Electoral Referendum Bill — Third Reading 
Electoral Referendum Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16465] 
Electoral Referendum Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Referendum Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill fulfils the Government’s pre-election promise to hold a referendum on MMP. It offers New Zealanders another chance to have their say on the voting system. After five elections under the MMP system National was of the view that it was time for voters to consider whether this system was working for them. The bill provides an indicative referendum on the voting system to be held with the 2011 general election. Voters will be asked whether they would like to keep MMP and if New Zealand were to change to another voting system they will be asked which of the four alternatives they would prefer. 
The alternative voting systems are first past the post preferential voting single transferable vote and supplementary member. If there is a vote to keep MMP the Electoral Commission will review MMP and report on whether any changes to it are necessary or desirable. If voters opt for change this Government is committed to holding a second binding referendum with the 2014 general election. Voters will then be asked to choose between MMP and the most preferred alternative voting system from the first referendum. If the majority of voters prefer the alternative voting system in 2014 then the new system will be implemented in time for the 2017 general election. 
This approach is similar to the staged process made in 1992 and 1993 that resulted in the introduction of MMP for the 1996 general election. This process is lengthy but the alignment of the referenda with general elections is designed to maximise participation from the electorate on such a constitutionally significant issue. There also needs to be sufficient time for public debate and to ensure that the legislative framework for the alternative voting system if required is robust prior to a second referendum. 
Once again I would like to express my appreciation for the work done by the all-party Electoral Legislation Committee. I acknowledge the membership of that committee and the many submitters we had on this bill. I am very grateful for the constructive way in which all parties in the House have approached this matter. That cooperation has been in keeping with the constitutional significance of this legislation which should not be underestimated. As I said in my first reading speech in New Zealand the triennial election of representatives to this House is arguably the most significant constitutional check on executive power. The decision as to how those votes are translated into seats is rightly one for the people to make. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the final reading of the Electoral Referendum Bill on the basis that the legislation has been improved by the select committee process and the input of the more than 1000 people who submitted to the Electoral Legislation Committee especially the 50 or so who submitted in person. Again I place on record that the approach adopted by the chair of the committee Amy Adams and also by the Minister of Justice enabled a compromise to be reached that enabled Labour members to support the bill. With this bill the major sticking point was again the need for a cap on third-party spending believing as we did that without the cap the potential for advertising to distort the effect of the campaign by the well-resourced anti-MMP group which is largely made up of corporates over that of the under-resourced pro-MMP group which is largely made up of community groups was too great. 
I have made much of two issues during the course of the debate. I believe that this referendum is a citizens initiated referendum masquerading as a Government referendum. Secondly I believe that there is a strategy in place to replace MMP with a form of first past the post with 30 supplementary list members who are voted on separately and with a party vote that is proportional only to those 30 members. Part of the strategy is to ignore public demands for changes to some aspects of MMP before subjecting it to a referendum. I am firmly of the view that if the Government truly wanted to test public opinion about MMP it would have allowed that review to precede the first referendum. But it did not allow time for that which makes the need to review MMP post the referendum even more imperative regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. My amendment which was rejected by the Government was designed to achieve that. 
If a second referendum is required—and I doubt that the public will fall for this strategy but just in case they do—then allowing MMP to run up against a brand new purpose-designed system without any review of its flaws would mean that the second referendum would lack integrity. That is why Labour will commit to the review regardless of the outcome of the referendum and if a second referendum is required we will commit to the timetable proposed by this Government and hold it in 2014 but the MMP system that the new system will run up against will have been reviewed so that the public get a real say a real choice. I believe that the Government’s position—that people need to vote on the system they are used to—is spurious because they could also at the same time be voting on a system they have never experienced on the other side of the MMP debate. New Zealanders want us to revisit the thresholds and that we must do. There are other aspects of MMP that must be reviewed. 
So why are we having a referendum on MMP anyway? The announcement was made by John Key at his party conference leading up to the 2008 general election. It was No. 10 on the list of 10 pledges he released that day but I always felt that it was the pledge that certain interests had wanted since the 2005 campaign had gone so horribly wrong for National at the last minute. And this is where there is a link between this bill and the previous bill. Business interests and groups like the Exclusive Brethren had poured millions of dollars into that campaign first through the device of billboards that dominated the landscape from the beginning of the year to avoid the electoral spending caps and to set the scene for a misogynist and racist campaign—remembering of course the “Iwi/Kiwi” slogan and the distorted photographs. National was supposed to win that campaign with Don Brash positioned to deliver to his backers everything they had hoped for: privatisation of our remaining asset base relaxation of the rules on overseas ownership of land making funding from Votes Health Education and Housing currently dedicated to the public systems fully contestable with the private sector— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I am not going to allow a cross-debate to go on while the member is speaking. We tolerate a few interjections but an interchange was going on that was quite separate from the debate. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will just recap on what Don Brash was positioned to deliver: privatisation of our remaining asset base relaxation of the rules on overseas ownership of land making funding from Votes Health Education and Housing currently dedicated to the public systems fully contestable with the private sector a return to market rents for what little remained of the public housing stock and replacing ACC with private insurance. It would have been Ruth Richardson on speed. We can see why National’s backers were appalled by Helen Clark’s ability to put together a series of arrangements that prevented National from taking office and they blamed MMP. 
Roll on John Key in the lead-up to the 2008 election and here is a quote from the coverage of the announcement because I think it speaks volumes about why we are having this referendum: “Mr Key who made the referendum one of 10 election pledges in his speech to National’s annual conference today said he believed voters would reject MMP. ‘I think the country may well vote MMP out but I think they will vote in another proportional system’ he told reporters.”—he knows what is coming—“ ‘I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.’ ”—he knew exactly what was on offer—“But after 12 years of MMP it was important to give voters a choice he said. ‘I do think voters thought they were going to get an opportunity to kick the tyres and we’re giving them that opportunity.’ ” 
That announcement set off alarm bells for me. First there has been a view quite widespread that people were promised a second referendum after MMP had been in for a while. In fact it was a review that was promised and it was promised by a National Government. It was not promised by a Labour Government. It was promised by the party that brought the MMP referendum into effect. That review occurred after the 1999 election when Labour was in Government. It was chaired by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt as the Speaker of the House and all parties were represented on that review. 
Personally I think that approach was inadequate. Personally I think we should have had an independent review of this place take place. I think that would have given us some further grounds for making changes to MMP which I think we could have considered 12 years into the new system. However there were those who continued to make mischief by expressing the view that a second referendum had been promised. Quite frankly if one says things often enough people start to think they were promised something. That is exactly what happened. And guess who did not deliver on this false expectation? Of course it was Labour who did not deliver on it even though we were not the Government at the time the system was changed in the first place. 
So this referendum is not only drawing on that populist view about MMP; it is actually about delivering to National’s backers the opportunity to get rid of MMP altogether and replace it with a system that looks like and sounds like—but is not—proportional representation. I quoted this in the Committee stage but I will quote it again from  
New Zealand Herald  
columnist John Armstrong: “And before anyone mouths the words ‘supplementary member’ let’s beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing. No doubt those wanting a return to those dark ages will seductively offer the supplementary member system as a halfway house between [first past the post] and MMP. That system is in part proportional. It might look like a compromise. It is not. It is nothing short of snake oil elixir. Had last year’s election been fought under that system with a Parliament made up of 90 constituent seats and 30 list seats National would have won 67 of them compared with its current 58. That party would have had an absolute majority of 14 seats with just under 45 per cent of the vote. The Greens’ current entitlement of nine seats would have been slashed to just two. So much for proportionality.”. 
We have achieved a limit on expenditure which I hope will limit the ability of the parallel campaigners to distort the truth about the supplementary member system. It is not proportional representation and it is not a halfway house; it is first past the post with a winner’s bonus and it is nothing more. It will do nothing for diversity in this place. It will do nothing to provide a critical check on the unbridled power unleashed by Governments of both colours when absolute majorities were assured. That was what the people of New Zealand voted to reject in 1993 and as long as they are told the truth about what they are being offered they will reject it again. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this third reading debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I start off by responding to some of what the member who has just resumed her seat Lianne Dalziel has said about it. I think it is only fair to say quite a number of people in New Zealand do not like MMP and thought they were to have another referendum. The fact that those people do not share the views of the Labour Party does not make them somehow part of a nasty political conspiracy. 
In fact I was at a forum the other day on this matter and I was talking to one of the lead campaigners for the campaign for MMP. She was telling the assembled group that she and her mother had had a very interesting debate about this very point. Her mother was staunchly pro - first past the post and had always thought there should have been a second referendum. The campaigner of course took the opposite view and in the great tradition of never discussing sex religion or politics I think things became fairly heated. 
But it is misleading to stand here in this House and try to suggest that there is some sort of nasty hidden political conspiracy because there are people in New Zealand who do not agree with Labour. A lot of people wanted to have a second referendum on MMP; a vast number of people always thought there would be a second referendum on MMP. This Government has always committed to giving the country that referendum. 
I will not stand here and argue about which electoral system is better. The whole purpose of this bill is for New Zealanders to make that decision. Our purpose in putting this bill before the House and the purpose of the Electoral Legislation Committee in its work on it was to make sure that the referendum process was as fair balanced and engaging as it possibly could be and in that respect I think this Parliament will have done an excellent job when it very shortly passes this bill into law. 
I will touch on one other aspect of that: the issue of the campaign spending limits which I also mentioned in the debate on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. I believe it is important that there are some controls on the ability of parties to wade into this debate. It is important that there are limits on and proportionality between the amount being spent on the public education campaign to ensure New Zealanders are brought up to speed and the amount spent by third parties. 
Finally I touch on this: when we have the debate as a country around which electoral system we prefer I think it is really important that the debate goes beyond simply what the voting system is. The effect of the changes associated with some of these systems touches on matters like the number of electorates we will have in this country. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests to me that the options in this referendum have the potential to give us anything from 30 electorates nationwide through to 120 electorates and that there are a number of stages in between those numbers. That alone is a really interesting debating point. How big should our electorates be? Should they be single-member electorates? Should they be multi-member electorates? How big is too big? How small is too small? I think it is important that when the country starts to think about these issues we realise that the issue is not just a question of how we will vote and how the seats will eventually be divvied up. That is of course an important part of it but I ask members to think through to what a change means to our system of representation and to our roles in this House of Representatives. Whom do we represent and are we able to do that properly? Certainly I will have issues if the electorates continue to get bigger and bigger geographically about how well we can really represent the voices of constituents. 
There are a number of aspects to this debate that I think will make for a very interesting next 12 months or however long the period will be over the teacups and over the roast turkeys. I hope New Zealanders will engage in this debate and leave aside the silly maxim about not discussing religion sex or politics. Those have always been the best three topics of conversation in my view. I hope people will actually start to have these discussions and ask the family over the Christmas table about what they think and what a change will mean. If we get some of the stuff out we might be surprised at how many members of our own families have a different view from ours. I end with one plea: that we respect that everyone will come to this issue with their own views and that we should discuss those views on their merits rather than attacking people who hold opposing views. With those words I commend the bill to the House. 
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. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 A number of interesting and important issues have been raised so far in the debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. Following on from Pete Hodgson’s speech I agree with the analysis of the supplementary member system as described by Lianne Dalziel: it is just first past the post in drag. I think the public will be able to see that easily enough. 
I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with a politician or political party saying which system they think is better. The Green Party makes no apology for saying that it wants to have a system of democratic representation that is as fair as possible for all New Zealanders and that all New Zealanders are entitled to be represented in the House of Representatives. That is after all what it is for. 
We should always strive for the best possible system one that provides the greatest level of fairness and representation. There is no doubt that our current system of MMP provides a much greater level of representation and fairness for a much broader section of our New Zealand community than first past the post ever did. There are people in the House representing views that were never otherwise heard in the House and that is the point of a representative democratic process such as we have in this country. 
It is nothing to be ashamed of and we should always strive to make it better. I agree with Pete Hodgson that it is always a decision of the citizens as to which system they use. We use the referendum system so citizens can make that decision and rightly so—it is a decision that belongs to them and them alone. 
It is very important to talk about the different kinds of systems that are possible for the management of a democratic process such as we have in this country and to analyse them on the basis of their ability to provide fair and genuine representation for all voices in the community: not just the wealthy; not just the property owners as was the case in the past; and not just those who are privileged and have access to people with power but all of those who have been marginalised in the past by the systems of power we have by the elite and by the influence of wealth on our political system. 
The people who have been most marginalised—whether it is women Maori young people or people who have a different analysis of power—are all entitled to representation here as well and there is no doubt that MMP has provided that representation. We see that by looking at those sitting in the Chamber as we speak. There are more Maori in the Chamber there are more women in the Chamber and there are younger people in the Chamber specifically because we have an electoral system—MMP—that provides for a much greater level of representation for all communities. That is a good thing. We must protect that and continually strive for it. 
We are pleased with a number of very good things in this legislation which sets up the referendum to look at our electoral system in 2011. The caps on spending that apply to electoral finance have been applied here as well. All the political players in the referendum debate will have a cap on their spending to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone involved and that is good. We do not want money to be the major influence on how citizens decide their political system will be managed. It is very good that we have the spending cap. 
I will raise one query around the decision to have the referendum at this time. Amy Adams raised a number of issues about the size of electorates for example and a whole lot of subsidiary issues that sit around the kind of electoral system that we might have. I note that a constitutional review has just been announced by National and the Maori Party as part of their confidence and supply deal. The constitutional review covers a range of matters from matters that are as significant and deep as the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our constitutional arrangements which really is the first question to operational matters like how many MPs there should be. 
The breadth of the review is such that it makes one wonder why we would have a referendum on MMP in the middle quite separate from that discussion. If we will be talking about how we should be governed and asking citizens to discuss and make decisions about how we should be governed and all the different aspects of that—what value is set for how we should be governed what the principles are by which we should be governed how we should structure the process for governance who should be part of that process who should make the decisions what the constraints are and all of those things—then surely the electoral system is part of that discussion. 
To have these two very different processes occur at the same time does not make any sense from the point of view of having a rational discussion about our constitutional arrangements. It is a disappointment. By splitting out MMP in a referendum at this early stage we are predetermining what will happen with our electoral system while at the same time we are asking the public to discuss that very issue in a completely different forum. It does not make any sense from a practical point of view. We want the public to have a broad discussion about these issues yet they have been separated out structurally. It is not a good way to go about it so I am disappointed. 
I am disappointed that in the deal between National and the Maori Party they were not able to see that these issues fit together and that they should have been dealt with in a more consistent and systematic way so we could provide a system for the public to have that discussion in a very a systematic way with the greatest level of support. I think that was a missed opportunity and will continue to be a missed opportunity over the next few years. 
Overall the Green Party supports this legislation. I reiterate that it is absolutely the right of citizens to make decisions about the electoral system they use to elect those who will govern on their behalf. We look forward to that process. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be supporting the Electoral Referendum Bill which we understand will go through unanimously in the House later this afternoon but we do so with some reservations. Once again we have a problem with the fact that people who want to be involved in the election are being limited to spending $300000. Far from informing people we are actually restricting the rights of New Zealanders who want to participate in this referendum to inform and lobby their fellow citizens. 
It has been quite interesting to listen to the last three or four speakers. We heard from Lianne Dalziel a clear personal support for MMP and a criticism of the supplementary-member representation system. It is interesting that the Hon Pete Hodgson drew the conclusion that Lianne Dalziel was personally supporting MMP. He made the comment that Labour has never supported a political system but that it has always believed it was the right of the people to decide on what political system politicians should be elected under and that it is simply not the role of Labour to be advising lobbying or campaigning for one system over the other. 
It is very interesting to compare that approach with the approach of the Green Party. Metiria Turei said that the Greens think it is very very right for the Green Party to get out there and promote one political system over the other. Of course the Green Party owes its existence in this Parliament purely and simply to the MMP system as I do myself. I am a list MP here and I am here as a consequence of MMP and of course Green Party MPs are elected entirely under the MMP system. But in outlining the case for MMP in the way that Metiria Turei did she showed New Zealanders why we should not have restrictions on third-party participation. As a member of Parliament she can use this venue and she can use the media coverage that she attracts as co-leader of the Green Party to put the case for MMP. She can do that entirely free of charge. There is no cost to her in standing up in Parliament this afternoon and putting the case for MMP and having journalists and New Zealanders around the country listening to this broadcast on television and actually hearing that case. Metiria Turei says that by putting a cap on expenditure we are ensuring a level playing field but we are doing exactly the opposite. We are not ensuring a level playing field. What about people who support first past the post? Where are they in Parliament this afternoon? From where are they getting the free publicity that Metiria Turei has received this afternoon? The Green Party owes its existence to MMP. It has clearly signalled that it will campaign strongly for MMP. It will be required under the rules of the referendum to register and to spend no more than $300000 on advertisements. But it will have an advantage that is not available to other New Zealanders who want to form themselves into groups to support or oppose one of the four different types of electoral systems. The Green Party will have that advantage. 
Interestingly Lianne Dalziel quoted the Prime Minister John Key as perhaps suggesting we should be moving in the direction of the supplementary-member representation system. That is also free publicity that he gets as a Prime Minister. 
The ACT Party is voting for this legislation. We think the public of New Zealand deserve to have the right to have a say on the way that politicians are elected and the way that this country is governed. But we would much prefer that there are no restrictions which would enable New Zealanders to form lobby groups and support groups or whatever to get out there to get involved and to try to inform their fellow New Zealanders about the different options and promote any particular option that those support groups wanted. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand today and speak in the third reading debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I state from the outset that the Maori Party does not consider referenda to be an effective form of gauging Maori views. There is a huge body of evidence about the tyranny of the majority which I merely point to as being inconsistent with the partnership envisaged in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
We cannot separate out the issue of participation in referenda from the wider analysis of Maori representation in the political process. The Maori Party believes that Maori should be fairly and effectively represented in Parliament in a way that reflects their place as the Treaty partner. The voting system should contribute towards the same. We have considerably more confidence in the capacity of MMP to do that than any other forms of voting systems including first past the post—especially first past the post. 
In a report prepared for the Electoral Commission in May 2007 it was noted that the introduction of the proportional representation - based mixed member proportional electoral system has brought about increased participation by Maori in the political system and increased competition for the Maori vote. We welcome that increased hunger for political representation as a sign of a healthy democracy. 
Recently I was privileged to represent the New Zealand Parliament at a conference organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the United Nations Development Programme on parliaments indigenous peoples and minorities and effective participation in politics. That was a very interesting conference which as I say I was privileged to participate in. The interesting thing for me was that before I went while I was preparing for my speech there I had some research done by the library that pointed out the proportions that make up in the New Zealand Parliament. 
If we look at the proportion of ethnicities here in this Parliament against the proportion of ethnicities in the wider population we see that it is practically percent for percent. Of course recently we had the addition of a Pacific Islander and the resignation of an Asian MP. But regardless of that our New Zealand Parliament is very much made up of ethnicities that represent ethnicities here in New Zealand very well. 
Our overwhelming interest in this legislation has been to ascertain whether it will ensure that our elections are fair and reflect adherence to our foundations in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In keeping with the special constitutional status of Maori our preference has been that a robust and comprehensive process of public dialogue be entered into with Maori to canvass areas of detail such as dual candidacy closed party lists party thresholds overhang and other such matters. 
We note that in terms of the 2008 relationship and confidence and supply agreement between the National Party and Maori Party both parties agreed that there will not be a question about the future of the Maori seats in the referendum on MMP planned by the National Party. 
Finally we see a relationship between this Electoral Referendum Bill and the very important context developing as a result of the constitutional review. I am greatly looking forward to being closely involved with this project which I see as a vital opportunity for engagement on some key aspects of our society: the nature of electoral participation the foundation of our constitution and the procedures and conventions that are unique to this land. 
In many ways I think this review will help to deliver on the expectation from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its November 2005 report. That report recommended that a special rapporteur be directed to visit Aotearoa and report back on the relationship between Maori and the Crown. One of the key recommendations from that visit was to endorse an earlier recommendation from the Waitangi Tribunal calling for a longer conversation with Maori. We welcome the constitutional review and indeed the electoral referendum process as all part of the context of building that longer conversation. 
Finally I acknowledge the significance of the working group on constitutional transformation which has been brought about by Professor Margaret Mutu and Moana Jackson to engage with Maori and to work on developing a model constitution for our country. All of these developments are very positive and we see them as more signs of a maturing nation. We are pleased to support this third reading of the Electoral Referendum Bill. 
Bill read a third time.