Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker and I acknowledge the Minister of Justice with whom I've been spending a lot of time today between select committee question time and now engaging in at least one bill before the Parliament. Of course the first reading of this bill the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill is in her name and it is at its heart seeking to design a system that improves representation for Māori in general elections. I should start by saying that we have been clear in the National Party that we are happy to consider a system whereby more flexible arrangements for Māori voters—those who identify as such—could be contemplated. We're not averse to that and at a more fundamental level still we make no issue with the existence of a regime whereby a person can identify as one or t'other and be placed on one roll or the other according to their wish. The question mark in our minds of course and we've been reasonably clear about this in public statements recently I think it's fair to say in the media through our justice spokesperson the Hon Paul Goldsmith but also in other ultimately public forums such as select committee reports—our position has been pretty clear I think that we do not support a system whereby there is an opportunity for what's referred to somewhat coyly as tactical roll-switching. I do note that the Government itself and the Minister's speech just now has confirmed that view that this is something to be avoided. In the case of by-elections quite rightly the bill will not allow electors to transfer from one roll to another with the objection being no doubt that to do so would allow a system where someone could choose to be on one roll or the other at an opportune moment and an opportune place—that is to say where a by-election is taking place—and thereby gain some advantage. We don't know how widespread such a practice would be if allowed. In the case of by-elections of course we don't always know when by-elections will take place and that's the nature of them of course. But the possibility of such a practice and the existence of legislation that would allow that is something that this House should resist. So pleasingly—and I give credit where it's due—in the case of the by-elections the Government has acknowledged this possibility and has moved to guard against it. That exception in itself is subject to an exception whereby it seems that there will be an ability for an elector to switch notwithstanding the fact that a by-election is taking place if it just so happens that there is also a local government election taking place. I think that the Government's proposal in that space rather defeats its own logic elsewhere in the bill so I'd be very interested to see what the select committee may have to say about that in terms of the anomaly and the illogical basis for that exception to the exception even according to the Government's own statement of intent—namely that by-elections should not be subject to the possibility of tactical roll-switching. Of course there is a bigger question as well that we've again highlighted which is about the possibility that voters would be able to switch from one roll to the other up to and including the period in which a general election is being taken. Now anticipating the objections of those who say that that would be different from the case of a by-election because in an MMP environment every vote everywhere is worth the same and therefore there is no such thing as a seat of particular significance in fact the winning or losing of individual electorate seats can be significant. The reason for that includes some of the peculiarities of our MMP system and for those who regard them as peculiar they are nevertheless part of the system's design which is that an overhang in the Parliament can be created if more electorate seats—that is constituency seats as they're referred to in the UK—are obtained than a party's share of the party vote. When they get of course the benefit of the higher of those two numbers and an overhang in the Parliament is created this isn't a fanciful notion. Indeed it has taken place before in relation to terms of the Parliament before my arrival in this place but I think I'm right in saying—well in any case it was during the three terms of the last National Government that the Māori Party obtained I think I'm right in saying two electorate seats but a smaller share of the party vote than would have equated to two seats in this House. So for that reason those were significant and for the similar but reverse situation whereby a party might outperform along the lines of the party vote its result in electorate seats and it might be able to gain one electorate seat but let us say 4.9 percent of the party vote of course under the rules of MMP as they currently are they wouldn't gain any seats in the House by virtue of their 4.9 percent except that the significance of winning a particular electorate seat would allow that to be so and of course they'd get the five or six seats that would be afforded to them at that point. So it is significant to contemplate the result in an individual seat and a combination of such motive and such opportunity as afforded to the bill—namely the roll-switching at any time up to and including the conduct of a general election—means that we can't support the bill. I do want to acknowledge that the Minister has been prepared to engage with us on this particular point. My colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith is our justice spokesperson and so would continue those conversations no doubt and of course at select committee we will engage in good faith with those who submit those who provide official advice and anyone else for that matter who may wish to provide some advice or opinion in this space. The electoral system is of crucial importance to all of us not only all of us here the 120 souls if there are 120 souls—there are 120 people anyway; we can say that much. I'm sort of—Dr Duncan Webb: Are you saying you're soulless Mr Penk? CHRIS PENK: Yeah that's right. I'm getting some legal advice from across the House not to self-incriminate I think. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Privileged of course. CHRIS PENK: Yeah that's right. I'm reminded of that classic saying and I want to attribute to Sir Winston Churchill because of course that's always pretty safe whether it was him or not. He said witheringly of an opponent that an empty car pulled up and the Leader of the Opposition got out or whoever it was who was the target of his opprobrium at the time—so anyway I've gone down a rabbit hole but suffice to say that there are 120 people in this House who are directly affected by these kinds of matters. There are—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Bonus points for quoting Winston Churchill though. CHRIS PENK: Yes that's right. Always bonus points for quoting Winston Churchill—thank you the Hon Michael Woodhouse. So there are many more who want to be in these 120 seats and I say good luck to them. Next year it will be important that we have a democratic process that enables everyone to have a fair and equal and equitable opportunity to enter this place. As I've said our nervousness isn't around either the idea that there could be more flexible arrangements for Māori voters to identify one way or the other nor indeed the basis of the two separate rolls but rather the possibility of illogical opportunities to be provided. I did just want to actually point out as well of course that the existing arrangements are in place for a particular reason. They are afforded to voters who are entitled to identify either as Māori or non-Māori for the purposes of the electoral roll coinciding with the quinquennial exercise that is the census and the census is the basis for understanding the ethnic make-up of our country at that moment in time. The significance of that is manifold and one is of course the provision of services. They might be allocated to different areas where geographical lines are appropriate to ensure that resources are placed in different parts of the country and so on. Similarly we rely on those figures to understand how many of the New Zealand population at that moment in time might be said to be belonging to one roll or the other such that we can have a number of Māori seats and have the remainder being general—that reflects that. So that's the integrity of that system and by saying that the bill doesn't maintain that integrity I don't mean that in an ugly way but it would be a departure from that logical basis on which the arrangements are currently made along with the other calculations that go into the mix in terms of the number of geographical seats versus list seats and so forth. So for those reasons I think I've made it reasonably clear that we don't support the bill in its current form. We will look forward to engaging further and in particular with the possibility that the wrinkles that I've identified can be ironed out at select committee or in any other forum.