Garrett David: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10418] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I was not planning to speak in this debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill but I am still green enough to be greatly gratified when I come down to the House and hear sensible speeches from all sides. 
Todd McClay 
: Catherine Delahunty shuddered when you said you were green. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh perhaps the Greens have not spoken yet. I came in when Mr Tremain was speaking and he reminded me of my own experiences politically. I think I will also promote a chortle from members opposite by confessing that my father was an ardent Social Crediter—perhaps that explains it all some would say— and he was hugely frustrated by the fact that Social Credit got 20-odd percent of the vote on occasion and as Mr Tremain said only ever got two MPs. Under no stretch of definition can that be called democracy. They were perhaps odd individuals. I witnessed a few at the house in Stout Street but nevertheless that was their view and they were citizens of this country. Likewise I remember very well the New Zealand Party in 1981 which I think was the first symptom of disquiet among the population about the skewed results that first past the post produced to the benefit of both of the major parties. 
Of course the MMP parties as we have come to be called did not exist then because that was damned near impossible. When we think about it we realise it was rather heroic of the Social Crediters to manage against all odds to get even two MPs given that the system was against them. 
The New Zealand Party was the first sign I think and the Muldoon domination prior to the 1984 Lange Government again promoted disquiet and upset. I personally marched in the streets against Mr Muldoon as he was then known bringing nuclear ships in during the winter. He always did it in the winter because it was hard to protest then. He did it in June and July and I recall standing in the rain down by the railway station there in protests for a couple of years running. He delighted in replying to letters and no matter how much thought we put into them even if it was only a page and a half we would get back one line from the secretary reading: “Your concern is noted. R.D. Muldoon.” So we ended up with an MMP system which as Mr Chauvel has said is not perfect. Ms Dalziel’s contribution was quite valid as well. 
Our party’s position is very simple and it is that the people should decide. We believe in democracy. As Mr Henare said when interjecting on Mr Chauvel we find this obsession with big business quite amusing especially since the ACT helicopters have long since been sold and none of us received our Mercedes although I was hoping and asking for a powder-blue one when I was chosen for the honour of being No. 5 on the list. The idea that big business backs us and that our fat-cat mates are writing us out cheques for $1 million every couple of weeks—oh that it were true! 
We are very happy to let the people decide. I disagree with Mr Chauvel that it is premature; I think it is probably about the right time for the people to have a say. As he has said the number of fringe parties or MMP parties—whatever people like to call them—is reducing. Mr Anderton is off to contest the Christchurch mayoralty although he has not announced it and I think the coiffed fellow who normally sits in front of me will probably go to his well-earned retirement next year. That will leave a spectrum from National on one side to the Maoris us the Greens and Labour which probably reflects the bell curve of New Zealand opinion on many issues. Of course there are cross-party issues as well. As the Hon Pete Hodgson also said very correctly the spectre of the Knesset—I believe the “k” is actually pronounced—with 30 parties and elections every 3 months has never happened here because of the MMP system. 
We are happy to put the system to the vote. It is probably no great surprise to the House to hear that individual members of our party differ on what they prefer. It may surprise the House to hear though that a number of our party are in favour of first past the post which would almost certainly mean our electoral oblivion. But the principle that the people should decide is more important than that so we will certainly be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee and almost certainly beyond that. Thank you.