Well, National has done it again.
In the 1990s Jim Bolger did the decent thing in his "decent society" and played a more or less straight bat to the MMP referendum. He wasn't a fan, but - a lack of campaign funding limits aside - he let the people speak without any political chicanery. Now, Simon Power has offered a new referendum that seems just as immaculate in its fairness.
The questions for the 2011 referendum closely mimic the 1992 referendum, first offering New Zealanders the chance to either support MMP or "other". Then, whether you voted for MMP or not, you get to say what sort of system you'd prefer if the majority choose to dispense with MMP.
To put MMP up against an unspecified "other" always risked tilting the playing field in favour of change; voters could dump everything they didn't like about MMP - indeed, everything they didn't like about politics - into that "other" without having to spell out what that other was. Think the "tail wags the dog", there are too many MPs, no-one listens to me about smacking and don't like the way that Hone Harawira/Phil Goff/Bill English/Rod Donald looks? All you had to do to stick one up the buggers was to vote "other". That'd show 'em.
For those wanting rid of MMP it would have been too easy to harness our instinctual distrust of politicians by being anti-everything and not pro-anything.
But Power has brought the playing field level again by making it clear that, should MMP be retained, the independent, MP-free Electoral Commission will review it, enabling some tweaking of the system.
That gives a voice to those who want some change, but not a complete overhaul to vote for MMP, safe in the knowledge that it is likely to be improved. In other words, voters can stick it up 'em just a bit without having the hassle of a whole new electoral system.
Politically, my guess is that MMP is now in the box seat. The chance to tinker in what Matthew Palmer has called "the constitutional shed" will be hard for many to resist.
A lot of New Zealanders would like, I suspect, to see MPs who lose an electorate seat unable to enter parliament on the party list. Call it the "if the voters reject you, that's it" principle.
Voters are probably a bit dubious, too, about why a single electorate win allows Act to get five extra MPs in the House.
The New Zealand experience of MMP has arguably taught us that the "stop the Nazis" threshold of 5% - set that high in Germany because of the way the tiny Nazi Party was able to take control of its parliament between the world wars - could perhaps afford to come down to three or even two percent.
Now, all of those issues will be dealt with by the Electoral
Commission if MMP is retained.
What makes it even harder for the anti-MMP brigade is that they're
looking a bit haphazard at this point. It's early days; the rules
have only just been agreed and the match hasn't really kicked off
yet. But there's a real lack of leadership.
For now, the face of the 1993 campaign, Peter Shirtcliffe, is still leading the anti-MMP charge, along with sidekick Graeme Hunt, the author, business journalist and free-marketeer. Both are astute enough to realise that neither of them are likely to win a popularity contest. In short, they will look like grumpy old rich men with an obsessive streak.
They need a new frontperson. And, now, it looks like they'll need a new sugar daddy. Judging by comments in the New Zealand Herald, Shirtcliffe doesn't want to spend his own fortune on the campaign, as he did last time. (Hopefully no-one wants to use the lack of a spending cap to "buy" the referendum. We want an outcome born of the public's will and wisdom, not the size of the campaigners' wallets.)
In political ranks, most of the old opponents - from Phil Goff to Jenny Shipley - have decided there's no point in arguing for change. Still, you never know who may turn up in the next year and a half.
For now, the plaudits go to Power for his straightforward handling of the issue. Here's hoping MPs now take Rodney Hide's advice and step back from the debate, leaving it to the New Zealand public to discuss the pros and cons of each system so that they can decide which is best for our wee democracy.
Read more of Tim Watkin's blogs .
N7EBEYWED7F4
