Twyford Phil: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
Twyford Phil: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10420] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 A number of colleagues have prefaced their comments this afternoon by saying what a privilege it is to be contributing to this debate about our democracy. I want to add my name to that list; it is a privilege. It seems that we have been talking about democracy a lot in recent times. We have been discussing for the last year really in a kind of running battle the future of Auckland’s democracy. I am very very aware of how strongly people in my city feel about the changes that are being made to their democracy. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is that North Shore Waitakere or Auckland? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: To Auckland City. We have also been debating the plight of Environment Canterbury where elections have been suspended for 3½ years. Feelings are running high in Canterbury right now. 
Looking further back from this debate I think that the consideration of the Electoral Referendum Bill really comes against the backdrop of the 2005 election and the chain of events that a number of colleagues have already referred to which saw the “hollow men” as we have come to know them and particularly the Exclusive Brethren spend upwards of a million dollars trying to buy the result of an election campaign. Since then there has been the rather unhappy progress of the Electoral Finance Act and to my mind the really unfortunate failure of this House to build a lasting consensus about the need to limit the influence of big money in our political system. 
So that is the backdrop. My colleague Charles Chauvel has already commented on Labour’s view that this review is perhaps premature but I will nevertheless add my voice to those who recognise that the Minister of Justice has been responsible for running the process that has led to the bill this far a process that has been fair reasonable inclusive and transparent. I think that the credit that Simon Power has had in this House and from commentators outside is well deserved; the process I think is good. 
As we know the bill sets out a process for two referenda. The first referendum will be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election and will offer voters the opportunity for change. It will ask them whether they want to continue with MMP or whether they would like to choose one of a number of alternative electoral systems—and those are the systems that were dealt with by the royal commission. If MMP wins the 50 percent or more that it needs it will be retained and that would then trigger an independent review by the Electoral Commission. If the change option wins a majority then we will see a second referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2014 general election. I think that that gives people plenty of time to debate the issues and to try to build a consensus. As I said I am of the view that that is a fair process. 
I particularly want to recognise that out of the debate and out of the consultation we have a second track in this bill that will allow a review of MMP. On this side of the House members felt that that was extremely important and I acknowledge the fact that that review has been built into this bill. I also cut my teeth politically during the Muldoon years as did a number of colleagues. David Garrett Chris Tremain and others have said they were influenced by the Muldoon years and often felt that New Zealand was living under a kind of dictatorship during the 1980s that went on for ever and ever. 
I think that in many ways for many of our generation it was that experience that whetted the appetite for electoral reform. There is no doubt that the actions of Governments in the 1980s and 1990s sharpened the hunger of New Zealanders for electoral reform that would deliver a more consultative democratic and representative system. In the years after the MMP system was introduced it was often difficult to find anybody in New Zealand who would actually admit to having voted for MMP. Those initial years after MMP came in were quite rocky and we had to wonder at times whether the system would last because the level of public disenchantment was so high. But I as an MMP supporter am glad that successive Governments and Parliaments have got much better at managing MMP and have learnt how to make the system work. It is gratifying to me to see that the level of public support—that which is indicated by the polling anyway—shows that the public feel I think pretty good about MMP. Nevertheless I am sure they will relish the chance to have their say in those referenda. 
I think as others have said before me that MMP has delivered a much more representative Parliament—a Parliament that looks much more like New Zealand—and I think that that is hugely important. It is also mathematically representative in that perhaps of all the systems on offer MMP is truly representative when we do the numbers. That gives it a legitimacy that is important especially if we are concerned about stemming the downward trend of voter turn-out. 
So I think that for all those reasons I am a fan of MMP. I know that some people feel that it has not delivered the kind of desired consensus politics the kind of conflict-free cooperation that some people had misty eyes thinking about when they thought that that would be delivered by MMP. It has not delivered that but in spite of some of the more frustrating aspects that we see—the tail wagging the dog etc.—I still believe that MMP has produced a much more inclusive and negotiated politics that is good for New Zealand. 
So I will be supporting MMP in this referendum. Under clause 56 of the bill we see that when the Electoral Commission does its review it will examine some of the more irritating aspects that the public often raise—for example the question of the 5 percent threshold that has allowed ACT to have five MPs in this House even though it earned 1 percent less of the popular vote than did New Zealand First at the last election; and New Zealand First as we know is no longer here. I think that particularly is one of the aspects of MMP that needs review. 
I do not have strong views about the overhang or dual candidacy. I think it would be interesting to see a review of a party’s ability to determine the order of candidates on the party list. We do not have a fixed view on that but perhaps it would be more democratic in the way that a primary election is to allow the public a say in determining party lists. I think there is quite a lot of interest and support out there for that. 
I want to also comment as Labour and Green colleagues before me have on the question of advertising rules and the loophole in this bill that allows third parties parallel campaigners to pretty much have a free hand in spending whatever they want to spend in seeking to influence the outcome of this referendum. All that they have to do is to register if they will be spending more than $12000. I think that that is simply not good enough. I support Paul Quinn’s idea of a value cap; that would be fine. Actually most people who contribute voluntary labour to an election campaign like this would contribute nothing like the kind of value that big business and wealthy donors are capable of contributing. It is a nonsense to say the issue is simply about freedom of expression. There is a balance to be struck here between freedom of expression and people who will wield undue influence in our democratic process. This bill does not appear to even recognise that there is a balance to be struck. As Charles Chauvel said even in the United States which we always reference as the place where big money corrupts the election process there have been serious efforts in recent years to regulate and protect freedom of expression.