Chadwick Steve: Electoral Referendum Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Electoral Referendum Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15857] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I am not an electoral expert and I am not on the Electoral Legislation Committee but it sounds like a fascinating process and one I think all MPs who participate in the House should take notice of as this is the very reason that we end up here. 
Labour will be supporting the Electoral Referendum Bill. Initially we were concerned about the spending caps on third parties but National has addressed that in the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill that we have just debated so that concern has gone away for us. But one of the things that we are concerned about is the chicken and egg approach to this referendum bill. We think there should have been a review of MMP first before we go to the referendum. 
I am concerned as we go around schools and community groups—and not just in election time—about the lack of awareness that exists amongst many in our communities still about what we call civics literacy which is just the understanding of the democratic process. I do not think $5 million expenditure on a referendum about voting systems will assist raising awareness on the importance of New Zealanders’ right to vote. I am aghast when we go out doorknocking as we do as MPs that people do not understand the current system. In fact the Mana by-election was really interesting. Whether it was just to get rid of us at the door a lot of people said: “I’ve already voted thank you dear.” and we said: “But you can’t have. The election is in the next 2 or 3 weeks.” They would reply: “But I’ve just voted.” So they did not even understand the difference between local government elections and general elections. This was a bit atypical in being a by-election but it showed the lack of awareness that exists. I think we have to start raising that awareness amongst schoolchildren and it is about having civics in the school curriculum and appreciating the value of civics. 
This referendum is to be in the 2011 election and we started this MMP process in 1992-93 so that is nearly 20 years. So this is a good time to look at it anyway. It looks like the select committee has done a very good job of looking at this whole process. I am pleased that there is a $300000 spending limit which is limited to the 3 months prior to the referendum so that the promoters cannot just spend huge amounts of money as we see in the American elections pushing a line that they inevitably will take on which system of voting they prefer. 
New Zealand likes to pride itself on having a very clean process for elections. I will never forget going into Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters when she was standing for the Senate and looking at the fund-raising that went on in the American election campaign whether it was for the Democrats or the Republicans and being agog at the amount of money that people were raising for elections. I think in referenda that for those who want to take a position and that is democracy which is valuable to us all $300000 is about right. One could run a pretty good middle-of-the-road campaign with $300000 so a huge amount of money is not being spent to buy the persuasion of New Zealanders. We feel it is right that those who are overrun with cash will not be the key influencers here. 
Labour supports the bill. I am a bit concerned that the Prime Minister has already stated a preference for supplementary member representation because that was part of Peter Shirtcliffe’s campaign that we saw only too well in the previous MMP referendum or debacle really. The Prime Minister going out as the leader of this country saying that that is his preference is already beginning political persuasion. I do not think that is a good thing. I think the possible voting systems that are in schedule 2—MMP first past the post preferential vote standard transferable vote and supplementary member—are very complex as the chair of the committee said and will need quite a lot of digestion by the community. 
I go back to my colleague Pete Hodgson who is an expert on electoral systems and referenda and his question about why we are doing this when the majority of people seem to be relatively happy with MMP but say there may need to be some tweaks. When I go around school groups in particular I think of the representation that is in the House now with MMP. There is more diversity—more women more ethnic representation—and we think that is a good thing. But of course there are improvements we could have made on that system. So that is where we sit. 
But it is great to have open debate again on this subject. I think it is timely. We support the bill. It will be interesting. I do not think even $5 million will educate the public and I think there will again be confusion. I am pleased to see that a lot of time was spent on looking at the voting paper. Last time it was ambiguous and it was confusing. People thought they had voted one way and realised that in effect they had voted in completely the opposite way. That is a very critical tool and I am glad a lot of time has been spent on that because that is where the rubber will hit the road as we will have that first before we do the review. That is Labour’s position on this. Twenty years goes by in quite a hurry and it is great that this issue will be before the country again.