Stewart Barbara: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6318] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill stands in my name and it has been the recommendation from the Justice and Electoral Committee that this bill be discharged. What a sad day it is for New Zealand when politicians totally reject the results of a referendum without even attempting to make what the majority of people voted for a reality. Where is our democracy? Politicians are actually entrusted to make our democracy work and what we see here is self-interest coming ahead of the wishes of the people. That is totally outrageous. The referendum results showed an overwhelming desire to reduce the number of MPs and today we have a select committee—seven members of Parliament—recommending that the wishes of the people be voted down. It is ironic that we are so quick to implement the will of the people on election day when it suits us but with a referendum that over 80 percent of New Zealanders supported we vote it down without even attempting to make it work. Citizens referenda should be binding. 
However I must thank all of the submitters for their willingness to stand behind the results of the 1999 referendum and for their support for this very important bill. I must thank Margaret Robertson for the work and effort she put into the 1999 petition to reduce the number of members of Parliament and for her willingness to revisit the issue earlier in the year. I must also thank the many people who have written and spoken to me since the outcome of this bill has become public knowledge. I thank them for their support. Despite the recommendation from the select committee the vast majority of people still state that on this issue the people of New Zealand should have been listened to and that Parliament had an obligation to act upon their wishes. I also thank the select committee staff for the excellent work they did on this bill. 
I thank the select committee members for their work on the bill but I must say that this is an extremely disappointing result. This result highlights the folly of allowing self-interested MPs to make decisions about their futures. When I looked at the MPs on this select committee I was interested to see that the members were principally list members and I could not help wondering to what degree that factor had influenced the decision that the committee made. However I am sure it did not. Yet it must be put on record that my New Zealand First colleague Pita Paraone who might have been affected by this measure should it have become law—which of course it would not have in this particular Parliament—definitely supported the bill. Despite the overwhelming public support for this change as was evidenced by the submissions made to the select committee—29 out of 43 submissions—select committee members ignored submitters’ views and promoted their own agenda. The number of MPs is a central feature of our democracy and as such MPs should not and cannot afford to ignore the weight of public opinion agitating for change. After all our democracy belongs to the people of New Zealand not just to the MPs here in this House—something that we should all remind ourselves of. 
I was interested to read in the select committee report that National believes that this bill missed the point. I remind National members that there is no real point to miss. The purpose of the bill was very clear: to reduce the number of MPs to 100—not 99 as they commented upon in their minority view. The bill did not in any way wish to change the MMP system but just proposed changing the number of list MPs within that system. We all know that one of the perennial criticisms of MMP revolves around the number of list MPs so why could we not be proactive take that criticism seriously act upon it and at least attempt to make MMP work? MMP is a system that New Zealanders by and large like believing it to be far fairer and more representative of the population than the old first-past-the-post system. 
As MPs we ignore the wishes of the people at our peril. This issue has not really gone away just because a select committee has chosen not to proceed. The whole issue will no doubt be revisited again because the wishes of the people have been ignored. It is a fact that if a referendum were to be held tomorrow on this very same issue the result would be exactly the same as before. People believe that 120 MPs is too many although I understand that one of the submitters to the select committee believed that the number of MPs should have actually been increased—something that we do not want to occur at all! 
Letters in recent editions of the  
Listener 
 
commenting on MMP 10 years on discussed the likelihood of any change ever being made to our system and concluded that changes will not be made in the medium to long term. The writers of those letters stated that changes will never be made while some MPs see the present system working to their advantage and continue to use those flaws in the system for their own self-interest. In New Zealand First we argue that the issue is not about various individuals keeping their jobs and about the personalities of those individuals—one of the many reasons that some parties in this House decided to vote against this bill. Those colourful individuals could still have the opportunity to represent their parties; their parties would just have to manage the process a bit better than perhaps they do now. This bill does not discuss any reduction of the proportionality of Parliament but rather a reduction in the number of list members. The bill is about working in a far smarter way to achieve what the people of New Zealand overwhelmingly want. Those who claim that that is not so have their heads in the sand. 
The desire to reduce the number of MPs still holds true today. Just last week a person at the airport told me that he had voted for the reduction in 1999 and that he would vote for it again today. That is not an isolated incident—far from it in fact. The MMP Review Committee which was established in 2000 considered the appropriate number of MPs that Parliament should have and it could not reach agreement on the issue. What did our politicians do when provided with another opportunity to address the issue? They proved that they are unable or unwilling to act on the issue. 
It is little wonder that the surveys taken of the occupations that people most distrust and trust never ever flatter politicians. It is no wonder that we are always at the bottom of the list—always among the most distrusted of occupations. Could it be that some members have forgotten whom they were sent here to represent? Could it be that in totally ignoring the wishes of the people and getting caught up in utilising the flaws of the system MPs are displaying a quality that is definitely not trustworthy? The issue will not go away with this bill; the public will speak again. Delaying the inevitable is not to the credit of any politician. 
The move to MMP was not the end of political reform; it was only the start. For some people there has been very little change in political behaviour. The review of MMP was really a sham. We owe our democracy much more than that. New Zealand First has long stated that people power in the form of referenda should replace conscience votes and that is a step we wish to take. But how sad it is that even when the results of a referendum are overwhelming politicians know better. New Zealand First in honouring the result of the 1999 referendum attempted to make Parliament a more responsive and accountable institution and to give greater power to the community. It is because of decisions such as those taken by politicians on the question of MPs that we need binding referenda so that we can avoid the situation we have today whereby self-interested politicians override the will of the majority of voters. 
New Zealand First stands steadfast in its support for the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill.