Stewart Barbara: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1834] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act 1993 in order to reduce the number of members of Parliament from 120 to 100. 
Prior to the introduction of the mixed-member proportional representation system in 1996 the number of members of Parliament had reached 99. In 1999 a citizens initiated referendum on the size of Parliament was held in conjunction with the general election of that year. That referendum was held as a result of the petition that was organised by Margaret Robertson and signed by 279233 others to reduce the number of members of Parliament to 99. Voters in the referendum were asked the question: “Should the size of the House of Representatives be reduced from 120 members to 99 members?”. Of those who voted an overwhelming 81.5 percent—1.7 million New Zealanders—voted in favour of a reduction. 
What action occurred as a result of that overwhelming decision by the people of New Zealand? Essentially nothing. In light of this inaction is it any wonder that New Zealanders feel they are powerless and have no say or influence over the issues that face their country? Democracy is lost when the Government fails to hear the voices of the people. 
When the MMP legislation was introduced both National and Labour put the MMP number of MPs at 120 and the first-past-the-post number at 99 in the hope that people would reject the new fairer voting system in favour of the old system because they well knew that people do not want to see more politicians. It was hoped that that increase would ensure that the first-past-the-post system was retained. In short the politicians of the time tried to deceive the people. Did that work? No. The MMP system was voted in and people still feel very strongly that there are too many politicians. 
We are seeking to honour the intent of the 1999 referendum by reflecting the will of the vast majority of voters in that referendum. What did we do as politicians after the referendum was held? As one person said to me the politicians put their snouts and their trotters firmly into the public trough and chose to totally ignore the wishes of the majority of the people of New Zealand. Why? Because politicians cannot always be relied upon to do the right thing and to act in accordance with the wishes of the majority. In this very instance the will and the common sense of the people could have been relied upon. It appears that the majority of the people have been left out of the democratic process on this particular issue. Democracy is too important to be left solely to politicians. 
The MMP Review Committee which was implemented under section 264 of the Electoral Act reported on various aspects of the electoral system but could reach no agreement on the issue of reducing the number of seats. It is time to look again and to look harder. New Zealand First believes that the reduction can be made without any adverse effect on the business of the House or its select committees. Some will argue that the valuable contributions of certain members will be lost. We argue that the issue is not about individuals keeping their jobs. Rather it is about finding better ways of doing things and working smarter to achieve what the people overwhelmingly want. By reducing the number of list members by 20 there would be no change to the number of constituency seats or Maori seats. The proportionality that we currently enjoy in Parliament today need not be distorted in any way. 
The overwhelming wish of more than eight out of 10 New Zealand voters is very clear from the outcome of that referendum. Those who claim that this is not so have their heads buried in the sand. This desire has not changed and recent feedback from people throughout New Zealand particularly via talkback radio confirms that this desire to have less Government and fewer politicians still holds true. 
I believe that it is timely for politicians to attempt to regain some public respect for the actual role or job that we as politicians have and seriously consider the issue by at least voting the bill through to a select committee. How many times do we as politicians have to be voted the least trusted people in society before we realise that by ignoring the will of the people and by distancing the clear public position from the review of the roles and the operation of Parliament we are fostering that mistrust through our very own inaction? The public’s perception of politicians is totally negative. It is seen that we are prepared to use the public to get into power and that once in power we do not want to listen again until we need the votes of those very same people. That tars us all with the same brush—as self-serving and as looking after our own self-interest first. There are virtually no checks or balances. Politicians appear to do exactly as they wish instead of placing the interests of the people first. Is it any wonder that New Zealanders feel powerless? They have no real say when the momentous issues facing society are decided. 
When the current number of MPs in New Zealand is compared with selected countries that we like to compare ourselves with—Australia Canada and the UK—the New Zealand rate per 100000 citizens is significantly higher. In Canada there is one MP per 100000 in Australia there are 0.7 MPs per 100000 and in New Zealand there are three Lower House MPs per 100000. Different numbers will be quoted in this House but the question must be asked and it has been by the people: are New Zealanders getting good value from this representation? Government departments and businesses go through cost-cutting exercises to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and that certainly is an exercise that Parliament could carry out. With many MPs having been involved in cost cutting in the corporate world they should be able to align themselves very closely with the reality of cost savings. Like all other workers MPs would have to learn to work smarter for the good of New Zealand. 
Estimated savings per year as a result of the bill will be $8.7 million in reduced salary costs reduced funding costs for MPs and members’ support funding. If we look at Vote Parliamentary Service which includes both fixed and variable costs depreciation etc. we will see that the estimated savings are over $15.5 million per annum. Those additional funds could be used elsewhere in this country in areas such as education dental care health—I could go on all night with that particular list. If as politicians we were looking at any other Government department or Crown entity we would still be looking for and demanding those savings. Can we apply those same rules to ourselves? I hope we can be honest and do that. 
In New Zealand on 15 March 2006 this House has a rare opportunity to build some respect by heeding the will of the people. New Zealand politicians have the power to empower voters by supporting the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill to a select committee so that submissions may be heard and the issues around this proposal can be vigorously debated. I urge members to take that course.