Concerns have been raised about what impact the party’s strategy could have on the future of both the Maori seats and MMP itself, writes Henry Oliver in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

As we discussed in Monday’s Bulletin, at its campaign launch in Gisborne on the weekend, Te Pāti Māori made a direct request of its supporters: give us your candidate vote in the Māori electorates and give your party vote to the opposition party of your choice.

Co-leader Rawiri Waititi argued that voters backing rival electorate candidates who were already guaranteed a seat given their place on their party’s list were effectively wasting their vote. Last year’s Tāmaki Makaurau by-election serves as proof of concept – Oriini Kaipara won the seat for Te Pāti Māori while Peeni Henare remained in parliament via Labour’s list.

This electorate-seat strategy is a direct result of MMP’s overhang rule. If Te Pāti Māori wins more electorates than its party vote would normally entitle it to, those extra MPs don’t get taken away – they expand Parliament beyond 120 seats. And in the days since the announcement, concerns have been raised about what impact such an explicit employment of the strategy – and to such a degree – would have on the future of both the Maori seats and MMP itself.

Labour not keen on ‘working the system like that’

Labour’s Māori campaign chair Willie Jackson was asked yesterday if the strategy risked the legitimacy of the Māori seats in the eyes of the public. He agreed it did, as RNZ’s Lilian Hanly reported. Jackson said it threatened a backlash against the Māori seats that could lead to their abolition “when you start working the system like that.”

He was happy to accept any party votes Te Pāti Māori didn’t want but said Labour wouldn’t be reciprocating in terms of the candidate vote. Jackson also warned that voters might not follow the strategy because there’d been “a lot of divisions” in Te Pāti Māori, including the expulsion of two MPs.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Ngarewa-Packer called Jackson’s comments a “real shame,” saying he was “running a campaign of trying to bring up past pains.” She said the party was “utilising the power of the Māori roll” and “the rules within MMP that other parties have utilised.”

A parliamentary hangover

Today in The Post, Henry Cooke reported that political scientists have warned this is risky. Lawyer Graeme Edgeler, a constitutional law specialist, echoed Willie Jackson’s concerns, telling Cooke that intentionally creating an overhang could see the Māori seats abolished altogether. “Exploitation of the overhang loophole has always been possible, but no party has tried it because the expectation is that voters will not put up with it,” Edgeler said. “International experience is that when one party undermines political norms, other parties will escalate in response.”

Victoria University political scientist Lara Greaves (listen to/watch her discuss the Māori seats with The Spinoff’s Toby Manhire) has noted that any perception of “people playing the system” risks public backlash, particularly if overhang seats prove decisive in determining which bloc forms government – a scenario that could raise legitimate questions about electoral legitimacy.

Cooke also reported that National could benefit from an “accidental” overhang if it lost a significant share of its party vote while retaining a large enough portion of its 41 electorate seats.

A history lesson

Haven’t parties always tried to game the system, trying to get any legal advantage possible? Useful historical context is provided by an editorial in The Post this morning, outlining the risks of Te Pāti Māori’s strategy backfiring. According to The Post, MMP was born from the obvious unfairness in the old first past the post system. In 1978 and 1981, Labour won more votes than National but National won the election both times. In 1981, Social Credit won 20% of the vote but only two seats. In 1984, the New Zealand Party won more than 12% of the vote but no seats. MMP was specifically designed to fix all that.

But attempts to game MMP started immediately. As The Post editorial noted, in 1996, then-prime minister Jim Bolger encouraged National voters in Wellington Central to vote for Act’s Richard Prebble. In 1999, Helen Clark encouraged her Labour supporters in Coromandel to vote for Green’s Jeanette Fitzsimons. In 2005, Act’s Rodney Hide won Epsom “largely on his own efforts,” but National hasn’t really campaigned for the seat since, with Act staying in parliament with as little as 0.5% of the party vote. (In 2011, Paul Goldsmith was photographed removing campaign signs for his own candidacy that were put up by anti-Act activists.)

Still, even considering this historical background, there is concern that when attempts to win a coalition partner one electorate to get around the 5% threshold turns into six seats and the central strategy of an entire party, the proportionality at the centre of MMP could be lost. As The Post warns, for some voters, Act’s ambition to abolish the Maori seats could gain traction. And Christopher Luxon’s off-the-cuff MMP referendum might not seem like such a bad idea.