Peters Jim: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15490] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I personally find it difficult to say on behalf of New Zealand First that this is not a bill that deserves our support. I say that because I was one of those members like others in the House who professed to being an ardent supporter of the single transferable vote (STV). But when I look at the issue that is before us in this bill I find a number of contentions. The first one is in the explanatory note. When I see the words and phrases “superior voting system” “fairer” “tactical voting” “reduces the level of wasted votes” “this encourages positive voting” and “it gives the ability to vote for a more preferred candidate” I see a number of selective comments about any electoral system. They could apply equally well in the minds of those who support first past the post as they do in the minds of those who support MMP and I would say as a supporter of STV apply equally well to the system I support. 
But I look now at the issue before us namely school boards. The first port of call in this issue is the boards of trustees which have a School Trustees Association. So I sought an opinion from them as other members would have as to whether there was any call for it. The answer was no. Had there been any indication from individual schools that STV should be encouraged? The answer was no. If the member who is proposing this bill went to the list published last week and on the Internet as well of the annual statements of all schools in this country he would see the size of rolls in the year 2000 and as at 1 March 2003. The overwhelming impression he would have had if he had done so is that there are hundreds and hundreds of schools in this country that have very small rolls. 
In the district where I come from numerous schools have rolls of 19 23 28 30 35 and so on. When I looked carefully at the  
Northern Advocate 
 and at the local press the  
Northland Age 
 and the  
Northern News 
 in the course of the school boards of trustees elections I saw that the number of voting parents was very very small indeed. We spoke about STV to the directors of Fonterra who budgeted for that for the first vote and for the last vote and the extra cost above normal voting procedures is quite high. To suggest that small schools with a parent roll of 25 to 35 should go to this trouble in order to achieve what the bill sets out to be a more desirable outcome is I believe false and invalid. 
Although within our party there are those who would support STV as a preferred system when we look at the particular and special example of boards of trustees I do not think this is a valid one. It is more costly and in the end who says that if 15 parents are voting for a four or five person board STV will give any better indication of choice? In my book if one votes for the first five one votes for the first five. If one votes for the first four then one votes for the first four. If there is a substantial number on the electoral roll that is a different matter. Therefore the examples of large schools which were used by Mr Donald would pertain mostly to secondary schools. I know there are two or three intermediate schools in this country that have rolls of 1000 pupils. Most primary schools have rolls of fewer than 300 or so even in our large centres but the average primary school with a large roll just would not merit a costly vote of this type and it would not give any better indication of parental support for the school.