Hodgson Pete: Electoral Referendum Bill — Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Electoral Referendum Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16469] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will make a short contribution to the third reading of the Electoral Referendum Bill because my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has done such a splendid job of covering the issues. Her contribution is a hard one to follow actually. I thought however that Amy Adams made some really good remarks. She suggested that we should think beyond the systems we might have or might be choosing between in the future and think about what that means. She gave electorate size as an example which is a really valid reasonable and reasoned point. It is one that of course Maori members of Parliament have been familiar with for more than 100 years. They were limited for that period of time to just four seats irrespective of how many people were on the electoral role. That is what we find if we go back in history. 
In fact if we go back in history—since I have started to do so—we find something else under first past the post. I have been a member of Parliament under first past the post for two terms and this is my fifth term under MMP. But before I was a member of Parliament I was a paid dogsbody for the Labour Party off and on through the 1980s. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Marginal seats. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes! There is a really interesting feature of our history that most people in this House will know but some will not so it is time they caught up. Rob Muldoon who was the Prime Minister of New Zealand from 1975 to 1984 for 9 years—actually for 8½ years because he cut and ran in the middle of 1984—won more votes in only one election which was the 1975 election. He came second in 1978; he came second in 1981. We all remember that Social Credit got 2 percent or 6 percent and then famously in one election got 16 or 17 percent of the vote—21 percent was it? 
Hon Simon Power 
: 21 percent. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do apologise. That figure struck us as the most obnoxious thing about first past the post but there was also the formation of the Government. That towering giant of New Zealand politics managed to win one election in his whole life as Prime Minister. So there you go. 
In respect of supplementary-member representation I simply add to the remarks of the Hon Lianne Dalziel by saying that it is not the same as first past the post; it is just three-quarters of the way towards it. That is kind of the best way to think about supplementary-member representation. I make the point to the House—and it matters—that the Labour Party does not have a position on which system we should have in New Zealand in the future. As individuals Labour members have positions. Lianne Dalziel has given the House the benefit of her position and it seems to me that she will vote for MMP. I will go to the polling booth and do the same thing. It may be that many most or all of my caucus colleagues will do the same but the Labour Party still does not have a position. 
The reason is that it is not OK and I think everyone agrees for a political party to say to the public that it wants to be elected by a particular method. It is a decision for the public. It is appropriate for political parties to argue about what will happen if they are elected—they want to do more of this or less of that—but how they are elected is for the people to decide. For that reason the Labour Party does not have a position on the form of voting and never has had. I think that is probably a position that most parties would hold to though if they do not it is their business. 
With those few remarks I again acknowledge the way in which our Electoral Legislation Committee worked under the amply capable chairpersonship of Amy Adams. I wish for the speedy passage of the legislation.