Pillay Lynne: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6328] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee that considered the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill I am really happy to stand up and speak about the experience we had during that time. I would also like to answer a couple of the points that were raised by Barbara Stewart. It saddens me just a little that Barbara Stewart is a little cynical about the process undertaken by the select committee because in fact the select committee spent some time on the bill. As Chris Finlayson mentioned earlier we heard a number of submissions and certainly I believe that the submission process was very very important. I feel that the referendum was very much a knee-jerk reaction and I think the referendum was carried out at a time when MMP was not working as well as it has been at this point in time and there was perhaps not so much public confidence in the process. 
I really would like to record my thanks to the committee because the members worked very well on this bill and I think there was a very constructive approach in listening to the arguments and considering in a very objective manner. I do note that there were a number of very good submissions and one in particular I would like to draw attention to is that of Professor Nigel Roberts who is the head of political science and international relations at Victoria University. He certainly urged caution with regard to the matter of reducing the number of MPs. He stated that simply lopping 20 MPs off the list would likely cause problems when it came to determining the outcome of the elections as the fewer the list seats available the greater the chance of an overhang. If Mrs Stewart’s bill had been in place last year Parliament would have an overhang of 2 MPs due to the Maori Party winning four electorate seats but being entitled to only two seats on its party vote. Such a Parliament would have two extra list MPs under that scenario. 
The MMP Review Committee established in 2000 considered the matter of the number of MPs in the House of Representatives and was actually divided on the matter. I am very happy that that was not the case with this select committee. After careful consideration of the bill we had a unanimous position which was that all members were opposed to the bill. I do note that as previous speakers have said Barbara Stewart did not attend to listen to submissions. That does disappoint me because had she attended I think she may well have been swayed because the submissions were very compelling about I guess just how much more representative Parliament is with the number of MPs that we currently have and if I can use the term enjoy. The committee also felt it was very important to include a number of appendices to the report one of which included the results of the public being asked whether Parliament or voters should make a final decision about law and policy. Overwhelmingly the support was that Parliament should make that decision. I think that is very appropriate. 
So that very much reiterated that the most detailed submissions were opposed to the bill; that is they were in favour of retaining the status quo with the number of MPs in this Parliament. As other speakers have said we have a system of only one House and the select committee process is very very important. I think it would be fair to say that a number of members of Parliament and parties are finding it quite difficult to ensure that members are able to attend select committees so that we have that representation there. If we were to reduce the number of members of Parliament then that proportionality would be affected. It would be affected in terms of parties and their abilities to represent their constituencies. By their constituencies we do not necessarily mean electorate seats; we also mean constituencies comprising the people who have voted albeit for minor parties. Those minor parties must have representation to ensure that the voices of the people who voted for them are heard in Parliament. So certainly there would be a real disadvantage there. 
There would also be a tremendous disadvantage in terms of the number of minorities in Parliament and the number of women members. Without bringing personalities and specific members of the committee into it I was a bit concerned when Barbara Stewart talked about naked self-interest because the majority of the members were list members of Parliament. I can attest that I was the only member who was in fact an electorate MP. But from all parties as I said before there was a real commitment to consider the bill. I do think that Parliament would be much the worse off without minor parties being able to represent those views that are indeed part of our population even if I do not agree with a number of those views. 
I also think in terms of women MPs. If we look at the number of MPs we see 32 percent represented in Parliament today. But I consider that if we did not have the proportionality with list MPs that number of women MPs would be considerably diminished. I feel that would be very much a loss not only to women voters but to our democracy generally. I look to my left and I see my very good friend Sue Moroney sitting here today. I know that if it were not for our system Sue Moroney would not be here. She was one of the new intake and a reduced number of MPs would not see the contribution that Sue makes in this House today. That can be said of a number of minor parties. I do not want to be nasty about it at all but I could compare the contribution that Sue Moroney and other hard-working list MPs make with the contribution made by “Bob the Builder” from the National Party. There could be considerable debate about who contributes the most meaningful speeches and the better representation and I will leave that to the Parliament to decide. 
However I am very pleased to say on behalf of the Justice and Electoral Committee that we considered all points of view and we reached a unanimous decision. I believe that that decision was very much not in the self-interest of those members but in the interests of New Zealand’s democracy. Something that all New Zealanders should and do hold very dear is the ability to ensure that there is representation of all groups in Parliament and I know that that will grow. I also know that we compared our system with a number of other democracies and on a population base we are not overrepresented in numbers of MPs. In fact we have considerably fewer numbers when one takes into account that many democracies have both an upper and a lower House. 
I am sure that Mrs Stewart had the best of intentions when bringing this bill to the House. I have worked constructively with her on a number of other issues and I look forward to doing that in the future but sadly on this occasion we are opposed to her bill.