Copeland Gordon: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6327] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I think that the member who introduced this bill Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First overlooked a very real reality of the current political system in New Zealand. That of course is the MMP system. If we were to go back to 100 members of Parliament within an MMP system we would have some very very difficult practical problems to overcome. I think that the bill—like the leader of New Zealand First—is populist in the sense that most New Zealanders would probably say: “Yippee let’s go back to 100 members.” but we in this Parliament also have to deal with the question of practicality. When we think about it if we went back to having 100 members there would be some rather perverse outcomes. 
First of all we have a fixed quota of electorate seats for the South Island. If we bear that in mind alongside having to allow for list MPs which of course are necessary under an MMP system if we are to avoid massive overhangs in Parliament then it is very obvious if we do the sums that the size of the North Island electorates would have to increase very very significantly if we were to go back to 100 seats. I already hear complaints from people like John Hayes of the Wairarapa Anne Tolley of East Coast Bays and John Carter of Northland about the sheer geographical size of their electorates. Even in the cities electorate MPs say that they now have a vast number of people to represent. So at the electorate level this Parliament would become a lot less representative in terms of the number of people particularly in the North Island all reporting through to one electorate MP. 
The second point of course is the point Dr Pita Sharples has very very accurately outlined—that is the effect on MMP itself. That also would be jeopardised in the sense that there would be more people with fewer representatives at the electorate level. Also at the national level the number of MPs who are able to cater for MMP would be significantly reduced if we were to retain the proportionality that is at the heart of the MMP system. Simply stated the practicalities do not work out. 
We can go back to 1993 when we had 100 members of Parliament and then simply adjust the situation for the growth in the New Zealand population from then until now which has been about 18 or 19 percent. If we retained electorate representation of the same size as in 1993 before MMP we would now be up to 115 to 116 members of Parliament which is fairly close to the current 121. 
 Also although MMP ideally put forward a scenario where 50 percent of MPs would represent electorates and 50 percent would be list people we have got well away from that mix. In fact under MMP we have never had an exact 60:60 split or a 50 percent:50 percent split within the 120-member cap. As members know we currently have 69 constituency seats and 51 list seats. The problem will continue in that direction while our population increases as long as we keep the 120-member cap and if we set aside for the moment the whole question of overhang. So effectively what we will be doing is progressively working our way back towards a first-past-the-post system. That is not what New Zealanders want in their Parliament. 
Everyone I speak to about this issue including some people who were seriously opposed to the concept of MMP readily admit that we now in our current arrangements have better representation in Parliament of the diversity of views that exist in New Zealand society. There is a place now for the Maori Party United Future the Greens ACT and New Zealand First. We are not having people forced—whether or not they like it because they have no other choice—to back either of the two old parties Labour and National. Therefore it would be a major step backwards if the bill was adopted. 
I do not have a lot more to say as I think that the various points have already been well canvassed by the previous speakers. Suffice it to say that for the reasons I have outlined we will be voting to oppose the second reading of this bill.