Donnelly Brian: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6331] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I commence by making one or two comments about the acerbic remarks of Chris Finlayson. I actually thought more highly of that member than that. I believed that he had shown himself to be somebody who was very capable of focusing upon the issues and when he lowered himself by making those personal attacks he dropped slightly in my estimation. But Lynne Pillay also made a remark that was very close to a breach of the Standing Orders in terms of talking about the non-attendance of members at select committees. I wanted to raise a point of order at the time but I thought we were not in that sort of debate. However I hope that the people in the Chair will reflect upon that in the future as it is a breach of the Standing Orders and maybe new members like Chris can make sure that they are up to date with the Standing Orders. 
I want to make a contradictory statement that I need to explain to people. It is that I do not believe that reducing the number of MPs in this House would be a positive move in terms of the operation of our Parliament yet I am more than happy to vote for this bill. I would like to explain that seeming contradiction. First I have a strong belief in the role of our select committees in this Parliament. I believe that MMP has really strengthened the role of select committees and certainly over the last three Parliaments if I have been able to make a major contribution it has been through the select committees. I see members in this House who have operated on select committees with me and who have made very very positive contributions even though they have been in Opposition roles. I believe it is at select committees that participatory democracy really takes place. 
I often give the case of a person who came along and delivered all of his presentation by reading from Braille as he was totally blind. I believe that Nanaia Mahuta might have been there that night. He completely convinced the select committee and the officials that he was right and that the legislation as it had been drawn up was wrong. As a result the necessary changes were made to it. I thought that if one person could come along and make that sort of impact then we do have the elements of positive participatory democracy operating through our select committees. 
I have seen select committees massacre legislation and Ministers then come back and thank committee members very much for doing that because the Ministers have believed the legislation was better after that process. I note that on most of our select committees the Government does not have a majority. However I believe that the role of our select committees would not be able to be fulfilled anywhere nearly as satisfactorily as it is not only in terms of the scrutiny of legislation but also in terms of the reviews that are done—the financial reviews and the accountability of Government departments—if there were to be a reduction in the number of MPs. 
Members may therefore ask why I am happy to vote for this bill. It is because I also believe very very strongly that we need to learn how to listen to the voice of the people. The people voted resoundingly for a reduction in the number of MPs. In 2004 I went to Switzerland on a study tour and I looked particularly at the use of binding referenda in that country. It really is quite amazing that at all levels the Swiss either have the capacity to take legislation to binding referenda or they are required by the constitution to do so. For example any constitutional changes have to go to a referendum. Any legislation can be put to a referendum with I think 100000 signatures out of the country’s population of 7 million. People can actually put up legislation for debate with 50000 signatures in place and even down at the level of the village—the village where I was had only 1000 people—the Government could not commit over SwFr100000 of capital expenditure without getting the agreement of the people. One would think that was a very clumsy system; in fact it operates extremely well for the Swiss. 
I will give an example of how the Swiss system operates. In May of the year I was there there was a referendum on a proposal by the Government to reduce taxes and the people rejected it. They could see that the consequences in terms of the expenditure of the Government would have been negative so essentially they told the Government to take it back again. I refer to just one thing. I met up with a former Speaker of the House who had been the mayor of the city of Vevey where the Alinghi boats were built. He said to me—and he did not have particularly good English so I had to sort of interpret—that the people are very clever. When I teased out what he meant I found he was saying that if we give people all the information upon which to make a decision they will get it right. He said that time after time the people of Switzerland at the national level at the federal level and also at the cantonal level etc. get decisions right. I came away believing very strongly that as a nation we need to mature as a democracy. I do not believe that we are ready tomorrow to move as far as the people of Switzerland have moved. In order to do that we need to find mechanisms that will allow the voices of the people to be heard. As Barbara Stewart pointed out New Zealand First believes that issues involving conscience votes should in fact go to referenda so that the people can make those final decisions. 
I am not convinced entirely by Lynne Pillay’s argument that it would have been terrible to have had an overhang of two MPs instead of an overhang of one MP. Instead of 101 MPs we would have had 102 so if that is a strong argument to vote against this bill I am not convinced by it. I note that of the 43 submissions 29 supported the bill and only 12 opposed it. 
I also have to mention something else which is that in the first two MMP elections—and I have not seen research done on this issue since then—proportionality could have been achieved with 100 MPs. So the proportionality argument is not necessarily a strong one in that case. I think the case for having representatives of the different groups is probably a much stronger argument. 
I am a little disappointed that the Justice and Electoral Committee has come back with this—not with the report but with the suggestion that the bill should be thrown out. That select committee was made up of three Labour members three National members and one Green member and I wonder whether that is really reflective of the composition of this House. 
I resigned my ministerial warrant back in 1998 over a very important issue that goes to the heart of what we are debating here tonight. At that time and over previous Parliaments a lot of MPs had been jumping parties—waka-hopping. Some of those had come from New Zealand First but it had been happening before then—members should not worry; it had been happening long before then. Over here and over there members were party-hopping. What was happening as a result was that people were actually starting to lose their faith in the democratic process and once people lose their faith in the democratic process then democracy itself is imperilled. I believed I had been voted in as a New Zealand First MP and therefore I had a responsibility to those people to resign my ministerial warrant. 
I thought that that would be the end of my days in Parliament but I still believe that making that decision has been my most important contribution to this Parliament. When I thought back on history I thought to myself that the people of Germany in the late 1920s had lost their faith in the Weimar Republic. They lost their faith in their democracy and that allowed—in fact that created—the conditions for the rise of the Third Reich. I do not believe that the same sort of thing as that will occur here. Nevertheless I think we should protect our democracy. 
In conclusion I say that I believe the result of the bill being put up and going to the select committee and of the submissions on it being heard and explained demonstrates the toothless nature of our present referendum system. We have a condition that 250000 people have to sign a petition in order to get it into the referendum process. But when 90 percent of the people say yes to the petition yet it is thrown out in fact by 121 people—or even by 7 people it could be said—it shows that the system lacks teeth. We need to reconsider the whole referendum process. If I go back to the Swiss thing—and this is where I think we have a weakness—I can tell members that the Swiss ensure that the voting public actually has all the facts at hand. People have the details and they can make decisions. They talk in their coffee bars etc. and they can make decisions around real information. I believe that many of the referenda we have in this country are emotive and do not provide people with a good balanced set of information. Consequently when we get them into Parliament and before a select committee we get a different result from the initial one which can only lead to a lack of confidence. Therefore there is a sense of disappointment in but I guess that in some respects there is also a sense of understanding of where things are going with regard to this particular bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I put the question I feel that I should apologise as the member did raise the point that I should really have drawn it to the House’s attention that under Speakers’ rulings one cannot refer to the absence of a member from a select committee. I do apologise to the member and the House for not pointing that out.