Adams Amy: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10407] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to take a call in this first reading debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I will take just a moment at the outset of my contribution to run through the history behind where we find ourselves with our current electoral system. No matter in our democracy can be more important than our electoral system and I think that is fairly well accepted by all. Our current system is MMP. I am certainly old enough to remember the previous system although it is amazing— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Surely not! 
AMY ADAMS 
: I know it is hard to believe but in fact I am. It is amazing how many people I and other members speak to who have absolutely no understanding knowledge or even awareness of our previous electoral system first past the post. MMP of course first came about through the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. That royal commission led to the first indicative referendum in September 1992. At that time New Zealand voted for a change to its electoral system. The significant referendum was held along with the 1993 general election and in 1996 we had our first MMP election. As the Minister of Justice has already noted in his contribution since that time five Governments have been elected under our MMP system. 
It is worth mentioning that when MMP was first adopted by a 54:46 split of the population there was a common perception among many New Zealanders—not those in the beltway—that there would be a second referendum and that they would have another chance to express their view having had the opportunity to kick the tyres for a while. They were not right in that perception. That was never what the law said but it was certainly a commonly held view on the streets of New Zealand. The reality of course is that that opportunity would only ever happen if this House had voted to make it so. Instead we had a review in 2001. In 2001 this House undertook a comprehensive review of MMP and I acknowledge Peter Dunne who was the deputy chair of the committee. The committee members were instructed by this House to work towards unanimous decisions or at least towards decisions that came as close to unanimity as they could. Although the committee members agreed on a number of matters one thing that they could not agree on was whether there should be a second referendum on MMP. At that time public opinion suggested that the majority of people who did not support having a referendum were of that view because they felt in 2001 that we had not had enough time. We were not ready at that time to assess where MMP was at and whether it was the appropriate system. It is certainly the view of the National Party and it was part of our election promise to New Zealand that it was time for New Zealand to have a referendum on MMP. I am very proud to be part of a Government that will give New Zealand a chance to have that say. 
As we have already heard in the contributions this afternoon this bill is not about which system we should have in this country. It is not a bill where we argue which is the better system. I think it is important to make the point clear for anyone listening to this debate that this bill is simply about getting the process right so that we can ask New Zealanders which system we should have. That is important because even though Parliament is ultimately sovereign and can make decisions as it thinks fit it is my view that some issues are simply too important and too fundamental for this House to exercise its power on unless we have a very clear and specific mandate from New Zealanders. I think that there can be no better example of that than our electoral system. 
In this bill there is a process by which the people of New Zealand will be given the opportunity to say whether they want to keep the system we have. That is the first question in the referenda ballot and it is the most important question. If they vote to keep the system we have now then the remaining issues relating to types of system second referendums and the like become null and void. As Ms Dalziel has pointed out a vote to keep MMP will trigger a review of the MMP system; we have one system of MMP but it can certainly be adjusted. However if there is a vote for change then the second question in this referendum will become all-important. That is the question where New Zealanders can indicate their preference with regard to an alternative system. So it is very important legislation not because of what is in it but because it sets up a process by which New Zealanders can make that very important decision. 
I end by commenting on the timing. I know that there has been discussion about the fact that this could potentially be a drawn-out process if there is a vote for change a further referendum and then a further period for the election. I comment on one thing in closing. When we had those referendums in 1992 and 1993 the first time around— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Referenda. 
AMY ADAMS 
: —referenda; I thank Mr Mallard. The 1992 referenda which was not held with a general election attracted only just over a 50 percent turnout. The 1993 referenda— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no—referendum. 
AMY ADAMS 
: —referendum which was held with a general election attracted well over 80 percent. As Ms Dalziel commented these are important issues that we need New Zealand to engage with. This is important and New Zealanders must engage. It must be undertaken with a good degree of understanding. That is why having it at the time of a general election is important to make sure that we really engage New Zealand in this very important process. Thank you.