Lees-Galloway Iain: Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4732. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I move That the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Justice and Electoral Committee be instructed that as part of its consideration of the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill it may consider any amendment based upon the recommendations of the MMP review conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2012.This bill is the result of a long process that is worth recalling in order to give the bill some context. It began with the announcement by the Government that it would hold a referendum on whether or not New Zealand should continue to use MMP as our system for electing our Parliament. As part of the legislation that enacted that referendum it was agreed by Parliament that should New Zealand vote in favour of retaining MMP a review would be carried out to consider some of the issues that members of Parliament on all sides understood that the public had around MMP. In the event it did come to pass that New Zealanders did vote to retain MMP but it was clear to us all that there were issues with the system that the public wanted us to address. So the review as legislated for was carried out and the review reported back to Parliament with a number of recommendations.The Minister of Justice referred the review to the leaders of all political parties represented in Parliament at the time asking for their views on the recommendations of the MMP review and each political party responded to the Minister of Justice with their views on each of those recommendations. At that point the Minister of Justice declared that there was no consensus and the process stopped. It was in response to the fact that the process was not going to be continued by the Government that my former colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel drafted this legislation. Upon her retirement from Parliament I picked up the legislation and shortly after I did that it was drawn from the ballot.The bill does three things. First it abolishes the one-seat threshold that allows parties that do not reach the party vote threshold to bring list MPs into Parliament; secondly it reduces the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent; and thirdly it allows for a review of the party vote threshold after three elections with the new party vote threshold in place. It is important that we consider why we need to implement these recommendations from the MMP review. The one-seat threshold has never really served any real purpose in the New Zealand context.Chris Bishop: It increases proportionality.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will address the point that Chris Bishop has interjected on. The one-seat threshold was simply a carry-over from the German system. In the German system there are a number of states. There are regional parties that must reach a three-electorate threshold in order to bring list MPs into the federal Parliament and that has actually occurred only on four occasions since MMP was introduced to the German system in 1949. The royal commission that recommended the shift to MMP recommended the one-seat threshold in the context of abolishing the Māori seats. Of course Māori seats were never abolished and therefore the one-seat threshold was never required. I do accept the point made by Chris Bishop that a consequence of retaining the one-seat threshold is that it can in certain circumstances increase proportionality but that was not the purpose for introducing the one-seat threshold. In fact it increases proportionality on an ad hoc basis. It increases proportionality only when parties win one seat or more and when those parties gain enough party votes to bring additional list MPs into Parliament. There are better ways of increasing proportionality and that includes reducing the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent.Moreover and most important in the public’s mind is the fact that the one-seat threshold which serves no real purpose has become something that has been abused by political parties. What has occurred is political parties have made deals with parties that may support them in Parliament by essentially giving up a seat and encouraging voters to vote for the other political party knowing that that political party will not reach the party vote threshold but has an opportunity to bring MPs into Parliament through the one-seat threshold. That is a situation that New Zealanders have resoundingly told us they are sick of. It does not matter which parties do it—it does not matter which parties do it—it is simply something that New Zealanders have loudly and clearly told us they are sick of and they want us as MPs to address this issue whether or not we in our political parties stand to gain from it personally.The other thing that this bill does is it reduces the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent. That is an acknowledgement of the fact that getting rid of the one-seat threshold does have an impact in certain circumstances on proportionality. In fact reducing the party vote threshold ensures that proportionality is increased at every election and that there is a clear rule that everybody has to meet. Every party if it reaches the 4 percent threshold has the right to bring list MPs into Parliament. That is clear and it affects everybody and it is the case at every election. It is not an ad hoc way of increasing proportionality—list MPs will be brought in only in the event that parties win one seat and only in the event that those parties gain enough party votes to bring additional MPs into the House.I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding this legislation. First is that there is apparently no consensus. Well in fact there has been no opportunity for political parties to reach consensus. We were given an opportunity to provide our opening position the position from which we would be prepared to negotiate with other parties. But what we were not given was the opportunity to carry out that negotiation—the opportunity to reach consensus. Sending this bill to a select committee is in fact that opportunity to reach that consensus. Secondly the issue was raised that not all the recommendations of the MMP review were contained in this bill. I actually appreciate that concern that has been raised and as I began my contribution it is my intention in the event that this bill passes first reading and is sent to the select committee to move an instruction to the select committee to consider all recommendations of the MMP review. That then gives us the opportunity to consider the recommendations as a package and reach consensus around them.However on the issue of consensus I would say there is a very clear consensus and that is the consensus amongst the New Zealand public the voters who put us here the people who have clearly said they want us to address this issue. In a UMR poll 71 percent of those polled were in favour of abolishing the one-seat threshold. Just 13 percent were against and 16 percent were unsure. It is clear in the minds of New Zealanders that the one-seat threshold—coat-tailing as it has come to be known—is unacceptable and the public no longer tolerates it. They want us as parliamentarians to address this issue. So those who vote against this system will be seen in the public as putting their own interests and their own party’s interests ahead of making an amendment to our electoral system that makes it stronger more robust and more closely aligned with the way New Zealanders want our electoral system to work. So I do ask members of Parliament to put a strong and robust electoral system ahead of our own interests. Send this bill to a select committee let us consider all the recommendations of the MMP review and let us craft an electoral system that New Zealanders can have faith in.