Dunne Peter: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1842] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to begin by congratulating the member Barbara Stewart who has brought this bill to the House because she has focused attention on what is a critical issue for a number of people. But I say to her that although we respect her ability in bringing the bill forward United Future will not be supporting it. 
I want to outline the reasons why. This bill essentially proposes to take the House back to where it was in 1993 prior to the introduction of the MMP electoral system by providing for 100 members of Parliament. One of the immediate difficulties that arises is that between 1993 and the present the population of New Zealand has increased by just under 18 percent yet this bill contains no mechanism for recognising that adjustment. In fact if we were to go back to the point we were at in 1993 and calculate the number of seats on the same basis that we would have at that time Parliament would now comprise around 115 or 116 members. So we see little point in going back to a situation whereby we might end up pretty much back where we were at the time before the Electoral Act was passed. That is the first point we have by way of difference with this bill. 
The second point deals with our MMP system. I note—and I assume from the member’s comments—that there is no intention to overturn that so this would be MMP with fewer members than we have at the moment. But the bill does not specify the split between list and electorate seats. I want the House to recall that at the time MMP was introduced it was argued that for the sake of proportionality we needed to have a fifty-fifty split between list and electorate members. In fact we have never had that because the MMP system effectively caps the number of seats at 120 barring overhangs and any adjustment upwards in the number of electorate seats is at the expense of list seats. So instead of having 60 list seats and 60 constituency seats we now have 69 constituency seats and 51 list seats. That problem will get worse as the population increases. Adjusting downwards the number of members of Parliament will simply exacerbate that in the absence of any wider consideration of the nature of the electoral system. 
We say that the bill is well intentioned and I recognise the work that Margaret Robertson and her supporters did back in 1999 and the public mood at the time but the bill would not work as it is currently drafted. The issue that I think we ought to be considering frankly is not so much whether we reduce the number of members of Parliament but when the current system is reviewed should we maintain the fact that there is no upward cap? How long can we go on increasing the number of general seats by three or four each census period—and maybe one or two more depending on the outcome of the Maori option—at the expense of list seats before we seriously disturb the proportionality within the MMP system at the moment? It is already quite seriously disturbed. The idea that we have one for one never eventuated even in 1996 and as I say the deficit is now 18. I imagine that on current population projections it will be somewhere over 73 or 74 general seats at the next election and we will be down to about 45 or 46 list seats. That will carry on. Until we address that point by considering whether we need a cap we will not make progress. 
I respect the member’s motives entirely and as I say I congratulate her on her initiative but the changes proposed in this bill would not work. The bigger issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee needs to look at is how the current system works how long we can tolerate the imbalance between list seats and electorate seats that we have at the moment and whether the number of voters per constituency seats should be reviewed or whether we should look at removing the cap on the number of seats altogether. Until we do that we will not get the benefits of MMP that its advocates ascribed to it all those years ago. I think that is the area we should be making our focus.