Robertson Grant: Electoral Referendum Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson Grant: Electoral Referendum Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15867] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 My colleague Chris Hipkins referred to being in Nigel Roberts’ class in 1998 and going through various options on electoral referendums. I can go back a little bit further to when Mr Hipkins was perhaps a bit young—he is gone now so I can say these things about him although I should not say that. In 1992 when the original referendum was going through I was a student politician at Otago University as I was in 1993 when we had the second referendum. It would be fair to say that as students we put a lot of effort into promoting MMP. In fact I recall trying to justify it to a group of students on the basis that if the imaginatively named “Student Party” contested the elections and secured 5 percent of the vote we would have students in Parliament. It was an interesting idea—one that I am not quite as keen on as I was then! 
As a number of other speakers have said through the 1980s and 1990s both a Labour Government and a National Government operated—in the words of a current member of our Parliament—in quantum leaps with what some would say was disregard for the views of the electorate putting in place programmes that had not been put before the electorate. I think there was a mood in the country in the early 1990s to punish not so much Parliament but the executive or two executives in a row from two different parties in Government. That mood was pervading the country and it was ripe for change. It was ripe for change not to only the speed of government which is what I think was happening in the 1980s and 1990s but to also the extent to which this Parliament was representative of the country. I too am prepared to proudly say that I am a supporter of proportional representation and I am a supporter of the MMP system for two reasons that I will now discuss which are relevant to the Electoral Referendum Bill.  
The first reason is the representative nature of this Parliament. Statistically we can look at the number of women members we can look at the number of Maori members and we can look at the number of members representing ethnic minorities in this country and see that demonstrably MMP has meant that this Parliament is more representative. That is a good thing. It is a good thing too that political parties that can earn more than 5 percent support in this country get to be represented here because to me that level of support means there is a viewpoint out there that should be heard. I think the ideas that Mr Boscawen and his colleagues put up are frankly bonkers most of the time but those people have the right to be heard here. He probably thinks the same about me and the Labour Party. But the fact is that parties deserve to be here if they can earn that 5 percent and I will return to that question in a moment. 
We have an MMP system that has allowed government to operate more slowly and on more of a consensual basis. Both Labour in office and now National in office have developed ways of making MMP work of making coalition Governments work and including parties. The risk for all parties is where those arrangements do not appear to the electorate to be governing in a fair way. The classic tail wagging the dog situation is where the public becomes concerned about elements of MMP but overall I am strongly of the belief that this Parliament is a better and more representative place because of the system of proportional representation that we have. I do not believe that the public is in the same mood to punish politicians that it was in the early 1990s and that is in part because MMP has required politicians to work in a more consensual way in a slower way and we have had a more representative Parliament to do that. 
But we now find ourselves facing a referendum. Labour is supporting it as part of an overall package of changes to the electoral system and we are happy to do that. We are particularly happy to do that because of there now being spending caps and I will return to that point in a moment. But I think we have the cart somewhat before the horse when it comes to the two referenda that we are looking at under this bill. I strongly believe that if we are to do this—and there is some question in my mind about whether it is necessary—then we should be reviewing the system first. We should be reviewing the system first because there is widespread acknowledgment among those of us who are strong supporters of MMP that there is room for improvement. 
The particular area where I think there is room for improvement is the so-called electorate lifeboat. In this Parliament that situation is represented by the ACT Party. Because Rodney Hide has won the Epsom seat we are now treated to the spectacle of five ACT MPs in this House. Whatever people might think of the Rt Hon Winston Peters his party polled at 4.3 percent I think it was in the last election and it is not represented in this House. The question has to be raised as to whether that electorate lifeboat is in fact fair. If the ACT Party is polling at 3 percent of the vote then why do we see it now represented in this House by five MPs rather than just the one MP who won the electorate? I do think that area could be relooked at. I noted that should the first referendum lead to a second referendum then a review will take place and it will include that question of proportionality and of how people are represented. But I think it is a particular area that could be looked at. 
There are obviously other issues that need to be looked at. Some people have raised a concern about the mix of electorate and list members. Mr Woodhouse has just mentioned questions about the size of the electorates and I think a number of the members of Parliament who represent electorates are concerned about that issue. 
These questions could be dealt with in a review prior to a referendum so that we know what we are really discussing. As it happens we will get that review if we go to a second referendum. The review should happen anyway—that is what members on this side of the House believe. We think it should happen first. In any case regardless of what happens in the first referendum there should be that review so that we can clear up some of these matters. 
I would disagree with one thing that my colleague Chris Hipkins said. He said that all New Zealanders would be familiar with first past the post. That is actually not true in my opinion. I think that people under the age of 35 know nothing other than MMP when it comes to a voting system. I believe that the question of what people understand about the systems is a moot point. I think there is a lack of understanding across the board and I very much endorse the comments of Catherine Delahunty and Steve Chadwick about civics education. One of the things that we need to do significantly better in this country is helping people understand from an early age how the voting system works what their role is in society and how they can influence decisions. 
It is quite clear that members on this side of the House are happy to support this bill given the changes that have been made to it but I believe that the timing and sequencing of the referenda and the review have put the cart before the horse and will perhaps confuse some people unnecessarily. I think we could certainly find our way to a situation where we have the review anyway regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. 
I will talk about two more things in my contribution. The first is the question of the spending cap. I am very pleased to see the spending cap of $300000. I acknowledge that it is difficult to come up with a number—why $300000 instead of $500000? But the Electoral Legislation Committee has attempted to get the balance right between participant equality and participant freedom in elections. This is something that Andrew Geddis from Otago University has written about. It is a difficult balance in every electoral system in the world—the freedom for people like Mr Boscawen to participate and to put money into a particular issue and the equality question of how we make that fair so that elections cannot be bought and so that referenda cannot be bought. It is a difficult balance but I believe that the committee has done the right thing by putting a spending cap in place. 
We know that the likes of Peter Shirtcliffe are interested again. Mr Shirtcliffe is out there promoting the supplementary member system which Mr Key now seems to favour. It is not a proportional system in the terms in which it has been put before the electorate. It means that only 30 of the 120 seats would be allocated on a proportional basis—90 of the 120 seats would be first past the post. That is not proportional representation. I am sorry to say that I think Mr Shirtcliffe will try to present it in that way but it is not. 
In conclusion I believe that the bill has come back from the committee in much better shape. The fact that we now have a spending cap in place will ensure to some extent that participant equality is balanced with participant freedom in this referendum. I would urge all of us as MPs to ensure that we work hard in our electorates to make sure that people understand as much as possible this referendum and about what the options are. From my point of view I believe that MMP has served us well over the last 14 years or so and I would like to see it continue but we in Labour are committed to supporting this bill so that the referendum can take place in an orderly manner.