Pillay Lynne: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1845] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I rise to say quite clearly that Labour does not support this bill. We heard from the Opposition that it was the will of the people to reduce the number of MPs. The non-binding citizens initiated referendum took place in 1999 after three terms of a National Government. There was disillusionment among the people and I did not blame them as I too felt pretty depressed after the end of those three terms. I truly believe that that vote was a vote of no confidence in the National Government. In fact people voted with their feet and that resulted in the election of a Labour-led Government. I do not believe though that that was a true indication of the feeling of people at the time. 
I have a lot of respect for Barbara Stewart. She is a very well-meaning member. But to amend the Electoral Act to reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 99 would mean we would lose a lot of skills and diversity within our Parliament. It is very important to both our Parliament and our society to have that diversity. I know that the National Party does not think so. If we look across to the National benches we see that those members have burnt off most of their people who are not white or middle-aged—and probably male in most instances. But enough of their leader—let us talk about the bill. 
This legislation has a number of problems. Reducing the number of MPs would reduce the number of members available to sit on select committees. I want to talk about the Justice and Electoral Committee which is a very hard-working and I think effective select committee and it has pretty good leadership. The Labour members on that who comprise a combination of electorate and list MPs contribute greatly to the committee as does Nandor Tanczos a list member from the Green Party. Chris Finlayson who is a list member also contributes a lot of common sense to the committee. We may not always agree on everything but it is an indictment on the National Party for it not to acknowledge the contribution made by its list members. 
We in Labour are not like that. Our new people who came in under this Government include Darien Fenton. She is a real asset to this party. We have Maryan Street who has had a very diverse background including in health. Sue Moroney played an integral part in the changes to the racing situation—or will some time in the future. We know that Shane Jones is a real asset to our party. This would not have happened if we did not have the numbers associated with MMP. 
I accept that on the other side of the House—and I know from my own electorate—we see from time to time some list members who really do not pull their weight. My sympathy is for the National Party in that but that is no reason to cut the numbers of MPs. 
Professor Nigel Roberts head of political science and international relations at Victoria University has said quite clearly that if we lop off 20 list seats there will be problems. The fewer list seats available the greater the chance there will be an overhang. In terms of getting a representation that is truly representative of New Zealand—as we see in other parties in this House but certainly not in the National Party—it is really really important to retain those numbers. I am proud that Labour is being upfront in opposing this bill.