Finlayson Christopher: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6320] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 What a load of empty political rhetoric that was from Barbara Stewart. Her speech was full of emotion and full of appeals to the general public but the general public do not know that she never turned up to the Justice and Electoral Committee for the hearing of evidence on the bill. National supported Barbara Stewart’s Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill going to the select committee so that it could hear the evidence of submitters and debate in detail the desirability of reducing the number of MPs to 100. My National colleagues Richard Worth and Nicky Wagner worked very hard with me on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this issue. 
Lynne Pillay 
: So did the Labour members. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Labour members worked hard too; I will not deny the member for Waitakere her day in the sun. 
It is interesting to note however that neither Barbara Stewart nor any other New Zealand First MP joined the select committee for the purposes of debating this legislation. In fact one gains the impression that those members were content to introduce the bill send it off to a select committee then leave it at that and make a fine political speech at the time of the second reading while not having done any work. Perhaps this is not surprising when one considers New Zealand First’s performance to date on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. That sloppy piece of work seeks to delete Treaty sections in some Acts that have already been repealed—great work! New Zealand First members really need to lift their game. 
My advice to Barbara Stewart is that when she drafts a member’s bill she should try to make sure it is coherent. When one of her bills is referred to a select committee she should at least turn up to the hearing of evidence ask a few questions look interested and try to read the submissions—it is apparent from the member’s speech that she did not even do that. If she does not do those things some people will think she is engaging only in some kind of political stunt. Her lament this afternoon was a little rich given her complete and utter lack of contribution to the select committee debate. 
If Barbara Stewart had read the report of the select committee and read the evidence she would have seen that 43 submissions were received. Twenty-nine were in support of the bill 12 were opposed to it and two did not express an opinion. National members were very interested in particular in the eight submitters who gave oral evidence. The arguments presented are adequately summarised in the report of the committee and I do not intend to address all of them in this speech. Suffice it to say that a major theme of those who supported the bill is that the current number of MPs places an unnecessary burden on taxpayers and does not necessarily make for an effective Parliament whereas those who opposed the bill placed some emphasis on the findings of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System and were concerned that the MMP system could not function properly in a 100-member Parliament. 
I particularly refer Barbara Stewart and other members of the House to Appendix B of the report of the committee which contains parliamentary statistics from New Zealand and comparisons with other jurisdictions. The argument that there are too many MPs in New Zealand is at least a debatable proposition. As can be seen many countries of our size have in fact more MPs. For example Ireland with a population of 4.1 million has 226 MPs—166 in the Lower House and 60 in the Upper House. That is a ratio of 5.45 MPs per 100000 people. Norway with a population of about 4.6 million has 169 MPs or a ratio of 3.66 MPs per 100000 people. That ratio can be compared with New Zealand with a population of 4.1 million which has 120 MPs or 2.91 MPs per 100000 people. The committee was very grateful to various submitters for providing this material. 
Another important aspect of Appendix B that I refer members to is the final page which is also instructive. It has a table showing the number of MPs in relation to the total population of New Zealand from 1901 to 1996 and again in 2006. In 1901 there was one MP for every 11000 people 70 years later there was one MP for every 34500 people in 1991 there was one MP for every 35500 people and today there is one MP for every 34000 people. So it is simply wrong to allege as some submitters did that the current number of MPs is historically high and overrepresents New Zealand’s population. 
As can be seen from the committee’s report a number of submitters believed that the current number of MPs places an unnecessary burden on taxpayers and is superfluous to the requirements of a functioning Parliament. It is not however the current number of MPs that places a burden on taxpayers but political parties that use public funds for party political purposes instead of parliamentary purposes. An obvious example is Labour’s misuse of public funds over the pledge card. If MPs obeyed the rules and acted properly the cost of parliamentary services would be considerably reduced. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: $800000! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: So it is an issue that can be resolved not by reducing the number of MPs but by having MPs who obey the rules. 
As I have said already National Party members listened very carefully to the evidence of the submitters and read all the evidence. As the minority view indicates on the basis of that evidence National members support the report and will therefore oppose the second reading of the bill. 
The minority view of the National Party also makes a number of other points which I will record this afternoon. First there can be a case to argue for a reduction in the number of MPs but the Justice and Electoral Committee on the basis of the evidence presented to it has doubts about whether MMP can function effectively with 99 or 100 members. National members were particularly influenced by the evidence of experts on electoral law like Professor Jonathan Boston and Professor Elizabeth McLeay. 
If Barbara Stewart had more cogent evidence to present to the select committee then either she or her supporters had every opportunity to do so. They chose not to give evidence and as I have said Barbara Stewart did not even attend. At the end of the day the committee must proceed on the basis of the evidence placed before it. 
Second National thinks that Barbara Stewart’s bill raises an important issue which is why we voted for it at the first reading. However it fails to address the important issue of whether the existing electoral system should continue. There was a widespread belief in the public mind that there would be a further referendum to determine whether MMP should be retained. In fact there has never been any such referendum; rather a committee of Parliament reviewed the workings of MMP and reported in August 2001. That committee—given its composition—concluded that the current system should be maintained. 
National maintains however that the effectiveness of the MMP system remains a matter for debate and that at some stage New Zealanders should take part in that debate. However unless and until that issue is resolved National does not believe it would be wise to reduce the number of members of Parliament. As National’s minority report emphasises we were influenced in reaching this conclusion by the helpful evidence provided by several submitters. 
In conclusion National opposes the second reading even though we supported the bill at the first reading. We thought it was in the public interest to support the first reading so as to enable New Zealanders to make submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee—and New Zealand First did not even turn up. That opportunity having been given and submissions having been presented to and carefully considered by the committee National concludes that it would be unwise to reduce the number of MPs while the MMP system continues.