Tanczos Nandor: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1838] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Here in Aotearoa we are very fortunate to have one of the most representative Parliaments in the world. We have a very good balance of genders in this Parliament. Compared with many legislatures we have quite a high representation of women one transsexual MP and a broad array of ethnicities. There is an MP who is Asiatic an MP from Pakistan and I myself am an MP who is descended from Hungarian and African— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: A few Poms. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: There are quite a few Poms yes. In this Parliament we have a broad representation of different ethnicities and in particular a very strong representation of indigenous people. That again I think is a rarity at least among colonial nations. We have quite broad religious diversity. We have a Muslim MP a Rastafarian MP and MPs who probably practise traditional Maori spirituality although I have not specifically asked about that of members. We have a great deal of diversity and that is a direct result of MMP. 
Something I hear a lot in this country is people saying that although they support that diversity in Parliament they do not always agree with what representatives of that diversity have to say. What they do value is the fact that that representation is here—that the diversity of voices and all those different perspectives are represented in this Parliament. I believe that plays a strong role in what I consider to be a pretty good social cohesion in this country. People are willing to deal with conflict by sitting down talking about it and negotiating it rather than by resorting to violence. I think it is because people at least to some degree feel represented in decision-making places like Parliament. 
Unfortunately I believe that this bill would significantly reduce that representativeness and that diversity. New Zealand has one of the most open democracies in the world with public involvement directly in legislative decision-making through our select committee process. The Minister the Hon Mark Burton referred to that. Most people in this country probably do not have a very good idea of what select committees are and what they do. They are the powerhouse of this Parliament. They are where the bulk of the work of members of Parliament actually takes place. The number of MPs is absolutely crucial to select committees being able to do their work effectively and that was one of the quite specific reasons why the Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended the number of 120 MPs. 
I can tell members that the select committee I sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee deals with pretty heavy pieces of legislation. We have just been dealing with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill which is a significant rewrite of the law and regulations governing lawyers and how they operate. On that committee are three members who have practised as lawyers: Richard Worth Russell Fairbrother and Christopher Finlayson. This is a pretty crude way of saying it but if we just knocked off the last 20 list MPs in the current Parliament then we would find that both Russell Fairbrother and Christopher Finlayson would not be there. I cannot begin to imagine what a loss that would be for our select committee because the work that those members do—although I do not always agree with their points of view—is extraordinarily valuable. The expertise they bring to issues is absolutely invaluable for those of us who do not have a legal background. I think it would be a tragedy to lose those members which would be the direct result of this bill. This bill would make select committees less effective. 
My problem is also that the bill does not affect the real concern I think people have. A lot of people in New Zealand intuitively like the idea of reducing the number of MPs because they are sick of the infantile behaviour that goes on in this Chamber just about every day. It is unfortunate that if that is the concern this bill will not address it. In fact it will be counter-productive. I have not done the figures for the new Parliament because there is a new intake of MPs. But Rod Donald addressed this very question in 1999. He pointed out that the 21 lowest-ranked MPs who would lose their seats were the best-behaved MPs in Parliament. Not one of them was expelled from Parliament compared with five constituency MPs and three higher-ranked list MPs who were. Only four of them had to withdraw and apologise compared with over half of all constituency MPs and almost half of the high-ranked list MPs. By tossing out the best-behaved MPs in the House the behaviour in this Chamber would actually get worse. The measure would be absolutely counter-productive. 
Mr Burton has already referred to the royal commission’s recommendations. One of the points the commission made in arguing for 120 MPs was to ensure that the executive was not able to use its numbers to dominate the Government caucus and through them the Parliament. For example I know that ACT members have often stood up to support the rights of Parliament and the ability of Parliament to challenge the executive. I am surprised to see the ACT party supporting this bill because I think— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Mr Prebble used to do that. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is right and I respected his contribution in that regard because it was genuinely a concern for the rights of Parliament. I think it is a shame that the ACT party is supporting this bill. It would tip the balance in favour of the executive and it would make this Parliament less representative and less effective.