Turei Metiria: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Electoral Referendum Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10410] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has long campaigned for a fair and democratic electoral process that favours all New Zealanders not just the wealthy few. I want to pay my respects in homage to the late Rod Donald for his work on this exact issue. He long campaigned for MMP and for a fair electoral process so New Zealanders are represented in their own Parliament. After all this is supposedly a House of Representatives and the more representatives the better. 
It is certainly true that the influence of money on politics is one of the greatest threats to freedom and democracy. We know that in Aotearoa wealthy non - political party actors can intervene in the election process by buying advertising and distorting the process to favour their own agenda. For that reason modern democracies all around the world have introduced rules to try to limit the influence of money on politics. The Greens believe that our democracy thrives on ideas and not on fat wallets. Our electoral process is the central mechanism by which we are able to ensure that ideas are of greater value than bank balances. Our system is not perfect and it never will be but democracy should never be static. It should always be an evolving process that is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Electoral Referendum Bill is an important step in confirming New Zealand voters’ choice of electoral system. It establishes a two-stage referenda on our electoral system and voters will quite rightly make up their own minds as to the kind of electoral system that is best for our country. It is one of the responsibilities of citizenship that in a matter like the electoral systems citizens consider the needs of the country as a whole. 
We in the Greens do not hesitate in affirming our support for MMP. MMP has meant that more New Zealanders are represented in Parliament and in Government. Under the current MMP system everyone’s vote counts equally. MMP has enhanced the representation of women Maori Pasifika and Asian people in this House and in our society not just in population sectors. MMP enables different ideas ideologies values and solutions to be represented in Parliament and in Government. The advent of new parties has gifted this House with a creativity and innovation that was absent during the long reign of the duopoly of Labour and National. It has increased the breadth of Parliament so that it better reflects the country as a whole. As I said if we are to have a House of Representatives then surely a system that increases the representation of New Zealanders is the goal. I know that women MPs in this House and National Party women MPs in particular must be very proud of the number of seats that they command in this Chamber because of MMP. MMP has delivered real gains for our community such as Kiwibank paid parental leave and home insulation. It has been a success. 
As to the process given the constitutional nation of this bill the legislative process and the substance must be objective un-biased even-handed and scrupulous. We called for a process that was independent of the Government. We looked for a process of public input into the design of the questions in the process and looking at the substantive process that is laid out in the bill we believe that some effort has been made to avoid bias and political interference. I commend Simon Power’s efforts in that regard. Having said that there is a glaring omission in the legislation that has the potential to seriously undermine its objectivity to foment bias and to challenge the even-handedness of the process. I will turn to that gap in a moment. 
The bill provides for a referendum to take place in 2011 and potentially in 2014. Both are designed to coincide with the general elections. There will a ballot paper with two questions one asking voters whether they wish to retain MMP and another giving a choice of electoral systems. The systems are the same as those discussed in the report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Following the referendum in 2011 if MMP is retained by the voters then a review of MMP will take place. Certainly we welcome that review. This House last considered the issue of a referendum on MMP in August 2001 which is less than 10 years ago. The majority of parties at that time were very cautious in rushing constitutional matters of this nature which we think was wise. I will quote from the review of MMP which stated: “The ACT party considered that on constitutional matters prudent societies are conservative. People can look to constitutional changes to fix perceived ills instead of searching for the true causes. Political patterns take time to adjust to changes. Constant changes make it harder to distinguish the causes of problems from the symptoms of change.” We have found that in the last 14 years which is not very long for an electoral system to be in place MMP provides stable Government and robust Parliaments and there are no concerns about New Zealand functioning during a change process under MMP. 
I will now return to the glaring gap of the anomalous position of parallel campaigners especially those who if history repeats itself want to spend up large. The Electoral Act 1993 has provisions for the registration of political parties and this legislation makes provision for registering promoters—non - political party actors—who wish to publish advertising during the period up to the referendum. We have no issue with the registration of promoters. We must know who is behind any campaign but registration alone would not have prevented the outrage that Nicky Hager exposed in his book  
The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception 
 when the Exclusive Brethren and the horse racing lobby provided apparently independent pro-National advertising. We remain extremely concerned that there is no spending limit on a referendum which has the most serious implications for our representative democracy. There are very few decisions a country can make that are more significant than how the country elects its more senior political figures. It is not a process that should be trifled with and it is not a process that should be left to the market to decide. 
We know that the 1986 report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System stated that it is not “fair if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.” That comment was in relation to campaigning in an election. But I argue this referendum is an even more constitutionally serious decision because not only are we deciding how we elect our Government but also that decision is binding. It is one of the few mechanisms in New Zealand to constrain a Government. If less significant democratic decisions—for example citizens initiated referenda—have a spending cap to protect the level playing field why would we not have a spending cap to protect the level playing field for arguably the single most important constitutional decision that electors can make? Why would we not ensure that this decision is made with the utmost fairness with the greatest protections and with a level playing field that gives New Zealanders the same opportunities to campaign on these issues? Why should the wealthy be privileged? The Government has argued that it did not include a spending cap because it thought that the citizens initiated referenda spending limit was too low at $50000. The answer to that is very simple: put it up and make it more. That is fine. The principle remains the same and we make it more. It is not rocket science. It is not difficult. It should have been done before this legislation came before this House. 
This is not about freedom of expression although some will argue that. It is ironic that freedom of expression masquerades as a debate about the right of the wealthy and the privileged to spend as they choose. The fact is there is an inequality in this country that is suffered by the community across the board. That inequality makes a mockery of those who might rally behind the expression “freedom of expression” as a defence to allow the wealthy to continue to manipulate the process because they have the resources to do it. That is not a fair system for choosing an electoral system that has such constitutional significance. 
The Minister of Justice Simon Power argued for a good process for the referenda on a sound basis and on good principle but then he dismissed out of hand the option of limiting expenditure. I accept that he is genuine in his concern and we hope that New Zealanders are able to make substantive submissions on this issue and tell the Government that a spending cap is necessary. Our democracy should not be a battle of wallets but a battle of ideas. Our democracy must not be sold on the market place. Thank you.