Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionElectoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:35. Text is subject to correction.]Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment BillFirst ReadingIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I move That the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Justice and Electoral Committee be instructed that as part of its consideration of the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill it may consider any amendment based upon the recommendations of the MMP review conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2012. This bill is the result of a long process that is worth recalling in order to give the bill some context. It began with the announcement by the Government that it would hold a referendum on whether or not New Zealand should continue to use MMP as our system for electing our Parliament. As part of the legislation that enacted that referendum it was agreed by Parliament that should New Zealand vote in favour of retaining MMP a review would be carried out to consider some of the issues that members of Parliament on all sides understood that the public had around MMP. In the event it did come to pass that New Zealanders did vote to retain MMP but it was clear to us all that there were issues with the system that the public wanted us to address. So the review as legislated for was carried out and the review reported back to Parliament with a number of recommendations.At the time the Minister of Justice referred the review to the leaders of all political parties represented in Parliament at the time asking for their views on the recommendations of the MMP review and each political party responded to the Minister of Justice with their views on each of those recommendations. At that point the Minister of Justice declared that there was no consensus and the process stopped. It was in response to the fact that the process was not going to be continued by the Government that my former colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel drafted this legislation. Upon her retirement from Parliament I picked up the legislation and shortly after I did that it was drawn from the ballot.The bill does three things. First it abolishes the one-seat threshold that allows parties that do not reach the party vote threshold to bring list MPs into Parliament; secondly it reduces the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent; and thirdly it allows for a review of the party vote threshold after three elections with the new party vote threshold in place. It is important that we consider why we need to implement these recommendations from the MMP review. The one-seat threshold has never really served any real purpose in the New Zealand context.Chris Bishop: It increases proportionality.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will address the point that Chris Bishop has interjected on. The one-seat threshold was simply a carry-over from the German system. In the German system there are a number of states. There are regional parties that must reach a three-electorate threshold in order to bring list MPs into the federal Parliament and that has actually occurred only on four occasions since MMP was introduced to the German system in 1949. The royal commission that recommended the shift to MMP recommended the one-seat threshold in the context of abolishing the Māori seats. Of course Māori seats were never abolished and therefore the one-seat threshold was never required. I do accept the point made by Chris Bishop that a consequence of retaining the one-seat threshold is that it can in certain circumstances increase proportionality but that was not the purpose for introducing the one-seat threshold. In fact it increases proportionality on an ad hoc basis. It increases proportionality only when parties win one seat or more and when those parties gain enough party votes to bring additional list MPs into Parliament. There are better ways of increasing proportionality and that includes reducing the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent.Moreover and most important in the public’s mind is the fact that the one-seat threshold which serves no real purpose has become something that has been abused by political parties. What has occurred is political parties have made deals with parties that may support them in Parliament by essentially giving up a seat and encouraging voters to vote for the other political party knowing that that political party will not reach the party-vote threshold but has an opportunity to bring MPs into Parliament through the one-seat threshold. That is a situation that New Zealanders have resoundingly told us they are sick of. It does not matter which parties do it—it does not matter which parties do it—it is simply something that New Zealanders have loudly and clearly told us they are sick of and they want us as MPs to address this issue whether or not we in our political parties stand to gain from it personally.The other thing that this bill does is it reduces the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent. That is out of acknowledgement of the fact that getting rid of the one-seat threshold does have an impact in certain circumstances on proportionality. In fact reducing the party-vote threshold ensures that proportionality is increased as every election and that there is a clear rule that everybody has to meet. Every party if it reaches the 4 percent threshold has the right to bring list MPs into Parliament. That is clear and it affects everybody and it is the case at every election. It is not an ad hoc way of increasing proportionality—only in the event that parties win one seat and only in the event that those parties gain enough party votes to bring additional MPs into the House.I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding this legislation. First is that there is apparently no consensus. Well in fact there has been no opportunity for political parties to reach consensus. We were given an opportunity to provide our opening position the position from which we would be prepared to negotiate with other parties. But what we were not given was the opportunity to carry out that negotiation—the opportunity to reach consensus. Sending this bill to a select committee is in fact that opportunity to reach that consensus. Secondly the issue was raised that not all the recommendations of the MMP review were contained in this bill. I actually appreciate that concern that has been raised and as I began my contribution it is my intention in the event that this bill passes first reading and is sent to the select committee to move an instruction to the select committee to consider all recommendations of the MMP review. That then gives us the opportunity to consider the recommendations as a package and reach consensus around them.However on the issue of consensus I would say there is a very clear consensus and that is the consensus amongst the New Zealand public the voters who put us here the people who have clearly said they want us to address this issue. In a UMR poll 71 percent of those polled were in favour of abolishing the one-seat threshold. Just 13 percent were against and 16 percent were unsure. It is clear in the minds of New Zealanders that the one-seat threshold—coat-tailing as it has come to be known—is unacceptable and the public no longer tolerates it. They want us as parliamentarians to address this issue. So those who vote against this system will be seen in the public as putting their own interests and their own party’s interests ahead of making an amendment to our electoral system that makes it stronger more robust and more closely aligned with the way New Zealanders want our electoral system to work. So I do ask members of Parliament to put a strong and robust electoral system ahead of our own interests. Send this bill to a select committee let us consider all the recommendations of the MMP review and let us craft an electoral system that New Zealanders can have faith in.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):I want to firstly congratulate Iain Lees-Galloway on bringing this bill to the House. It is always—Chris Bishop: Don’t do that. He doesn’t deserve any congratulations.JACQUI DEAN: Of course he does. Every member deserves congratulations on bringing a member’s bill to the House. It is a great privilege for a member of Parliament to have the ability to bring a member’s bill to the House and with that privilege comes a high degree of responsibility. And therein lies one of the issues I have with this member’s bill. It is to do with the fact that it is completely out of date and that concerns me. For a member who comes to the House and wishes to implement quite sweeping changes to the Electoral Act across a number of fronts he brings a faulty bill to the New Zealand Parliament. I find it extraordinary that a member would do that and it rather undermines any argument that that member might advance towards his bill.So if we go back in history a little in respect of the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill—the member himself wished to go back in history so let us do our own little bit of history—we recall that this is a bill that was first brought to the House by the Hon Maryan Street—Iain Lees-Galloway: No Lianne Dalziel.JACQUI DEAN: I beg your pardon. It was Lianne Dalziel back in 2012; that is right. So back in 2012 the bill sat in the ballot as do a number of bills and it was not drawn by the time of the 2014 election—oh well—Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes it was.JACQUI DEAN: Well it was not drawn by the time the Hon Lianne Dalziel left the House. I am thanking the member for helping me with the history because here we get to the nub of the argument. This is the member’s history of course which is why I am seeking his help with it and I am grateful for it. But if the member cares so much about the history around this bill then maybe he might have thought to update the objectives of the bill which I would have thought were pretty pertinent to the debate at hand. So I would invite that member to approach the Table and pick up a copy of what is now his bill. He did pick it up on behalf of the Hon Lianne Dalziel who left Parliament and promoted it as his own bill and he has argued very passionately in this House this afternoon towards the objectives of the bill.Unfortunately the objectives are out of date.Iain Lees-Galloway: Hope to get to the substance.JACQUI DEAN: Well you see now the member is trying to defend himself by saying that this is not the substance of the bill.Iain Lees-Galloway: But you haven’t actually told me what I’ve done wrong yet Jacqui.JACQUI DEAN: Well let me help the member and I will read from page 1 of the bill “Objectives”. These are Iain Lees-Galloway’s words: “This Bill proposes to implement the main recommendations of the Electoral Commission review of MMP in time for the 2014 election.” This bill is out of date—this bill is out of date. This member did not take the opportunity to update the wording in his own bill.Iain Lees-Galloway: Ha ha! Own goal—beautiful own goal Jacqui. Well done. Is this the best you can do?JACQUI DEAN: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The first point—[Interruption] No the first point of order was from Jacqui Dean. I will hear Jacqui Dean.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Rare and reasonable interjections are fine but I think a barrage of shouting is a little unreasonable.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that. I hear what the honourable member is saying. I did indicate to the member who was interjecting Iain Lees-Galloway that it was unacceptable and I know he will not do it again because I am not in the frame.JACQUI DEAN: Thank so much Mr Assistant Speaker. I do find it distressing that even now the member has not caught on if you like to the fact that he did not take the opportunity when he assumed ownership of this bill to update the bill and felt that it was acceptable to bring a bill to the House in this state.I will just turn perhaps to page 2. Right at the very bottom—the member may care to do that; he clearly has not looked at this bill since he assumed it. Maybe he might have taken the time before bringing the bill to the House to have a look at the final sentence on page 2: “That is why in order to keep faith with the integrity of the referendum these changes must be implemented in time for the 2014 general election.” Is this lazy work on behalf of this member? It is indeed very lazy work on behalf of this member who could not even read the bill—his own bill. It is pretty symptomatic of that party I would contend. He is too lazy to read his own bill before he resubmitted it in the ballot and now we have an objective in the bill that is out of date.However—Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re a star.JACQUI DEAN: I think he has been hurt a bit because he is getting a bit personal. I think that may have cut a little bit deep. However—Iain Lees-Galloway: No I feel bad for you Jacqui because you are making such a fool of yourself.JACQUI DEAN: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Similar to my first point of order rare and reasonable interjections are fine I know but a barrage of noise—perhaps not.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member is saying and I will just ask that from now on we actually concentrate on the substance—[Interruption] I am on my feet; well I am standing—of what is in a first reading and that there be some material now related with 4 minutes to go to what is actually in the bill. Thank you.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So it is no surprise I would imagine that National does not support this bill. National opposes this bill. It is shoddy it is lazy and it takes no account of the proper processes that underpin the electoral process in New Zealand. New Zealand is so fortunate that our electoral system has a very high level of integrity. I would have thought that any member bringing a bill to this House around the electoral system would have presented a bill that at least was not so laughably out of date.Prior to the last election new electoral laws were passed—which is why it is so embarrassing that this member has brought this bill to the House now—to provide better services to voters candidates and political parties. A number of changes were made to enable people to enrol and update their details fully online which is very beneficial particularly for people residing overseas. The law was changed to make loans to parties subject to disclosure rules for greater transparency in our electoral law and to allow parties to lodge bulk candidate nomination and party list documents by email. Good process underlined and underpinned those changes. Good process is integral to good electoral law not I would imagine out-of-date lazy members’ bills. It is important to continuously improve our law and processes in light of changing—Iain Lees-Galloway: It was drawn on 14 November 2013. Didn’t you bother to read that?JACQUI DEAN: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am attempting to make a contribution to this debate but there is a barrage of noise coming across.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No look this is a debating chamber—[Interruption] I do not want any comments when I am ruling. This is a debating chamber. I am the judge of whether I feel that the barracking is unacceptable and in that case I did not accept that it was. So with 2 minutes remaining I will ask the member to continue.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I invite the member who is obviously so passionate about this issue that he presented a bill to the House that is horrendously out of date to make a submission to the inquiry into the 2014 general election. Although the member may feel that a way to influence electoral law is to do it by way of a member’s bill I believe that a more substantive and responsible way is to in fact make a submission to the inquiry into the general election. In fact I invite the member to do that. In fact I will go further than that. I challenge the member to do that because he raises some substantive issues that of course have been raised in the review already. We have kept in the Justice and Electoral Committee the terms of reference deliberately wide and open so that all views can be heard. Instead of cherry-picking a few recommendations or a couple of issues that were originally from a previous member of this House—nothing wrong with that—it would be better in my view when we are looking at electoral law to look at it as a whole. That is a process with far more integrity than just looking at one narrow part of electoral law.So in closing National will not be supporting this out-of-date narrowly focused bill that has been picked up by Iain Lees-Galloway but I invite—and indeed challenge—him to make a submission in the proper place which is to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s review of the 2014 general election. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I have to start my contribution in this House first by thanking the member Iain Lees-Galloway for bringing a bill that generally has a consensus view in the public that this is something that this Parliament should do. So that is my first point: my thanks to him for bringing to Parliament something that the Government should have actually brought here but did not so we are being forced to have this debate via a member’s bill.Second though to begin my contribution I want to rebut what Jacqui Dean the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee had to say. I have great respect for the chair; I think she is an excellent chair and I enjoy being a member of her committee. What she failed to acknowledge in her contribution—which seemed to focus solely on first the date of the implementation of this bill and second whether or not it is the most appropriate mechanism; she failed to make any other substantive statement on the content of the bill itself—is that the bill was drawn on 14 November 2013. It was perfectly reasonable for the bill to make reference to its coming into force in 2014 because of when it was drafted. Of course all members of the House know that commencement dates change frequently because bills are frequently delayed. So the only point that the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee just made was actually to remind this House of how members’ bills can drag. Members’ bills can drag particularly when there are elections in between so I think it is unfair of that speaker to have called this member Iain Lees-Galloway lazy. It is absolutely outrageous when there is a very reasonable explanation for why we have the date that we have on this bill.The second substantive point that she made in her contribution was the notion that there are better ways to bring up an issue like reform of our electoral system. We probably would not disagree with that. We believe—we would have probably preferred this—that the Government should ideally have taken the review recommendations of the Electoral Commission its full report on MMP and the voting system and should simply have packaged them together as a bill for this Parliament to debate; that the Government should have put to the floor the issues that were raised by that review and let us decide.Chris Bishop: By consensus.JACINDA ARDERN: That would have been a reasonable way for us to have that discussion. The Government did not do that. So what are we left with except the option of using mechanisms like members’ bills? I believe absolutely that Iain Lees-Galloway has done the right thing by bringing this bill to the House in this form.The member across the way starts raising the issue of building consensus around this issue. We have to acknowledge that in the past there has not been consensus on some significant electoral reforms. There were divergent views on issues like whether we should have MMP as an electoral system. The problem is that when you have got political parties debating issues like this self-interest is going to come into it. With all due respect do we really believe that ACT is going to want to get rid of a provision that allows it to have greater representation in Parliament? Really? Although I respect the member’s ability to step away from issues and take a non-personal approach and rather to take a considered view it is probably a bit of a stretch to ask him to go that far. I would welcome a counterview from the member but obviously smaller parties that have relied on the threshold before and the life raft position within this bill are probably going to want to support it.Jami-Lee Ross: Labour is doing what is in its best interest too.JACINDA ARDERN: Jami-Lee Ross says that Labour has some self-interest in this bill. I welcome him to stand up and go through all of that self-interest. Ultimately we just want good electoral reform to the point that Iain Lees-Galloway has written to every member of this House and has said that for all of the other issues that were in the MMP report by the Electoral Commission let us debate every single one of them at select committee. Let us put them on the table. Let us have a discussion. If you think that we are simply just cherry-picking if the members think that then be willing to send this bill to select committee to discuss every single recommendation and to bring it back to this House.If there is a view that there is not consensus in Parliament I can tell you that the one place where there is consensus on this issue is among the general public. In a survey in December 2013 71 percent of people wanted an end to coat-tailing. In a Stuff poll in 2014 81 percent of people wanted an end to coat-tailing. The people have formed consensus around this issue and yet unfortunately we still have a view among some MPs that this is not something that we should proceed with. We should. It would improve our electoral system. I hope that the bill is sent to select committee so that we can have a decent debate.JONO NAYLOR (National):Thank you for the opportunity to be able to rise and take a call on this bill. If there was ever a bill that was an answer looking for a problem it seems to me that this is it. Actually I am surprised that the member who has brought this forward given his Midas touch history with members’ bills actually has wasted the opportunity on such a bill. But there you go. I guess we have got to put anything forward that we think may get somewhere.There are three main parts of this legislation and I want to address each of them in turn. The first one is the reduction of the threshold from 5 percent down to 4 percent. I have got to say that neither in reading the background or the introduction to the bill nor in any of the arguments that I have seen put forward today have I heard any plausible rationale for that. You could argue that 5 percent is in fact just a random number to some degree and that there is not necessarily particular meaning attached to 5 percent. But neither is there to 4 percent. So if we are going to change it from 5 percent to 4 percent then why are we not changing it to 3 percent? Or perhaps the Conservatives might like 3.6 percent after last time? It has equal meaning to say 3.6 percent 2 percent 4 percent 5 percent—to me there is nothing specific that really says that we need to pick just another random number.In fact when we look at the other countries around world that use a proportional system there is a wide range of numbers that are used. Actually the most common number used is 5 percent but they vary anything from 10 percent in Turkey down to 0.67 percent in the Netherlands. From my perspective until I hear a specific rationale that says 4 percent is somehow more of a magic number than 5 percent and is one that is convincing to me—and yes I have seen some arguments; what I am saying is that I am not convinced by them—that is an important part of it.Arguably Germany has got a very system operating. A lot of people talk about the success of the German MMP system and it uses 5 percent. Yes its threshold is three seats to our one seat in terms of the seat threshold perspective but what you have got to remember of course is that Germany has 631 seats in its Parliament. So proportionately the three-seat threshold in Germany is far lower than the one-seat threshold in the system we use in New Zealand.When it comes to abolishing the one-seat threshold—coat-tailing as others have described it—initially I did have some sympathy for this. You know when you look at the 2008 example that has been used at face value to some people it does seem unfair and at face value it could seem unfair. However I think that unless you are going to do away with thresholds altogether in terms of percentages actually they are really important. If a person from a party by winning their seat finds themselves in Parliament it seems absolutely ludicrous to me that other people from their party if they have achieved some level of proportionality above the one seat allocation should not be there. There is no justice in excluding them if the party is in Parliament. So I think there is no reason that I can see to do away with that if it is about fairness because whichever way you cut the cake there is always going to be some argument against fairness. There is no perfect system; we have just got to get the best system we can.In fact I have heard it argued plenty of times over the years when we have had parties represented in Parliament that have not even actually managed to win any seats. It seems a little bit weird to me that sometimes we have parties represented—yes they might have got 5 percent or 6 percent of the vote—but none of the people in their party were able to win an electorate seat. Some people have said that perhaps we need to have at least one seat plus whatever percentage you get. There are all sorts of permutations that we could come up with but I do not think that discussing this bill any further is going to take us any further.Finally it says in this bill that we should review it every 3 years—to put that in legislation.Iain Lees-Galloway: No after 3 years.JONO NAYLOR: Every three elections—sorry my correction.Iain Lees-Galloway: After three elections. Not every three elections; after three elections.JONO NAYLOR: After three elections there should be a review. Well I am quite confident that any Parliament will take a review if and when it is required. At the moment I do not see the need for us to change anything and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green):It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill. This bill aims to do a number of things that came up during the MMP review conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2012. The Green Party at the time really supported the review and noted that it was a Government review that was brought about because of its own coalition agreement. Although the Green Party has an electoral reform plan and set of policies that are different in some part from the recommendations that the Electoral Commission came up with we said that we would support the changes that were recommended by the Electoral Commission because they were changes recommended by the Electoral Commission. It had done a great deal of work. It had taken submissions and I personally submitted on that. It took a great deal of time and thorough consideration to arrive at the conclusions that it did. The proposals that it made whether or not we actually disagreed with them were ones that were well-considered by the Electoral Commission and then were completely shelved by this Government because they were inconvenient to this Government’s short-term interests. That was unfortunate. It was unfortunate that we wasted the resources and the time of the Electoral Commission. It was unfortunate that we spent the money on that review and then did precisely nothing with it.So for those reasons we support Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill because it does advance at least some of the recommendations that were outlined in the Electoral Commission’s review. The three main recommendations were to remove the one electoral seat threshold to lower the party vote threshold to 4 percent and to review the party vote threshold after three general elections. I just want to respond to some of the points raised by the previous speaker Jono Naylor where he was kicking around a number of other options. I am sure the Electoral Commission did consider them as it was moving through its deliberations. Given that the Electoral Commission deliberated on those and then chose the recommendations that it did I do not think it is helpful now to kick around a whole bunch of other things that have already been considered.We do support this bill. The most important part here and the reason why we supported this one at the time is that public opinion and faith in the MMP system is degraded by the presence of the one seat rule. We recognise that that is not convenient necessarily to all of the parties in this House but there is a greater need here I think which is the requirement for integrity in the system in the sense of public faith that the system is a good one and at least has the perception of fairness although I note as Mr Naylor said that that could be a relative thing. It is pretty apparent that a significant portion of New Zealand voters consider that the one-seat threshold is a rort. The media keep using the same thing when talking about for example Epsom and Ōhāriu. They refer to those two cases as kind of examples of how political parties undermine the overall system and use it to—Chris Bishop: A bit like Coromandel in 1999.JAMES SHAW: —I am just reporting what people say Chris—undermine and get around the electoral system. We know that this bill is not going to be supported by the Government for the same reason that the Electoral Commission’s report and recommendations were also not supported by the Government. But if they were then that would restore some level of faith or increased faith in MMP. It would be great if this issue did not have to come up via a member’s bill. It would have been better if the Justice and Electoral Committee took another look at those recommendations because any time you change the electoral system it is going to have winners and losers in terms of the MPs and parties that are in Parliament. One option would be to grandfather this bill out so that it takes effect in two or three elections’ time so that current MPs and parties—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but the honourable member’s time has expired.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura):Look it is probably my fault you know. I was the Minister of Justice who really could possibly have spent the next 2 years trying to get consensus amongst seven different parties in Parliament. If only I had done that we could today have Colin Craig as an MP. If only I had done that. I mean for goodness’ sake! Let us have a look at the results. We have talked a lot today about this. [Interruption] That would have been good—and by the way all the rest of them. The Conservatives had 3.97 percent out of the 2014 election. Do you really think that if we had gone to that election with a 4 percent threshold the party could not have got another 0.03 percent? It would have been a doozy and we would have had that.Who actually benefited out of this so-called coat-tail one-seat threshold in this particular election the last one? The only one actually is the Māori Party. We would have had one member. I do not know how the Greens would feel about that. Did they really not want Miss Marama Fox in here? Let us go back to the 2011 election result. I know that these are facts and they do not like that in the Labour Party. But let us have a look at it. What have we got? The Mana party were in here. It was not supporting the Government was it? It was 1.08 percent of the vote and apparently that is no good either.Let us just go back a little bit more to 2008. Oh we had Mr Jim Anderton’s Progressive party. I have heard Mr James Shaw who has never won an electorate seat and never will talking today about—[Interruption] No he has not. He was talking about Epsom and Ōhāriu. Apparently the people do not like it. Which people do not like it? Clearly the people in Epsom and Ōhāriu do not mind because guess what? The people in Wigram were asked by the Labour Party to vote for Mr Jim Anderton’s Progressive party and guess how much he got—0.91 percent. It was not even 1 percent. He was just a minnow compared to that fabulous Conservative Party.Let us go back to 2005—an election that Labour claimed. What did we have here? Who was coat-tailing then? Well the ACT Party. It coat-tailed. It got 1.51 percent. It got Epsom and it also got one more MP. But actually Mr Peter Dunne’s United Future New Zealand Party which at that stage supported the Labour Government got 2.67 percent and he got one seat. But in the end he got three seats after his electorate seat. I did not hear the Labour Party members all crying about that one. No actually they were very happy to take Mr Peter Dunne’s party and also Mr Jim Anderton’s Progressive party. That was an election where we had eight parties represented here in Government and four of those parties had fewer votes in terms of the percentage than the Conservative Party at the last election. So maybe we should drop the threshold a bit more down to 2 percent.Let us go back to 2002. Guess who was coat-tailing again. Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition party. Guess how many seats it won in the electorate seats—one. Guess how much of a percentage of the vote it won. Hmm—1.70 percent. And guess how many seats in Parliament it got.Tim Macindoe: Two.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Two. You are so right Mr Macindoe: two. [Interruption] Mr Seymour you got that and Mrs Tolley. My goodness gracious. And guess who was crying about that then. The Labour Party? Mr Iain Lees-Galloway? Any distraught people from the left? No.The fact is if you can win an electorate seat in Parliament that means there are enough people there 60000-odd voters who think there is a little bit of sanity in that party. It actually brings in a bit of sanity and it actually means that a party has to go back to the electorate and say “Well this is what we’ve been doing.” and it actually stops people being complete fruit loops when it comes to politics. But when you have got parties that have no respect for electorates no respect for the work that goes on representing people whether they vote for you or not—people like Mr Shaw who is a nice chap but really he showed his colours today. He says that he submitted to the Electoral Commission so therefore he represents the people. Let me tell you this: most people did not submit. There is a reason. The only people generally who submitted were absolutely into politics and had an agenda and unfortunately I just could not get consensus. But is it not a good thing I did not otherwise we would have Colin Craig here.RON MARK (NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am going to ask for your forbearance. It has come to my attention—and I need to start by saying this is the first opportunity that I have had to come and raise this point of order in the House. It is regarding a matter that I think you should take very seriously. It has been reported back through my office to me that in this debate at a time when the honourable Jacqui Dean was speaking a member on the Government benches made a very unparliamentary comment about you Mr Assistant Speaker. At this point in time Chris Bishop has not stood to withdraw and apologise—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! A point of order was raised at that time. I indicated to the person who made that comment that it was unacceptable. Although I did not take it further than that the point was made and I ruled at that time and that was the end of the matter. So there is no further discussion on it. I acted on it at the time. I am calling the next speaker.RON MARK (NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hope you are not going to be—RON MARK: Just to be sure are we talking about the same incident? This was not clearly audible to you. You gave no sign. My reports from the people who had been listening and watching were that you did not act on this particular occurrence from Chris Bishop because you did not hear it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well if a member in the House had heard something at the time they would have brought it to my attention. There was nothing brought to my attention at the time. You cannot at a later stage come in and say something happened. It has to be dealt with at the time. I did deal with an issue that came up. A point of order did come up from Chris Bishop and I dealt with that at the time just as I did with Jacqui Dean at the time. [Interruption] Order! I am trying to rule here. At any point if some indiscretion has happened it must be dealt with at the time not at a later stage. So as far as I am concerned that matter is over and we are now moving on with the debate.RON MARK (NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hope you are not going to relitigate what I have just ruled on.RON MARK: I am not going to relitigate that incident but I am going to make a request of you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): What is the point you are making?RON MARK: The question is if an incident such as the one just described occurs and a person is unable to get to the House for some time is that not considered to be the earliest possible moment? Could you please deliberate on that and give us a ruling because this means that if no one else heard it but one person and that person was on the motorway driving and it might take half an hour or an hour for that person to get to the House—if you are saying that because it was not raised at that very—[Interruption] Points of order should be heard in silence Anne Tolley—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will sit—[Interruption] Order! The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. I have ruled on this matter and as the Clerk has just informed me if there are matters where someone feels aggrieved or an indiscretion has happened they have to be brought up at the time by someone who was present. You cannot come back at a later stage and then indicate that you feel aggrieved because one heard something by way of audio or by way of television. I have ruled on this matter and that is the end of the story. We are now moving on to the next speaker.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on this matter Mr Peters and I hope that this is a new matter.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a new matter.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Then I will hear the new matter—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is your very reputation we are seeking to defend Mr Assistant Speaker. Do you recall that there is a precedent that is opposite to the one that the Clerk has just given you? It was when my colleague made a sign in this House which was later picked up by a camera and then long after the event long after the time frame that we have got here it was raised in this House as being improper behaviour. Mr Assistant Speaker I have heard the Clerk’s ruling but there is a precedent outside of that ruling and my colleague unfortunately is the centre of that precedent. That is why I am asking you—is the Clerk sure of his facts here?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I will ask Chris Bishop when he made a comment that someone might have taken offence that is—Hon Anne Tolley: Point of order—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No I am just asking first whether Chris Bishop said something that I was unaware of and it was directed at me I understand. If he did—Chris Bishop: Mr Assistant Speaker I think—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No just answer my question. Did you or did you not make a comment that reflected on the Speaker?CHRIS BISHOP (National):I was reflecting back what Mr Lees-Galloway was saying to my colleague Jacqui Dean and pointing out that the reference to you—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is right. Well that is exactly—[Interruption] Order! Thank you. And that is—[Interruption] The member will stop thank you. That is exactly—[Interruption] Order! Order now! I heard the comments made by Mr Iain Lees-Galloway on two occasions. At the time I indicated to Mr Lees-Galloway that that was unacceptable. He acknowledged that. At the time of the two points of order first by Jacqui Dean about barracking I dealt with that matter. Chris Bishop then indicated his point of order which was in reference to what Mr Lees-Galloway had said and I ruled on that matter at the time end of story. Now we are moving to the debate.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just think it is important as we discuss this—and I am not trying to relitigate but in fact the matter that the Rt Hon Winston Peters raised was absolutely incorrect. And I would hate that to stand on record because in fact Ron Mark denied that he had made that unparliamentary comment and was caught out simply because someone was signing—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look this has got nothing to do with this. The member will sit. We are not delving into it. I am going to call Denis O’Rourke as the next speaker. Denis O’Rourke.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No I have dealt with this matter Mr Peters. [Interruption] I have dealt with it and I do not want to hear any more. Will the member—[Interruption] We are moving on.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I seek leave therefore to table not the comment that was offensive as the member just said but the photograph that was the offence. I seek leave to do that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. I am calling the next speaker.DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will support this bill only to the select committee at this stage. And I might say that the reason mainly for that is that that is what the public of New Zealand expects. It expects that we will have a robust debate and discussion about these very important issues and that they will not simply be brushed aside as the National Government wishes to do. The last speaker Mrs Collins only gave us a list of what this party did what that party did not do and what the results of various elections were and that is hardly the basis on which these sorts of serious issues should be decided. So it shows that this Government is taking a cavalier attitude to these matters and that is not what the public wants.The public wants a good and proper and robust discussion. The only way that can happen is at the select committee and through that process. In that process New Zealand First will support the abolition of the coat-tailing provision—the one-seat threshold as some call it—but we will not agree to the lowering of the threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent. So we agree with one part of the bill but not with the other. We wish to have the opportunity to discuss all of that through the select committee process.The big issue for electoral reform in New Zealand is that coat-tailing provision. That is what the public thinks and that is what New Zealand First thinks as well. For those who do not understand it who may be watching this debate: well you are not alone in not understanding it because it is a completely illogical provision. There is no reason for it. The 5 percent threshold is for parties that get list seats and that should not be compromised by a one-seat threshold either. There should just be the one threshold and that should be it. That is what the electoral committee says that is what the public expects and that is what this process should result in.Why are we in the position of even having to debate this? It is because parties both parties now and other parties in the past have both seen the opportunity to use that coat-tailing provision for their own political purposes—not because it is proper not because it is democratic and not because it is in the national interest. No independent or professional advice has ever supported the coat-tailing provision. To the contrary: every formal recommendation that has been made so far—and that includes the Electoral Commission itself—says that that provision should go because it is unfair because it is undemocratic and because in an MMP system it is actually illogical.The results have been many and various. In 2008 New Zealand First had more list votes than other parties that won an electoral seat and got more than one seat in Parliament and yet on that occasion New Zealand First got a little less than 5 percent and got no seats in Parliament. That is not fair that is not logical and that does not fit well with what is supposed to be a proportional system under MMP. The MMP system is grossly compromised by the coat-tailing provision and it is time that it went. Other parties have allowed obvious cynical and blatant gerrymanders of the system. An example of that is the ACT Party which was gifted a seat in this Parliament. Why was it gifted a seat in this Parliament? The reason is that the National Government wanted to see the coat-tailing provision in operation with the hope that not only would it get David Seymour into the House but it would get other seats as well that were not deserved and that exactly is a good reason why the gerrymander has to stop.The threshold of 5 percent is necessary because it is a good balance between on the one hand a fair and democratic system of representation for small parties but on the other hand nobody wanting to see a proliferation of very tiny parties with one or two seats in this Parliament. So that is what the threshold is there for and 5 percent is the right level and no other.CHRIS BISHOP (National):This bill the sponsor of it would have you believe is being advanced with noble intentions. It is seeking just to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission review. Labour is not trying to play party politics with this issue; it is all for the glory of the country and the benefit of our electoral system! It is not about the self-interest of the Labour Party or the Green Opposition; no no it is all about the beauty of the electoral system. That is what they would have you believe except the truth is the exact opposite.There are four reasons why this bill should be voted down tonight. The first is that it has been advanced in bad faith by its sponsor. As I said before Mr Lees-Galloway would have you believe that this is some sort of noble endeavour except that—and here is the rub; here is where his argument falls down—the Labour Party’s intention to lodge this bill and to get rid of the electorate seat threshold waiver was announced before the Electoral Commission review reported back. So before the recommendation was made to reduce the threshold down to 4 percent and get rid of the electorate seat waiver the Labour Party had put on the record that it was going to get rid of it.That absolutely puts a lie to the claim that this is some noble sacrifice or noble act by Iain Lees-Galloway and the Labour Party members. They had announced it before the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. Why? Because this bill is all about politics. It is all about the fact that the Labour Party and the Green Party do not like the outcome of the 2008 2011 and 2014 general elections. They do not like them because they lost. They do not like the fact that the good people of Epsom elected my colleague David Seymour and they do not like the fact that my colleague Peter Dunne was elected by the good people of Ōhāriu so they are seeking to relitigate that through the petty political point-scoring of a member’s bill that they know has no chance of success and it is also hypocritical.The second reason is that it is hypocritical for Labour to advance this bill. Why? Because Labour itself has relied on coat-tail MPs in the past. When? Well in 2002 when it relied on the vote of Jim Anderton who took his good mate Matt Robson into Parliament with him after the election and who propped up the Labour Government of the time. So it was OK for the Labour Party back in 2002 to use Jim Anderton’s seat of Wigram and it carefully encouraged people who were actually Labour Party supporters to vote for Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition the vainglorious party named after him. It was OK for the Labour Party back then but the moment Jim shuffles off his political mortal coil the moment he is gone no no it is not good enough for any other party to use that provision. That is absolutely hypocritical and absolutely grotesque.The third reason why this bill should not advance is the reason that my colleague Judith Collins pointed to and that also Jacqui Dean pointed to which is that there is not any consensus on this issue. It is very important. Reform of our electoral law should be based on consensus—broad-based consensus. We know that the Labour Party has form or lack of form in this area I should say after its disgraceful attempt—not even its attempt but its successful measures—to ram through Parliament before the 2008 general election the disgraceful Electoral Finance Bill which cracked down on free speech and really struck a hammer blow to the heart of our democracy all because Labour did not like what some groups did in the 2005 general election. So notwithstanding the concerns of the Human Rights Commission the New Zealand Law Society most of Parliament and all the submitters to the select committee on that the Labour Government rammed it through. So we know that it has form when it comes to consensus on electoral law issues.The point is that when you do change electoral law it should be something that is almost above party politics. You are never going to completely get rid of party politics out of a situation where you get politicians talking about the electoral system but it should be something that is a little bit independent is looked at impartially is looked at a little bit neutrally and where things are done in good faith. That is certainly not what has been done by the Labour Party in the debate today.The fourth reason to close my speech is that there is a very good reason for the so-called coat-tail provisions. The very good reason in our electoral law for those provisions is that they actually increase the proportionality of Parliament. It was absurd to hear Denis O’Rourke railing against them saying that New Zealand First is going to vote for this bill. After the 1999 election New Zealand First did win an electorate seat when Winston Peters won Tauranga. It got 4.3 percent of the vote and it brought in four list MPs. So the New Zealand First Party has been a beneficiary of the provisions. If this bill had been in place if this was the law only one New Zealand First MP would have been elected. The coat-tail provisions increase proportionality. They make Parliament fairer. They make it more proportionate to the actual will of the voters. That is why this is a silly bill advanced in bad faith.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I seek leave to table a document titled Representation vs Stability: The Five Per Cent Threshold in MMP written by one Christopher Bishop which advocates for removing the party vote threshold altogether.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. I am sure anyone who wants to know Mr Bishop’s views will probably be able to find them. [Interruption] No; the matter is finished. I have dealt with it. I am calling David Clendon.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a brief call—and it will be brief—on this very good bill and to congratulate the member on bringing it to the House. The Greens like this bill. It is very much in line with our own party submission to the MMP review where we argued for the elimination of the one-electorate seat threshold on the basis that it was creating disproportionate outcomes. We argued for a reduction in the percentage threshold and we highlighted the fact that the original Royal Commission on the Electoral System pointed to 4 percent as being an appropriate level for that.We have heard much from the Government side this afternoon about the self-interest of Labour and by association the Greens in bringing this bill. I think it would be helpful for those members to actually read what the Electoral Commission had to say in 2012. I would think it would be a very brave or foolish person who would accuse the Electoral Commission of self-interest or political interest. It said that the party vote threshold is the mechanism for achieving the competing objectives of proportionality on one hand and stable and effective Governments on the other. One argument is to have everything wide open with no threshold at all which means you would have lots of one-member parties in this House and that would not be a stable environment. The commission went on to say: “At 5%”—the percentage that is—“it is higher than it needs to be to strike the right balance. It could be lowered to 4% without any risk to effectiveness or stability and this is what we recommend be done.” It goes on to say that “The one-electorate-seat threshold should go” because although it concedes “it does increase the proportionality of Parliament it does so in an arbitrary and inconsistent way … Its effect has been to undermine the principles of fairness and equity …”. I would be interested to hear an argument that that is a politically loaded position or a self-interested position from the Electoral Commission.Having said all that I have heard an argument—and I am slightly influenced by it—that we should not worry too much about the coat-tail rule because the evidence is and it was reinforced by the member for Papakura that parties that rely on the coat-tailing provision actually do not survive very long. They do not thrive. They may maintain a residual presence as we see with all due respect in the member to my left the ACT Party member—the entire ACT Party caucus—present in the House today. The reality is that I think the ACT Party’s support peaked with a magnificent 3.6 percent in 2008. Under the coat-tailing provision that brought in four list MPs behind the then leader Mr Hide. I have to say that those MPs in their own unique way—I am looking for a word other than “value”—added a layer of interest to this House.I think one of the most remarkable speeches I have ever heard in this House was in the context of another electoral bill as it happens the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act which to this day should be looked back on with shame by the National Party which supported it. One Hilary Calvert the then ACT MP made the most extraordinary 47-second speech that I think this Parliament has ever heard. So although there is a level of interest added to the House by the presence of these smaller parties which are relying on coat-tailing ultimately I think we have to concede that they do not thrive in the long term.However the reality is that we need to get the best possible outcomes—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):I have been waiting for this bill for some time. Unwrapping the Order Paper has been much like a game of pass the parcel hoping each time that Mr Lees-Galloway’s bill would finally be up for debate. Tonight it is. The reason why I have relished debating this bill is that often in politics and public policy there is actually legitimate cause for debate and valid points on both sides but in this case the Opposition is so wrong on every count that it is a delightful case to prosecute.Richard Prosser: Spot the vested interest.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well we will address that. Let me start with a little bit of history. We have an electoral system that has two tests for whether or not a member or members can enter Parliament. One is that they must win an electorate—win the majority of voters within a geographical area. The other is that their party must win 5 percent of all the votes. The objective of this policy—that is to balance proportionality with stability of Government—is something that this bill is seeking to change. They decided back in Germany post-World War II when this particular system of electing representatives was designed to have two tests: one was to win some geographical areas and the other was to win 5 percent of all votes. Why? Because they were concerned as it happened that ethnic Danes who were concentrated in certain geographical areas but who had brethren represented around the rest of the country might be fully represented by passing not just the one test but actually both. So what that achieved was that the proportionality of Parliament could be enhanced while also having a clear test for stability and that nobody would be elected unless they could persuade the majority of a particular geographical area to vote for them.Fast forward to 1986 when our own royal commission on the electoral legislation actually contemplated that Māori and Pacific Island peoples who might be concentrated in a particular geographical area—Carmel Sepuloni is really thinking right now—would be able to elect members and also enhance the proportionality of Parliament through representation being proportional to their brethren if you like in the remainder of the country. Interestingly as it comes to pass in this House today the sole beneficiary of the coat-tailing rule that this bill is seeking to remove is actually one Marama Fox. I do not know what the Labour Party could possibly have against Marama Fox because she is a fabulous member of this House. But let us be clear: the only net effect on the current House of changing this Act would be to remove Marama Fox from it. Why does the Labour Party hate Marama Fox? That is the question that I would like to be answered tonight. It is certainly not clear.We heard earlier in this debate a superb contribution from one Judith Collins and she recited the history that in 1996 it was indeed the Labour and Green parties who strategically elected Jeanette Fitzsimons to Coromandel in order to take advantage of the coat-tailing rule. My earnest friend here the Rt Hon Winston Peters had his political skin saved in 1999 by the people of Tauranga and New Zealand First via the coat-tailing rule. But let us be honest about the real motivation for this bill on the part of its proponents and that is that if you take the entire history of MMP for a period the coat-tailing rule benefited the left and then it benefited the right. There is no more to it than that. There is no more sincere motivation on the part of the proponents of this bill other than the fact that it has politically disadvantaged them recently. The Rt Hon Winston Peters knows that he has been kept away from the cross benches at least twice in the last three elections by this Act. For that reason he is very angry about it too and I understand—I understand. Time is running out. None the less I will be opposing this bill because there is no sound principle—only self-interest on the part of the proponents of this bill. Thank you.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Well this has been a fascinating debate in which there has been an astonishing amount of clutching at straws by the Government members desperate to find any reason to vote against this legislation the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill. We started with the astonishing nearly 10-minute attack on me by Jacqui Dean because apparently I had got the date of commencement wrong in this legislation. The minor detail that Jacqui Dean overlooked was the fact that this bill was drawn from the ballot in November 2013. That was well in advance of the last election and the Standing Orders say I cannot amend the bill after it has been drawn from the ballot but that is not a big deal to Jacqui Dean. I wondered how a member could come up with such an illogical argument and then I remembered that Jacqui Dean was the one who was taken in by the dihydrogen monoxide hoax. So Jacqui Dean has not learnt a thing from embarrassing herself in public in the past and demonstrating her ignorance. Once again she has been able to demonstrate her ignorance this evening.I want to address some of the comments made by Chris Bishop and also by David Seymour. Chris Bishop and David Seymour both raised examples in the past of when other parties have indeed been able to bring people in by virtue of the one-seat threshold rule. They noted Jim Anderton and suggested that the Labour Party did a deal with Jim Anderton to help him win Wigram. Well I have to say that a small thermonuclear weapon would not have got Jim Anderton out of Wigram—likewise with the example of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Here is the key difference between what has happened in the past and what has happened with the ACT Party: yes Labour has sometimes in the past said: “Look you have got a choice between the Greens and the National Party. We are out of this race so you have got a choice. Either vote for the Greens or vote for the National Party. We’re not particularly fond of the National Party. We suggest you get in behind the Greens.” The key difference is that National should win Epsom every time and the only reason David Seymour is here is because of the largesse of the National Party. That is the only reason why ACT is here. That is the key difference between what has happened in the past and what has happened now.But actually all of that is irrelevant. It is irrelevant whether lowering the threshold would allow one party or another party into Parliament. It is irrelevant whether people have made use of the rules as they stood in the past. What is relevant—the only thing that is relevant here—is that there was a review and the review an independent review not governed by any special interest of anybody in this House came up with these recommendations in response to an overwhelming demand from the people of New Zealand for this Parliament to stop putting self-interest ahead of the way they want to have a fair system of electing our representatives. Yes we are talking about a balance between proportionality and I suppose governability in the House. That is why the recommendation was made to get rid of the one-seat threshold and lower the party vote threshold to get the balance between proportionality and governability right.But again I want to address what David Seymour said. He said that this comes from the German model. The German model was worried about ethnic representation. I wonder how many ethnic Epsomians need to have their representation guaranteed in Parliament by having the ACT Party represent them. We do have a desperate shortage of straight white men in this House! Thank goodness that through the one-seat threshold that ethnic representation of Epsom has been able to be represented by David Seymour and Rodney Hide in the past! Actually that is the truth of that particular argument.What we have heard from Government members is a line-up of spurious arguments idiotic attacks on the Opposition and clutching at straws simply to divert attention from the fact that they are voting against this legislation tonight because they have an interest in maintaining the one-seat threshold and maintaining the coat-tailing so that they can get an unfair advantage in Parliament. That is the only reason why and they are not listening to New Zealanders. They are completely out of touch with what New Zealanders want. They have put their own self-interest against thousands of submissions an independent review and promises that were made by the National Party that they would make the changes that this bill seeks to implement. They are full of broken promises they are full of silly arguments and they will rue the day they voted against this legislation.A party vote was called for on the question that the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to remind members of what happened to the last member who was caught interjecting during a vote and I am sure the member who interjected then would like to stay for her leader’s speech.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.