Clendon David: Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4746. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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 in 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.