Tremain Chris: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10414] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 It is indeed a privilege as a member of Parliament to be involved in setting the direction and the laws of one’s country. In that regard it is a privilege to be a member of the newly constituted Electoral Legislation Committee which has been appointed to deal with two bills that will go before it over the course of this year. 
The first bill that will go before the committee is the bill before us this afternoon the Electoral Referendum Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for an indicative referendum to be held in conjunction with the first general election after the commencement of the Act in order to provide electors with the opportunity to express an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives in New Zealand. The second bill that will go before the select committee is yet to be given a specific name but it will be an electoral finance bill to deal with the wider issues of electoral finance which have been discussed by a range of members in the House today. Both of those bills are part of a commitment by National at the election. They honour and meet a commitment given by National. I am proud to stand and say it is one of many commitments that National gave to the wider electorate. It is part of our commitment to building trust with the electorate and following through on the things we said we would do. 
Speaking about this bill gives one cause to reflect on the history of MMP and on one’s own voting record. It is interesting that when we are out in the electorate and people bemoan the parts of MMP that they dislike they often say: “Well who actually voted for MMP?”. Obviously a majority of the electorate did vote for it and I was one who did vote for MMP at the time. I reflected on why I voted in that way back then. I looked back at the elections that took place in 1981 and 1984. The 1981 election was an interesting election. A party by the name of Social Credit got 20.65 percent of the wider vote. The Labour Party at the time got 39.01 percent of the vote and National got 38.78 percent. Despite those votes National ended up being the Government of the day with 47 seats. Labour had 43 seats and Social Credit had two. That aside when I looked at that result as a young 18-year-old voting at the 1984 election— 
Hon Simon Power 
: The member doesn’t look that old! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes I was an 18-year-old in 1984. The fact that Social Credit obtained only two seats at that election gave me cause to ponder whether that was fair. Twenty percent of the electorate had voted for a particular set of values and a particular set of policies yet received only two members of Parliament out of nearly 100 members. The second point I thought I would reflect on was the 1984 election which was the first election in which I voted and one can look back in hindsight on one’s political values and the way in which one voted at that time. Members may remember a political party that went by the name of the New Zealand Party. The party was headed by Sir Robert Jones. At that time voting at my first election I had cause to give my vote to the New Zealand Party. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes but it is interesting that that party achieved 12 percent of the vote. As I say one reflects on these positions in hindsight and one grows in one’s political thinking. At that 1984 election the New Zealand Party got 12 percent of the vote but did not get one member of Parliament which gave me cause for reflection. 
When we got to the two-stage referendum—in 1992 and 1993 as Simon Power has pointed out—I voted for a change to MMP. That brought us the first MMP election in 1996. MMP has been with us for five terms now and it is fair to say that a big chunk of the electorate still does not clearly understand it. People understand the constituency vote but if we go out into the street and ask people we find that many members of the public do not understand MMP fully. Many people thought that there would be a referendum on it. In fact a review of MMP was undertaken in August 2001 chaired by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt. That review found at the time that despite some concerns we should stay with the MMP system largely unchanged. That aside there are still a number of concerns for the public. Some members of the public when we are out there talking to them say they are concerned that sometimes the tail wags the dog—the smaller parties have a wider involvement in the political say. The other concern that we hear is that the major parties after the election water down the policies that they were elected on when they go into a coalition agreement. That is a concern for members of the main parties; I know that. 
I know that one of the big concerns out there is the debate about whether a person who stands as a constituency MP and is elected as a constituency MP but who subsequently loses an election as a constituency MP should be allowed to be elected as a list MP. That is one thing that I know a large number of people in the electorate struggle with. Despite the political fortunes and the tides going in and out if I have stood as a constituency MP and been elected by the people but then subsequently the people said: “Tremain you’re on your bike.” Should I stay on the list? That is the question I ask. It happened in Napier with someone I stood against back in 2005. He had been elected as a constituency MP the public decided that he was not going to be their MP and I was fortunate enough to win that election. But for 3 years after that they struggled with the fact that that MP stayed in Napier fighting the campaign. It is an interesting issue. 
Those are the issues and wider changes that the committee will deal with. But for now this is a referendum whose time has come. It honours a commitment that was given by this National-led Government in association with ACT. It is something that we will be following through on. I am proud to say I will be part of that in the select committee that hears submissions on this bill.