZ First's relationship to the nicotine industry. They then examine proposed changes to allow more housing on food productive land, and, finally, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says New Zealanders are not getting a raw deal on butter: discuss! To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.