Danielle van Dalen
Auckland, October 18, 2021
Justice Minister Kris Faafoi (RNZ Photo by Samuel Rillstone)
Vegetables might not be as exciting as a bowl of ice cream, but they are an important part of a balanced diet.
A few weeks ago, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi announced a review of “targeted electoral changes to support the delivery of, and participation in the 2023 General Election,” and a “wider independent review of electoral laws ahead of the 2026 General Election, with an independent panel to report back by 2023.”
The review will consider changes to the voting age and overseas voting, funding of political parties, the length of the parliamentary term, and MMP.
Intense study needed
Like a balanced diet, political geeks like me need to be careful not to get too excited about debating the pros and cons of the issues to be reviewed before ensuring a healthy process is in place. In fact, caution must be the constant refrain of this process, particularly as we grapple with the effects of a global pandemic. Electoral reform can shift the balance of power, election results, and the functioning of our democracy in significant ways.
Who decides what changes are made, how the review is conducted, and whose voices are heard might sound as exciting as a plate of vegetables, but if these questions are not carefully considered our democracy will take the hit.
With attention necessarily focused on Covid-19 we must question the impact of splitting focus and adding an electoral review to the mix.
Transparency and a variety of voices are necessary protection against potential abuses of power when electoral changes are being considered. National Party Electoral Law spokesperson Chris Penk made a step in the right direction by calling for consultation with other political parties to be more than “a box-ticking exercise.”
Referendum is a must
A referendum would help to mitigate this risk.
No one will expect a job applicant to decide if they deserve the job.
That responsibility lies with employers.
In the same way, “there are problems with letting MPs ultimately make changes to the laws under which they are elected.” To avoid even the appearance of doubt, the people benefitting from the power shift should not be the same people making this decision.
That is why referenda are for questions about how we choose our Nation’s leaders, questions where our politicians might be self-interested.
Referenda, therefore, should be baked into the design of an electoral review like this. (So far the Minister has merely commented that these are “still to be worked out.”)
Referenda take time, energy, and focus from all New Zealanders to understand what is being proposed. Overcoming the long and difficult tail of Covid-19 is also asking for our time, energy, and focus. This begs the question: should Government be splitting New Zealand’s focus with an electoral review right now?
A bowl of ice cream is not bad, but it needs to sit in a balanced diet of fruit and vegetables. An Electoral Review is not bad either, but it must be balanced with a cautious process that mitigates all risks, especially the risks of split focus.
Danielle van Dalen is a Researcher at Maxim Institute based in Auckland.
