Worth Richard: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Electoral (Reduction in Number of  Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1836] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Thank you for allowing National to contribute to the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill. I start by congratulating Barbara Stewart because I think that for any member of Parliament it must surely be a high point when one’s member’s bill is drawn from the ballot and finds its way on to the floor of the Chamber for discussion and of course resolution. National’s position on the bill is that we support it going to the select committee. We are keen for the arguments that we heard the previous speaker propound to be tested. We are interested to see what submissions come forward in favour of the legislation. It would not surprise us at all if there was significant support in terms of public submissions for what is proposed in the bill. 
The previous speaker recited the history of referenda that have touched on the number of members in Parliament. It is an interesting starting point to note that prior to the implementation of the MMP regime the number of members of Parliament had crept up—if that is the right way to describe it—to 99. It is also relevant that in the referendum held on 27 November 1999 the results were starkly supportive of a reduction in membership. The question asked then was whether the size of the House of Representatives should be reduced from 120 members to 90 members. The answer was: yes 81.5 percent; no 18.5 percent. 
However issues relating to the reduction in the number of members of Parliament cannot be separated easily from the issue of MMP and the desirability of continuing the MMP regime or of changing to some other form of proportional representation. I regret that the opportunity was not taken when the bill was drafted of having that related issue tested. Some would say that it is not a related issue but clearly it is because the consequences of passing this legislation and reducing the number of seats to around 100 would have implications for the MMP regime. In particular it would create a likely increase in overhangs—with all the volatility that that may occasion. One of the realities of MMP that I do not think can be much doubted is that it has given huge power to the minor parties. It may well be an asserted advantage that MMP has forced the major party in power to seek consensus in the advancement of legislation but MMP has also produced a disproportionate voting strength for the minor parties. 
There was always I believe an understanding—flawed though it might have been—by the community that there would be another referendum on whether MMP would continue as our favoured regime probably linked with the issue of parliamentary representation in terms of numerical strength. Of course that public perception was wrong; what was held out was that there would be a review of MMP. That review was conducted in a previous Parliament with quite clearly predictable results given that the smaller parties made up the majority of the particular committee that conducted the review. That committee came to the view that MMP should continue. I should record that prior to the last election National had committed itself to a binding referendum on the future of MMP and that associated with that referendum would be a discussion on the number of politicians. 
The previous speaker identified cost savings that may flow from the proposal. I am not sure what the extent of those costings truly is but one can reasonably expect that there may well be substantial savings. Whether those substantial cost savings are offset by what may be perceived to be a loss of representation is an issue that will clearly confront the select committee. It is proposed that the number of list members may be reduced by 20. There will be no change to the number of constituency seats or Maori seats and it is planned that the change will take effect at the next general election. 
When we contemplate the future of the bill and also contemplate the interrelationship that the bill has with the MMP regime we may see that it is also timely to reflect on other systems of proportional representation that may serve Parliament better—if we are to be committed to a proportional representation system. I would plump for a form of proportional representation that did not find favour at the time with the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which looked at those issues—that of the supplementary-member representation system. It is beyond the scope of this debate to get involved in any of the detail of that issue but in summary under the supplementary-member representation system a proportion of seats in the legislature is filled by the first-past-the-post system with single-member constituencies and the remainder is filled from party lists with parties needing to poll 5 percent of the vote in order to achieve representation. So the significant difference from MMP is that proportionality is confined only to the list seats. Therefore a party that secured say 5 percent of the vote would have only 5 percent of the list seats and not 5 percent of all the seats in the legislature. One of the advantages of the supplementary-member representation system is that it allows smaller parties to secure representation in the legislature without having disproportionate power as is the case under an entirely proportional system. 
The other day I was interested to hear Barbara Stewart the proponent of the bill ask a series of questions of the Government seeking to ascertain whether there would be support for her bill from the Labour Party. The answer was a clear no. Labour will not support the legislation so there is a contrast between the positions of National and Labour. But Barbara Stewart went on to ask a further question which I thought was a very legitimate one. The question was whether Labour would contemplate a further referendum—perhaps a binding referendum—being held on the issue. That in fact formed the basis of the question. The answer to that question was no. I argue that we should always regard our constitutional arrangements as subject to review. They are not issues that stay sealed in concrete so it is a pity that Barbara Stewart secured that response to her question. 
I hope that in the short time that the Government continues in office in the future it may be prepared to contemplate changes to the constitution of the type that are presaged by this particular bill. As I have indicated I would rather have seen a reduction in the number of members allied to a proposal for a different form of proportional representation—if we are committed to a proportional representation system—because the problem that the select committee will have to confront is the implications in the context of MMP overhangs if this legislation is given effect. But I would argue that if we do have too many members of Parliament it is appropriate to look critically at that issue.