Adams Amy: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Adams Amy: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16414] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I start by asking for your assistance Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that we are still on Part 1—is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. 
AMY ADAMS 
: One would not know it from the tenor of the speeches— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have strayed a little bit broader than I would have hoped actually. 
AMY ADAMS 
: Yes. I thought that was the case. 
I will make a brief contribution to the debate on Part 1. I will focus on clause 3 “Purpose of Act”. It is worth summarising the purpose of the bill. New Zealanders understood—the Hon Lianne Dalziel mentioned this in her contribution and she acknowledged that it is the case—when they voted to switch to the MMP system of voting in 1993 that there would be another referendum on the matter. In this House we all understand that that technically was not correct. I talked in my earlier contributions about how the small print at the bottom of that very clearly stated that it was if Parliament agreed. None the less there is a strong feeling out there that New Zealanders thought they would have another say on this. That is why it has always been the National Party position that we would give New Zealanders a chance to have that second say on MMP. 
That is exactly what this bill does. It says to New Zealand that we are now 14 years into an MMP system of voting and this is a chance for people to come back to the issue to turn their minds to it again and to decide whether it gives them the system that they thought they were getting. If it does then we can move into a review of that system so the issue can effectively be put to bed. These things are never finalised of course but it would be nice to think that if out of this process New Zealand elects to retain the MMP system of voting—I should say “keep” because that is the language we adopted with the paper—then that will certainly put to bed the issue of whether there should have been a second referendum. I think it is just worth commenting on that. 
When there was a select committee inquiry into MMP in 2001 the issue of whether there should be another referendum was hotly contested. I know I was not here but I have certainly read through all the papers. It was very interesting to me that even then it was decided by only a very narrow vote that there would not be a second referendum. The only reason why a second referendum was not supported was that it was thought to be a bit too soon. 
If 2001 was too soon—and arguably it was—I think the time has come. It has always been the policy of this Government to deliver on it. That is why we have the bill before us and that is why the purpose of this bill as set out in clause 3 is to give New Zealanders the chance through an indicative referendum to once more comment on the system of voting that they want to use to elect the House of Representatives. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 5 12 and schedule 1 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 but they have been ruled out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill.