Lees-Galloway Iain: Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Well this has been a fascinating debate in which there has been an astonishing amount of clutching at straws by the Government members desperate to find any reason to vote against this legislation the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill. We started with the astonishing nearly 10-minute attack on me by Jacqui Dean because apparently I had got the date of commencement wrong in this legislation. The minor detail that Jacqui Dean overlooked was the fact that this bill was drawn from the ballot in November 2013. That was well in advance of the last election and the Standing Orders say I cannot amend the bill after it has been drawn from the ballot but that is not a big deal to Jacqui Dean. I wondered how a member could come up with such an illogical argument and then I remembered that Jacqui Dean was the one who was taken in by the dihydrogen monoxide hoax. So Jacqui Dean has not learnt a thing from embarrassing herself in public in the past and demonstrating her ignorance. Once again she has been able to demonstrate her ignorance this evening.I want to address some of the comments made by Chris Bishop and also by David Seymour. Chris Bishop and David Seymour both raised examples in the past of when other parties have indeed been able to bring people in by virtue of the one-seat threshold rule. They noted Jim Anderton and suggested that the Labour Party did a deal with Jim Anderton to help him win Wigram. Well I have to say that a small thermonuclear weapon would not have got Jim Anderton out of Wigram—likewise with the example of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Here is the key difference between what has happened in the past and what has happened with the ACT Party: yes Labour has sometimes in the past said: “Look you have got a choice between the Greens and the National Party. We are out of this race so you have got a choice. Either vote for the Greens or vote for the National Party. We’re not particularly fond of the National Party. We suggest you get in behind the Greens.” The key difference is that National should win Epsom every time and the only reason David Seymour is here is because of the largesse of the National Party. That is the only reason why ACT is here. That is the key difference between what has happened in the past and what has happened now.But actually all of that is irrelevant. It is irrelevant whether lowering the threshold would allow one party or another party into Parliament. It is irrelevant whether people have made use of the rules as they stood in the past. What is relevant—the only thing that is relevant here—is that there was a review and the review an independent review not governed by any special interest of anybody in this House came up with these recommendations in response to an overwhelming demand from the people of New Zealand for this Parliament to stop putting self-interest ahead of the way they want to have a fair system of electing our representatives. Yes we are talking about a balance between proportionality and I suppose governability in the House. That is why the recommendation was made to get rid of the one-seat threshold and lower the party vote threshold to get the balance between proportionality and governability right.But again I want to address what David Seymour said. He said that this comes from the German model. The German model was worried about ethnic representation. I wonder how many ethnic Epsomians need to have their representation guaranteed in Parliament by having the ACT Party represent them. We do have a desperate shortage of straight white men in this House! Thank goodness that through the one-seat threshold that ethnic representation of Epsom has been able to be represented by David Seymour and Rodney Hide in the past! Actually that is the truth of that particular argument.What we have heard from Government members is a line-up of spurious arguments idiotic attacks on the Opposition and clutching at straws simply to divert attention from the fact that they are voting against this legislation tonight because they have an interest in maintaining the one-seat threshold and maintaining the coat-tailing so that they can get an unfair advantage in Parliament. That is the only reason why and they are not listening to New Zealanders. They are completely out of touch with what New Zealanders want. They have put their own self-interest against thousands of submissions an independent review and promises that were made by the National Party that they would make the changes that this bill seeks to implement. They are full of broken promises they are full of silly arguments and they will rue the day they voted against this legislation.A party vote was called for on the question that the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.