Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

I move, That the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill stands in my name, and it has been the recommendation from the Justice and Electoral Committee that this bill be discharged. What a sad day it is for New Zealand when politicians totally reject the results of a referendum, without even attempting to make what the majority of people voted for a reality. Where is our democracy? Politicians are actually entrusted to make our democracy work, and what we see here is self-interest coming ahead of the wishes of the people. That is totally outrageous. The referendum results showed an overwhelming desire to reduce the number of MPs, and today we have a select committee—seven members of Parliament—recommending that the wishes of the people be voted down. It is ironic that we are so quick to implement the will of the people on election day, when it suits us, but with a referendum that over 80 percent of New Zealanders supported, we vote it down without even attempting to make it work. Citizens referenda should be binding.

However, I must thank all of the submitters for their willingness to stand behind the results of the 1999 referendum and for their support for this very important bill. I must thank Margaret Robertson for the work and effort she put into the 1999 petition to reduce the number of members of Parliament, and for her willingness to revisit the issue earlier in the year. I must also thank the many people who have written and spoken to me since the outcome of this bill has become public knowledge. I thank them for their support. Despite the recommendation from the select committee, the vast majority of people still state that on this issue the people of New Zealand should have been listened to, and that Parliament had an obligation to act upon their wishes. I also thank the select committee staff for the excellent work they did on this bill.

I thank the select committee members for their work on the bill, but I must say that this is an extremely disappointing result. This result highlights the folly of allowing self-interested MPs to make decisions about their futures. When I looked at the MPs on this select committee, I was interested to see that the members were principally list members, and I could not help wondering to what degree that factor had influenced the decision that the committee made. However, I am sure it did not. Yet it must be put on record that my New Zealand First colleague Pita Paraone, who might have been affected by this measure should it have become law—which, of course, it would not have in this particular Parliament—definitely supported the bill. Despite the overwhelming public support for this change, as was evidenced by the submissions made to the select committee—29 out of 43 submissions—select committee members ignored submitters’ views and promoted their own agenda. The number of MPs is a central feature of our democracy and, as such, MPs should not and cannot afford to ignore the weight of public opinion agitating for change. After all, our democracy belongs to the people of New Zealand, not just to the MPs here in this House—something that we should all remind ourselves of.

I was interested to read in the select committee report that National believes that this bill missed the point. I remind National members that there is no real point to miss. The purpose of the bill was very clear: to reduce the number of MPs to 100—not 99, as they commented upon in their minority view. The bill did not in any way wish to change the MMP system, but just proposed changing the number of list MPs within that system. We all know that one of the perennial criticisms of MMP revolves around the number of list MPs, so why could we not be proactive, take that criticism seriously, act upon it, and at least attempt to make MMP work? MMP is a system that New Zealanders by and large like, believing it to be far fairer and more representative of the population than the old first-past-the-post system.

As MPs, we ignore the wishes of the people at our peril. This issue has not really gone away just because a select committee has chosen not to proceed. The whole issue will no doubt be revisited again because the wishes of the people have been ignored. It is a fact that if a referendum were to be held tomorrow on this very same issue, the result would be exactly the same as before. People believe that 120 MPs is too many, although I understand that one of the submitters to the select committee believed that the number of MPs should have actually been increased—something that we do not want to occur, at all!

Letters in recent editions of the Listener,commenting on MMP 10 years on, discussed the likelihood of any change ever being made to our system, and concluded that changes will not be made in the medium to long term. The writers of those letters stated that changes will never be made while some MPs see the present system working to their advantage and continue to use those flaws in the system for their own self-interest. In New Zealand First we argue that the issue is not about various individuals keeping their jobs and about the personalities of those individuals—one of the many reasons that some parties in this House decided to vote against this bill. Those colourful individuals could still have the opportunity to represent their parties; their parties would just have to manage the process a bit better than perhaps they do now. This bill does not discuss any reduction of the proportionality of Parliament, but rather a reduction in the number of list members. The bill is about working in a far smarter way to achieve what the people of New Zealand overwhelmingly want. Those who claim that that is not so have their heads in the sand.

The desire to reduce the number of MPs still holds true today. Just last week a person at the airport told me that he had voted for the reduction in 1999 and that he would vote for it again today. That is not an isolated incident—far from it, in fact. The MMP Review Committee, which was established in 2000, considered the appropriate number of MPs that Parliament should have, and it could not reach agreement on the issue. What did our politicians do when provided with another opportunity to address the issue? They proved that they are unable or unwilling to act on the issue.

It is little wonder that the surveys taken of the occupations that people most distrust and trust never ever flatter politicians. It is no wonder that we are always at the bottom of the list—always among the most distrusted of occupations. Could it be that some members have forgotten whom they were sent here to represent? Could it be that in totally ignoring the wishes of the people and getting caught up in utilising the flaws of the system, MPs are displaying a quality that is definitely not trustworthy? The issue will not go away with this bill; the public will speak again. Delaying the inevitable is not to the credit of any politician.

The move to MMP was not the end of political reform; it was only the start. For some people there has been very little change in political behaviour. The review of MMP was really a sham. We owe our democracy much more than that. New Zealand First has long stated that people power in the form of referenda should replace conscience votes, and that is a step we wish to take. But how sad it is that even when the results of a referendum are overwhelming, politicians know better. New Zealand First, in honouring the result of the 1999 referendum, attempted to make Parliament a more responsive and accountable institution, and to give greater power to the community. It is because of decisions such as those taken by politicians on the question of MPs that we need binding referenda, so that we can avoid the situation we have today whereby self-interested politicians override the will of the majority of voters.

New Zealand First stands steadfast in its support for the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

What a load of empty political rhetoric that was from Barbara Stewart. Her speech was full of emotion and full of appeals to the general public, but the general public do not know that she never turned up to the Justice and Electoral Committee for the hearing of evidence on the bill. National supported Barbara Stewart’s Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill going to the select committee, so that it could hear the evidence of submitters, and debate in detail the desirability of reducing the number of MPs to 100. My National colleagues Richard Worth and Nicky Wagner worked very hard with me on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this issue.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

Labour opposes the second reading of the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill, but in doing so we commend Barbara Stewart and New Zealand First for their initiative in bringing this issue to the House, through the agreement that Labour has with New Zealand First. Unlike those on the other side of the House who make mean-spirited and waspish comments, I think it is important, in an MMP environment, to accept that some of the smaller parties in the House have an absolute role in raising issues, putting those issues into the political debating environment, and seeing select committees do what they do very well, which is to look at such issues further.

I have been in this House somewhat longer than the previous speaker, and I can remember that in the first period of MMP, between 1996 and 1999—the hideous, dying days of that National Government—a lot of members of the public became quite excited by the idea that a smaller Parliament would somehow deliver the goods. Labour argued against that. It was the early days of MMP. There was a referendum in 1999 on the matter, but essentially the issue was never examined fully by this Parliament. Well, we now have on record in this Parliament, in this excellent report from the Justice and Electoral Committee—and I commend Chris Finlayson for the way he went through that report—the hard arguments against the idea that a smaller Parliament will deliver better democracy.

New Zealand First has raised other issues, such as those concerning the Treaty principles and the age of criminal responsibility, and it is absolutely valid for this House to have an opportunity to look at such issues. Labour supported this legislation at the first reading because it is valid for the issue to be examined.

I will focus on three particular arguments. The first is that the concept of MMP requires an adequate block of electorate members of Parliament and an adequate block of list members of Parliament. Under the system proposed in this bill the number of list members would start to reduce, and the ability of MMP to deliver diversity in terms of adequately sized smaller-party caucuses, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth would be extremely limited. The concept of balance required under MMP could not be delivered under the proposal in this member’s bill.

The second point is about the doability of, in particular, the function of an electorate member of Parliament. I represent one of the three key inner-city electorates, which is in addition to the electorates of Auckland Central and Wellington Central. I am the Christchurch Central electorate member of Parliament, and my electorate has an average population size. I am more than aware that the hours I need to work and the hours my office staff need to work to do the job adequately are already very large. In the larger geographic electorates—albeit with list MPs to help out on occasions—it is an almost impossible job to undertake in the contemporary environment and with the contemporary pressures on members of Parliament.

Given that members of Parliament spend about 100 days a year in this House, and given the other responsibilities of select committee work and to be in other parts of the country, it is my view that if we tried to service very large electorates, the divide, the gap, between the public and members of Parliament would be much larger. Certainly, every school in my electorate—I think there are currently 31 of them—expects me to visit at least once a year. Each rest home expects to see me, and each residents group hopes that I will go along to events. If we add all that up and look at the reality of life—and, even for a moment, consider the concept of work-life balance—I think that the idea of representing an electorate in this Parliament, which is a role for some of us here, would be impossible with larger electorates.

Let us look in the select committee’s report at the information regarding population per member of Parliament. Again, the previous speaker made reference to this. The report indicates that over the years our electorates have become quite considerably bigger in population base. The population of our country is increasing fairly fast, and we are now seeing, after the MMP introduction blip of 1996—when the number of members of Parliament was increased—that the number of people per member of Parliament is back to the maximum it has ever been. Under MMP, even if we do not increase the number of members of Parliament, the population will increase way beyond that. There are about 34,000 people per MP; I am sure that by the next election that figure will be 35,000 or 36,000, and it will go up. So the second point I make is about the doability of the job.

My final point is about the issue of other countries and their democracy. Again, the select committee did very useful work in looking at the population per MP in a whole range of countries. It shows that smaller countries such as Iceland, Estonia, Slovenia, and even, within the European context, Sweden have a low population per member of Parliament. Normally, such countries combine that with not having a double layer of members of Parliament.

Let us compare Australia with New Zealand—and we often make that comparison in different areas. A person living in Sydney, New South Wales, would deal with not only two levels of Federal Parliament but also two levels of state Parliament. Those four levels of Parliament are the equivalent to our parliamentary function in New Zealand. So it seems to me that if Australia suffers from over-governance, in some ways maybe we in New Zealand can be accused, if anything, of suffering from under-governance. In my view we put a lot of pressure on politicians, particularly our nationally elected politicians, to carry out all functions, from taking a regional—and even local—representative role on occasions, right up to considering the national and international issues that we as members of Parliament have to consider. So I think that if we look to other countries, we see that the size and function of our Parliament starts to make a lot of sense.

Labour commends Barbara Stewart and New Zealand First for their initiative in bringing up this issue. I also commend the select committee for doing what I consider to be a very balanced and helpful job on this issue. But, with reluctance, I have to say that Labour opposes this bill continuing through the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party is strongly against the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill, and we are very surprised that an MMP party like New Zealand First has come forward with it. It shows the level of populism among New Zealand First members that they are willing to commit hara-kiri as an MMP party, just to get temporary applause from a grumpy, anti-political brigade. The opposition to the size of Parliament as it is—120, or currently 121—is from people who are grumpy about politicians and want to reduce the number of politicians and the expenditure on them, but who have not really properly thought through the way to meet their objections to what happens in Parliament. People’s grumpiness with politicians is, in many ways, justified. It comes from the way that Labour and National Governments have performed in the past—the sell-outs in the past, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s—and the fact that there does not seem to be much restraint on executive power in many cases. We can understand where that anti-politician sentiment comes from, but this bill is quite the wrong way to go about addressing those concerns. It is the sort of thing that will produce the opposite effect of what it intends.

Let us take, for example, people’s objections to the bad behaviour of MPs. There is a lot of concern at the moment about the way that National and Labour members trade insults across the Chamber and about the level of the noise in the Chamber. But the reality is that if the number of MPs goes down from 120 to 100, the 20 or 21 people who will get chopped off the bottom are generally the best behaved politicians. If we look through the list of the current Parliament, we see that the MPs who would be chopped off it come disproportionately from the smaller parties, and it is the smaller parties that are the best behaved in comparison with the two old parties.

I think this bill is rather strange, and I do not know quite where New Zealand First is coming from. New Zealand First has seven MPs. The Greens have six MPs. With six MPs, and on 5.3 percent of the vote, we have about 15 portfolios each. I do not know why New Zealand First wants to reduce its number of MPs, which would give each of them even more portfolios and make it more difficult for them to confront the bigger parties—which have several times as many MPs as New Zealand First—policy by policy. Why does New Zealand First want to support a bill that knocks the very way that its MPs come into Parliament?

As cited in the report back from the Justice and Electoral Committee, the objections to the current system are basically to MMP as it operates. The report says: “In addition, some questioned the current ability of defeated electorate candidates to enter Parliament as list members, on occasion becoming ministers.” That seems to be talking about Winston Peters. He lost the Tauranga electorate, came in as a list MP, and is now a Minister. This bill encourages the sentiment that if one runs in an electorate—and I ran in the Epsom electorate in the last Parliament, to get the Green Party vote up—and if one does not win that electorate, somehow one does not deserve to come in as a list MP. That is quite the wrong concept, in terms of the contribution that people can make to this House.

Certainly, as the select committee pointed out in figures in the appendices of its report, Parliament would become much less representative under this measure. It has become much more representative through MMP and through having 120, or 121, members. Seventeen percent of the members of Parliament are Māori and 33 percent are women. That is a tremendous achievement of the MMP system.

In fact, select committees would not be able to function properly if we had fewer members. One of the things at the back of the minds of a lot of the people who voted for a reduction in the number of MPs was restraining the power of the executive. That is done in this Parliament to a significant extent by the select committees. Having sufficient people in Parliament to properly staff the select committees is a restraint on executive power—particularly in light of what Tim Barnett just said about us not having two Houses in New Zealand and hence having the problem that Ministers can drive through decisions very quickly.

In terms of the cost, we have to look at it proportionately. Sure, it costs a few million dollars for the extra 20 or 21 MPs, but we must compare that with the amount of money in the total Government budget and with the decisions it makes, such as that to be made on the waterfront stadium. The figure of $700 million is being thrown around for that project, which is about $400 million more than the Eden Park option, and that may be decided on all of a sudden. That level of expenditure by the Government dwarfs the extra few million dollars needed to have 120 or 121 MPs. It is value for money to pay that extra money for the additional MPs, because we do constrain the executive. We may even constrain the Government in the decision to be taken over the waterfront stadium proposal, though the Greens have not been consulted over that decision at all and I think our Māori Party colleagues have not been consulted either. We need MMP parties in order to properly represent the total electorate and to constrain the power of the executive.

The Green Party is certainly against this bill. We support the select committee recommendation to discharge it. We need to be proud of our MMP system and of the representation across the spectrum that the eight parties provide, in all sorts of ways—in terms of gender, of ethnic origin, and of representing different migrant communities, etc. We will not achieve that if we reduce the number of MPs and effectively undermine MMP.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

The electoral system of representation in Aotearoa—in New Zealand—has since 1867 been founded on a notion of dual constituencies. The nation is divided into 62 general electorates and seven Māori electorates, enabling representation of both the general population and tangata whenua in a mechanism that should work together to create a cherished national identity. With MMP the dual system is elaborated further, with the potential for distinctive representation from the diverse populations of Aotearoa.

The possibility of proportionality has been enhanced through the event of the 52 list seats. This system is one that, back in 1993, Māori voted for by a much higher margin than others. What Māori understood was that authentic Māori representation could be achieved through the independent Māori voice of the Māori electorates, and, as well, wider Māori democratic participation across Parliament could be ensured. Indeed, the diverse Māori world views that emerge alongside those of the Māori Party members, from list members in National, Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party, are a sign of the influence of Māori in the MMP environment.

With this bill this strength would be reduced, as all four of those parties mentioned would be forced to scrutinise their lists to make the call as to whether it would be their Māori MPs that were to be retained. History would tell us that they would not. Electoral reform held the great promise of increased Māori representation through the guaranteed representation of the Māori seats alongside the expectation of better representation on the list. The association of MMP with stronger representation for Māori was encouraged by the iwi stations—Māori radio stations—in 1993, which influenced listeners to think that MMP stood for “More Māori in Parliament”. They were right. The ratio of Māori MPs rose dramatically from 7.1 percent in 1993 to 17.3 percent now. So, in the interests of whanaungatanga and manaakitanga, there is no way that the Māori Party can support a move to reduce this level of representation.

The question of proportionality is, however, relevant. The Māori Party takes great pride in the fact that as at the end of the last session we had delivered 183 speeches in this House, across every political topic. Our contribution is always informed by kaupapa and tikanga Māori, by our histories, our traditions, and our world views. But we know that the ability to present a distinctive Māori world view is not so easy when one is constrained by the apron strings of a mainstream party. As an example, it has been a matter of some disappointment to us that the Government Māori members have been forced to lead a campaign of misinformation about our bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act—a bill that serves to repeal an Act that Māori throughout this land remain universally opposed to.

This is where the importance of a strong mixed-member proportional system is most profound. We know that although the Foreshore and Seabed Bill was an act of confiscation, which had and still has devastating impacts on the well-being of Māori, it showed Māori that they cannot afford to put their trust in individual politicians—Māori or otherwise. The trust and confidence of our people will be respected by the philosophical positions, the values, that come from the diverse political parties represented in this Parliament. These are philosophies that may see value in tikanga and kaupapa Māori, that value human rights, and that respect due access to justice—one law for all.

Our MMP system has inspired considerable interest from many international commentators. Therese Arseneau, when a professor of political science in Halifax, had some interesting comments for the House about how we evaluate the question of numbers of MPs against the outcomes of representation. She stated: “The New Zealand experience suggests caution. Effective representation is not just about number of women and Maori MPs.

Also important is an examination of how these representatives fulfil their role, to link representation to actions. While sheer numbers remain important, perhaps more important is the question of where the women and Aboriginal MPs are found … and are they allowed to represent the diverse interests? In New Zealand, party discipline may preclude such representation.”

Indeed, the Canadian professor may have hit the nub of the problem. As tangata whenua found out in the foreshore and seabed debacle, there were some Māori MPs, and, worse yet, some who were in Māori electorate seats, who had to overlook the anguish of their constituency and vote along party lines.

Representation and proportionality will not be found in a choice of two. Essentially, party lines will always prevail. The last thing that this nation needs is a return to the bipartisan politics of first past the post, where one is either red or blue and nothing in between. MMP embraces the browns, the blacks, the greens, and the golds as part of the rich fabric of nationhood. Demographically, Aotearoa is becoming more colourful, more Pacific, more Māori, more Asian. Our Parliament must enable its members’ voices to be heard through greater representation of parties that honour diversity.

Perhaps where this is most evident is in participation in select committees. Although Labour maintains the controlling role, as chair of 11 of the 18 committees, with National chairing five and New Zealand First and the Greens one each, the requirement to reflect the overall proportionality means that chairmen can no longer exercise the casting vote. Although in the past it was taken for granted that the committee system could be controlled by the Government, in more recent times there is more opportunity for a divided committee outcome, to reflect proportionality. Smaller parties, such as our own, may participate in an item of business as a non-voting member, thereby creating more likelihood of an environment of contestable and diverse advice.

These were issues that the submissions to the select committee canvassed, and that influenced the decision to recommend that the bill not be passed. Submitters emphasised the importance of the select committee process in providing a check on the power of the executive.

The challenge before this Parliament is how best to achieve a representative and legitimate legislature that will truly reflect Aotearoa. The history of Parliament demonstrates that, over the century, various attempts at achieving an MMP dream have been enacted. We celebrate the Young Māori Party, the Independent Rātana MPs, Mana Motuhake, and Mauri Pacific as part of that journey. There have been other movements outside that have also exerted influence. In the last years of the 19th century and the first years of the 20th century, Papawai Marae near Greytown became the focus of Kotahitanga, the Māori Parliament movement. There have been Mana Māori, Te Tāwharau, Te Kauhanganui, and Kōhuirau. They have all served to remind Parliament of the strength of support for expressing an independent Māori voice.

Ten years ago the Royal Commission on the Electoral System articulated that dream of MMP for Māori. Its report stated a vision that the rights of Māori would be preserved and defended in the Māori seats, while the list may motivate parties to become more focused on minority issues, to elevate the positions of Māori candidates on the list, and to actively recruit more Māori candidates in an effort to win more votes. Ten years on, we see that the momentum of Māori political representation is absolutely thriving in this Parliament.

I leave the last word to political analyst Colin James in his article “Can the Maori Party succeed?”. I quote: “Set this challenge in the context of this society’s changing culture and colour: there are many more Maori (and Pacific people) and proportionately more of the Maori feel and act Maori. Maori culture is starting genuinely to influence ‘mainstream’ culture. A generation from now we will be much more of the Pacific, not just in it.” The diversity that is the cornerstone of the MMP system is also the diversity of the emerging Aotearoa. Proportionality and representation are too important to be compromised. The Māori Party will not support this bill.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

I think that the member who introduced this bill, Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First, overlooked a very real reality of the current political system in New Zealand. That, of course, is the MMP system. If we were to go back to 100 members of Parliament within an MMP system, we would have some very, very difficult practical problems to overcome. I think that the bill—like the leader of New Zealand First—is populist, in the sense that most New Zealanders would probably say: “Yippee, let’s go back to 100 members.”, but we in this Parliament also have to deal with the question of practicality. When we think about it, if we went back to having 100 members there would be some rather perverse outcomes.

First of all, we have a fixed quota of electorate seats for the South Island. If we bear that in mind alongside having to allow for list MPs, which of course are necessary under an MMP system if we are to avoid massive overhangs in Parliament, then it is very obvious, if we do the sums, that the size of the North Island electorates would have to increase very, very significantly if we were to go back to 100 seats. I already hear complaints from people like John Hayes of the Wairarapa, Anne Tolley of East Coast Bays, and John Carter of Northland about the sheer geographical size of their electorates. Even in the cities, electorate MPs say that they now have a vast number of people to represent. So, at the electorate level, this Parliament would become a lot less representative in terms of the number of people, particularly in the North Island, all reporting through to one electorate MP.

The second point, of course, is the point Dr Pita Sharples has very, very accurately outlined—that is, the effect on MMP itself. That also would be jeopardised in the sense that there would be more people with fewer representatives at the electorate level. Also, at the national level, the number of MPs who are able to cater for MMP would be significantly reduced if we were to retain the proportionality that is at the heart of the MMP system. Simply stated, the practicalities do not work out.

We can go back to 1993, when we had 100 members of Parliament, and then simply adjust the situation for the growth in the New Zealand population from then until now, which has been about 18 or 19 percent. If we retained electorate representation of the same size as in 1993, before MMP, we would now be up to 115 to 116 members of Parliament, which is fairly close to the current 121.

Also, although MMP ideally put forward a scenario where 50 percent of MPs would represent electorates and 50 percent would be list people, we have got well away from that mix. In fact, under MMP we have never had an exact 60:60 split, or a 50 percent:50 percent split, within the 120-member cap. As members know, we currently have 69 constituency seats and 51 list seats. The problem will continue in that direction while our population increases, as long as we keep the 120-member cap and if we set aside for the moment the whole question of overhang. So effectively what we will be doing is progressively working our way back towards a first-past-the-post system. That is not what New Zealanders want in their Parliament.

Everyone I speak to about this issue, including some people who were seriously opposed to the concept of MMP, readily admit that we now, in our current arrangements, have better representation in Parliament of the diversity of views that exist in New Zealand society. There is a place now for the Māori Party, United Future, the Greens, ACT, and New Zealand First. We are not having people forced—whether or not they like it because they have no other choice—to back either of the two old parties, Labour and National. Therefore, it would be a major step backwards if the bill was adopted.

I do not have a lot more to say, as I think that the various points have already been well canvassed by the previous speakers. Suffice it to say that, for the reasons I have outlined, we will be voting to oppose the second reading of this bill.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee that considered the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill I am really happy to stand up and speak about the experience we had during that time. I would also like to answer a couple of the points that were raised by Barbara Stewart. It saddens me just a little that Barbara Stewart is a little cynical about the process undertaken by the select committee, because, in fact, the select committee spent some time on the bill. As Chris Finlayson mentioned earlier, we heard a number of submissions and, certainly, I believe that the submission process was very, very important. I feel that the referendum was very much a knee-jerk reaction, and I think the referendum was carried out at a time when MMP was not working as well as it has been at this point in time and there was, perhaps, not so much public confidence in the process.

I really would like to record my thanks to the committee, because the members worked very well on this bill, and I think there was a very constructive approach in listening to the arguments and considering in a very objective manner. I do note that there were a number of very good submissions, and one in particular I would like to draw attention to is that of Professor Nigel Roberts, who is the head of political science and international relations at Victoria University. He certainly urged caution with regard to the matter of reducing the number of MPs. He stated that simply lopping 20 MPs off the list would likely cause problems when it came to determining the outcome of the elections, as the fewer the list seats available, the greater the chance of an overhang. If Mrs Stewart’s bill had been in place last year, Parliament would have an overhang of 2 MPs due to the Māori Party winning four electorate seats but being entitled to only two seats on its party vote. Such a Parliament would have two extra list MPs under that scenario.

The MMP Review Committee, established in 2000, considered the matter of the number of MPs in the House of Representatives and was actually divided on the matter. I am very happy that that was not the case with this select committee. After careful consideration of the bill we had a unanimous position, which was that all members were opposed to the bill. I do note that, as previous speakers have said, Barbara Stewart did not attend to listen to submissions. That does disappoint me, because had she attended I think she may well have been swayed because the submissions were very compelling about, I guess, just how much more representative Parliament is with the number of MPs that we currently have and, if I can use the term, enjoy. The committee also felt it was very important to include a number of appendices to the report, one of which included the results of the public being asked whether Parliament or voters should make a final decision about law and policy. Overwhelmingly the support was that Parliament should make that decision. I think that is very appropriate.

So that very much reiterated that the most detailed submissions were opposed to the bill; that is, they were in favour of retaining the status quo with the number of MPs in this Parliament. As other speakers have said, we have a system of only one House, and the select committee process is very, very important. I think it would be fair to say that a number of members of Parliament and parties are finding it quite difficult to ensure that members are able to attend select committees so that we have that representation there. If we were to reduce the number of members of Parliament, then that proportionality would be affected. It would be affected in terms of parties and their abilities to represent their constituencies. By their constituencies we do not necessarily mean electorate seats; we also mean constituencies comprising the people who have voted, albeit for minor parties. Those minor parties must have representation to ensure that the voices of the people who voted for them are heard in Parliament. So certainly there would be a real disadvantage there.

There would also be a tremendous disadvantage in terms of the number of minorities in Parliament and the number of women members. Without bringing personalities and specific members of the committee into it, I was a bit concerned when Barbara Stewart talked about naked self-interest because the majority of the members were list members of Parliament. I can attest that I was the only member who was, in fact, an electorate MP. But from all parties, as I said before, there was a real commitment to consider the bill. I do think that Parliament would be much the worse off without minor parties being able to represent those views that are, indeed, part of our population, even if I do not agree with a number of those views.

I also think in terms of women MPs. If we look at the number of MPs, we see 32 percent represented in Parliament today. But I consider that if we did not have the proportionality with list MPs, that number of women MPs would be considerably diminished. I feel that would be very much a loss not only to women voters but to our democracy generally. I look to my left and I see my very good friend Sue Moroney sitting here today. I know that if it were not for our system Sue Moroney would not be here. She was one of the new intake, and a reduced number of MPs would not see the contribution that Sue makes in this House today. That can be said of a number of minor parties. I do not want to be nasty about it at all, but I could compare the contribution that Sue Moroney and other hard-working list MPs make with the contribution made by “Bob the Builder” from the National Party. There could be considerable debate about who contributes the most meaningful speeches and the better representation, and I will leave that to the Parliament to decide.

However, I am very pleased to say, on behalf of the Justice and Electoral Committee, that we considered all points of view and we reached a unanimous decision. I believe that that decision was very much not in the self-interest of those members but in the interests of New Zealand’s democracy. Something that all New Zealanders should, and do, hold very dear is the ability to ensure that there is representation of all groups in Parliament, and I know that that will grow. I also know that we compared our system with a number of other democracies and, on a population base, we are not overrepresented in numbers of MPs. In fact, we have considerably fewer numbers when one takes into account that many democracies have both an upper and a lower House.

I am sure that Mrs Stewart had the best of intentions when bringing this bill to the House. I have worked constructively with her on a number of other issues, and I look forward to doing that in the future, but, sadly, on this occasion we are opposed to her bill.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

Following on from the speech made by my colleague Lynne Pillay, I get to make a contribution to this debate, and, as she rightly pointed out, I do so because we have 121 MPs in this House. I come to this House to make a contribution, having represented the most respected profession in this country—a fact seen if we look at the surveys that occur from time to time when New Zealanders get to have a say on which professions they most respect and which they least respect. It is a strange phenomenon for me to represent nurses one day, as one of the most respected professions—nurses come in either first or second in every single survey—then the very next day to become part of one of the least respected professions, that of a member of Parliament. I ask myself how I can go from being involved with the most respected profession one day to being part of the least respected profession the next day when nothing about me has changed—my principles are exactly the same, and the things I would argue for are exactly the same. I am essentially the same person, yet potentially the New Zealand public would judge me quite differently from one day to the next.

I raise that issue because I want to put into context a little what happens for people when they answer such surveys, some of the prejudices and biases they bring into that, and perhaps some of the prejudices and biases they also bring to bear when they sign petitions. I can well imagine that some of the people who sign a petition, answer a survey, or respond to a question about how they rate members of Parliament and whether they want to see their numbers reduced, may well quite happily say they would support having not one member of Parliament in the debating chamber—such is their view and their cynicism about members of Parliament. But I think that that is a superficial view, and that is why I was pleased to see that the select committee had had an opportunity to address this issue in some depth, because it is a question that needs to be looked at in an unbiased manner, in looking at all the facts and figures and at what happens overseas.

When thinking about what does happen overseas, it occurred to me—and I imagine this happens for most members of Parliament if they get the opportunity to travel overseas—that one of the things that happens quite frequently is that other members of Parliament and people from other countries say to us what a wonderful country we have, and what a wonderful system of Government we have. Certainly, MMP, and the diversity it brings with it, is well respected internationally and it lends something to this country that I think would be very sad for us if it were missing—that is, the diversity that our ability to have 120 MPs gives us.

In particular, it is an issue close to my heart that a reduction in the number of MPs in this House, sadly, would lead to a reduction in the number of women members of Parliament, a reduction in the number of Māori members of Parliament, and a reduction in the diversity we bring to debates in this House. I do not think that that is good for democracy, so I am pleased to see the outcome from the select committee on this matter.

Labour is not supporting the bill to go through a further reading, but there has been a good debate, and a good discussion has been generated. I thank Barbara Stewart for bringing forward the opportunity for this issue to be considered, and I thank the select committee for its deliberations.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

I commence by making one or two comments about the acerbic remarks of Chris Finlayson. I actually thought more highly of that member than that. I believed that he had shown himself to be somebody who was very capable of focusing upon the issues, and when he lowered himself by making those personal attacks he dropped slightly in my estimation. But Lynne Pillay also made a remark that was very close to a breach of the Standing Orders, in terms of talking about the non-attendance of members at select committees. I wanted to raise a point of order at the time, but I thought we were not in that sort of debate. However, I hope that the people in the Chair will reflect upon that in the future as it is a breach of the Standing Orders, and maybe new members like Chris can make sure that they are up to date with the Standing Orders.

I want to make a contradictory statement that I need to explain to people. It is that I do not believe that reducing the number of MPs in this House would be a positive move in terms of the operation of our Parliament, yet I am more than happy to vote for this bill. I would like to explain that seeming contradiction. First, I have a strong belief in the role of our select committees in this Parliament. I believe that MMP has really strengthened the role of select committees, and certainly over the last three Parliaments if I have been able to make a major contribution it has been through the select committees. I see members in this House who have operated on select committees with me and who have made very, very positive contributions, even though they have been in Opposition roles. I believe it is at select committees that participatory democracy really takes place.

I often give the case of a person who came along and delivered all of his presentation by reading from Braille, as he was totally blind. I believe that Nanaia Mahuta might have been there that night. He completely convinced the select committee and the officials that he was right, and that the legislation as it had been drawn up was wrong. As a result, the necessary changes were made to it. I thought that if one person could come along and make that sort of impact, then we do have the elements of positive participatory democracy operating through our select committees.

I have seen select committees massacre legislation and Ministers, then come back and thank committee members very much for doing that, because the Ministers have believed the legislation was better after that process. I note that on most of our select committees the Government does not have a majority. However, I believe that the role of our select committees would not be able to be fulfilled anywhere nearly as satisfactorily as it is, not only in terms of the scrutiny of legislation but also in terms of the reviews that are done—the financial reviews and the accountability of Government departments—if there were to be a reduction in the number of MPs.

Members may therefore ask why I am happy to vote for this bill. It is because I also believe very, very strongly that we need to learn how to listen to the voice of the people. The people voted resoundingly for a reduction in the number of MPs. In 2004 I went to Switzerland on a study tour, and I looked particularly at the use of binding referenda in that country. It really is quite amazing that at all levels the Swiss either have the capacity to take legislation to binding referenda, or they are required by the constitution to do so. For example, any constitutional changes have to go to a referendum. Any legislation can be put to a referendum, with, I think, 100,000 signatures out of the country’s population of 7 million. People can actually put up legislation for debate with 50,000 signatures in place, and even down at the level of the village—the village where I was had only 1,000 people—the Government could not commit over SwFr100,000 of capital expenditure without getting the agreement of the people. One would think that was a very clumsy system; in fact, it operates extremely well for the Swiss.

I will give an example of how the Swiss system operates. In May of the year I was there, there was a referendum on a proposal by the Government to reduce taxes, and the people rejected it. They could see that the consequences, in terms of the expenditure of the Government, would have been negative, so essentially they told the Government to take it back again. I refer to just one thing. I met up with a former Speaker of the House who had been the mayor of the city of Vevey, where the Alinghi boats were built. He said to me—and he did not have particularly good English, so I had to sort of interpret—that the people are very clever. When I teased out what he meant, I found he was saying that if we give people all the information upon which to make a decision, they will get it right. He said that time after time the people of Switzerland, at the national level, at the federal level, and also at the cantonal level, etc., get decisions right. I came away believing very strongly that as a nation we need to mature as a democracy. I do not believe that we are ready tomorrow to move as far as the people of Switzerland have moved. In order to do that, we need to find mechanisms that will allow the voices of the people to be heard. As Barbara Stewart pointed out, New Zealand First believes that issues involving conscience votes should, in fact, go to referenda, so that the people can make those final decisions.

I am not convinced entirely by Lynne Pillay’s argument that it would have been terrible to have had an overhang of two MPs instead of an overhang of one MP. Instead of 101 MPs we would have had 102, so if that is a strong argument to vote against this bill I am not convinced by it. I note that of the 43 submissions, 29 supported the bill and only 12 opposed it.

I also have to mention something else, which is that in the first two MMP elections—and I have not seen research done on this issue since then—proportionality could have been achieved with 100 MPs. So the proportionality argument is not necessarily a strong one in that case. I think the case for having representatives of the different groups is probably a much stronger argument.

I am a little disappointed that the Justice and Electoral Committee has come back with this—not with the report, but with the suggestion that the bill should be thrown out. That select committee was made up of three Labour members, three National members, and one Green member, and I wonder whether that is really reflective of the composition of this House.

I resigned my ministerial warrant back in 1998 over a very important issue that goes to the heart of what we are debating here tonight. At that time, and over previous Parliaments, a lot of MPs had been jumping parties—waka-hopping. Some of those had come from New Zealand First, but it had been happening before then—members should not worry; it had been happening long before then. Over here and over there, members were party-hopping. What was happening as a result was that people were actually starting to lose their faith in the democratic process, and once people lose their faith in the democratic process, then democracy itself is imperilled. I believed I had been voted in as a New Zealand First MP, and therefore I had a responsibility to those people to resign my ministerial warrant.

I thought that that would be the end of my days in Parliament, but I still believe that making that decision has been my most important contribution to this Parliament. When I thought back on history, I thought to myself that the people of Germany in the late 1920s had lost their faith in the Weimar Republic. They lost their faith in their democracy, and that allowed—in fact, that created—the conditions for the rise of the Third Reich. I do not believe that the same sort of thing as that will occur here. Nevertheless, I think we should protect our democracy.

In conclusion, I say that I believe the result of the bill being put up and going to the select committee, and of the submissions on it being heard and explained, demonstrates the toothless nature of our present referendum system. We have a condition that 250,000 people have to sign a petition in order to get it into the referendum process. But when 90 percent of the people say yes to the petition yet it is thrown out, in fact, by 121 people—or even by 7 people, it could be said—it shows that the system lacks teeth. We need to reconsider the whole referendum process. If I go back to the Swiss thing—and this is where I think we have a weakness—I can tell members that the Swiss ensure that the voting public actually has all the facts at hand. People have the details and they can make decisions. They talk in their coffee bars, etc., and they can make decisions around real information. I believe that many of the referenda we have in this country are emotive and do not provide people with a good, balanced set of information. Consequently, when we get them into Parliament and before a select committee, we get a different result from the initial one, which can only lead to a lack of confidence. Therefore, there is a sense of disappointment in, but I guess that in some respects there is also a sense of understanding of, where things are going with regard to this particular bill.