Power Simon: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10404] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Referendum Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred for consideration to the Electoral Legislation Committee. This bill will fulfil the Government’s pre-election commitment to hold a binding referendum on MMP. In 1993 New Zealand voted to change to the mixed-member proportional representation or MMP voting system. For most of the previous 140 years as members are aware elections were held under the first-past-the-post system. Since the change five elections have been held under MMP making it timely to consider how the voting system is working and whether New Zealanders wish to retain MMP. Many New Zealanders understood that they would have the opportunity to revisit their decision through a later referendum; this bill provides New Zealanders with that opportunity. 
After weighing the options the Government decided to take a two-stage approach to the referendum similar to the process followed in 1992 and 1993. As far as practicable the Government has been keen to replicate the processes adopted in 1992 and 1993 to give New Zealanders a genuine opportunity to have another say on the electoral system. The first referendum will be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election and it requires legislation to be passed through the House. The bill provides that the referendum questions will first ask voters whether they wish to retain the present MMP voting system. Voters will then be asked regardless of their answer to the first question which alternative voting system they would prefer from a list of alternatives: first past the post preferential voting a single transferable vote and the supplementary-member representation system. The bill includes a brief description of each of these alternative voting systems but essentially the menu of options is the same as that put to voters in the 1992 referendum. 
Two aspects will remain consistent across the electoral system options. First each system is to be considered on the basis that it will be used to elect a House of 120 seats. Second each system will retain the current provisions for the Maori seats. The alternative voting systems should be considered on their fundamental features and not on other elements of the electoral system. In addition the confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party states that this referendum will not include a question about the Maori seats. The bill also includes the form of the voting paper with the questions to be put to voters. The Chief Electoral Officer will determine the order of the voting systems on the voting paper by lot to avoid any perception of bias in the order in which the voting systems are listed. 
When we first announced the two-stage process for the referenda the feedback we received including that from the Hon Lianne Dalziel was that we needed to incorporate an option for those who wanted to see modifications made to MMP rather than an entirely new electoral system adopted or the status quo retained. However in the time available it would be difficult for the Government to put up a modified version in the 2011 referendum that meets those expectations without being seen to have skewed the result. As was the case in 1992 and 1993 this referendum process is about allowing the public to make fundamental choices between different types of system. Having said that the bill provides that if 50 percent or more of the participants vote to retain MMP in the first referendum then the Electoral Commission will undertake a review of aspects of the way in which MMP works. 
If a majority votes for a change from MMP this Government is committed to holding a second binding referendum in conjunction with the 2014 general election. This will be a run-off between MMP and the most preferred alternative voting system from the first referendum. If voters prefer the alternative voting system the 2017 general election will be held under that new system. I acknowledge that this process is lengthy but the future of our voting system should not be rushed. Cabinet was faced with a range of options that would have truncated the timing including the use of stand-alone and postal referenda. But by holding each referendum in conjunction with a general election we could maximise the voter turn-out on such an important constitutional matter. The process allows for a full 6 months’ consideration of the bill at the Electoral Legislation Committee as well as ample time for a public information campaign prior to the referendum to be undertaken by the Electoral Commission. 
The bill also regulates advertising in respect of the 2011 referendum. Anyone who is advertising for or against any of the referendum options will need to include his or her name and address with the advertisement. If advertisers spend over $12000 during the regulated period they will need to register with the Electoral Commission which will publish a list of advertisers. Advertisers will not be required to provide returns of their expenses or funding sources to the Electoral Commission nor will they be subject to spending limits. These rules are intended to provide transparency without restricting the advertisers’ freedom of expression and they are consistent with the regulation of parallel campaigning in the upcoming electoral finance reform legislation. I note though that this bill goes further than the rules surrounding advertising for the Government referenda held in 1992 1993 and 1997 and that no Government referendum in the post-war period has limited spending by third-party campaigners. Members will be aware that these same issues arise in the context of the Government’s proposed reform to the electoral finance rules. It is also my intention to refer the upcoming electoral finance legislation to the Electoral Legislation Committee so that the committee’s consideration of these issues—in particular the regulation of parliamentary spending—can be consistent. 
Finally I add that I am pleased to have had the opportunity to meet on a number of occasions with all parties in the House to discuss the Government’s proposals and I value their willing and constructive approach to these issues. That cooperation has been in keeping with the constitutional significance of this legislation which should not be underestimated. In New Zealand the triennial election of representatives to this House is arguably the most significant constitutional check on executive power. The decision as to how those votes are translated into seats is rightly one for the people of New Zealand to make. I commend this bill to the House.