Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act 1993 in order to reduce the number of members of Parliament from 120 to 100.

Prior to the introduction of the mixed-member proportional representation system in 1996, the number of members of Parliament had reached 99. In 1999 a citizens initiated referendum on the size of Parliament was held in conjunction with the general election of that year. That referendum was held as a result of the petition that was organised by Margaret Robertson and signed by 279,233 others to reduce the number of members of Parliament to 99. Voters in the referendum were asked the question: “Should the size of the House of Representatives be reduced from 120 members to 99 members?”. Of those who voted, an overwhelming 81.5 percent—1.7 million New Zealanders—voted in favour of a reduction.

What action occurred as a result of that overwhelming decision by the people of New Zealand? Essentially, nothing. In light of this inaction, is it any wonder that New Zealanders feel they are powerless and have no say or influence over the issues that face their country? Democracy is lost when the Government fails to hear the voices of the people.

When the MMP legislation was introduced, both National and Labour put the MMP number of MPs at 120, and the first-past-the-post number at 99, in the hope that people would reject the new, fairer voting system in favour of the old system, because they well knew that people do not want to see more politicians. It was hoped that that increase would ensure that the first-past-the-post system was retained. In short, the politicians of the time tried to deceive the people. Did that work? No. The MMP system was voted in, and people still feel very strongly that there are too many politicians.

We are seeking to honour the intent of the 1999 referendum by reflecting the will of the vast majority of voters in that referendum. What did we do as politicians after the referendum was held? As one person said to me, the politicians put their snouts and their trotters firmly into the public trough and chose to totally ignore the wishes of the majority of the people of New Zealand. Why? Because politicians cannot always be relied upon to do the right thing and to act in accordance with the wishes of the majority. In this very instance, the will and the common sense of the people could have been relied upon. It appears that the majority of the people have been left out of the democratic process on this particular issue. Democracy is too important to be left solely to politicians.

The MMP Review Committee, which was implemented under section 264 of the Electoral Act, reported on various aspects of the electoral system but could reach no agreement on the issue of reducing the number of seats. It is time to look again and to look harder. New Zealand First believes that the reduction can be made without any adverse effect on the business of the House or its select committees. Some will argue that the valuable contributions of certain members will be lost. We argue that the issue is not about individuals keeping their jobs. Rather, it is about finding better ways of doing things and working smarter to achieve what the people overwhelmingly want. By reducing the number of list members by 20, there would be no change to the number of constituency seats or Māori seats. The proportionality that we currently enjoy in Parliament today need not be distorted in any way.

The overwhelming wish of more than eight out of 10 New Zealand voters is very clear from the outcome of that referendum. Those who claim that this is not so have their heads buried in the sand. This desire has not changed, and recent feedback from people throughout New Zealand, particularly via talkback radio, confirms that this desire to have less Government and fewer politicians still holds true.

I believe that it is timely for politicians to attempt to regain some public respect for the actual role or job that we as politicians have and seriously consider the issue by at least voting the bill through to a select committee. How many times do we as politicians have to be voted the least trusted people in society before we realise that by ignoring the will of the people and by distancing the clear public position from the review of the roles and the operation of Parliament, we are fostering that mistrust through our very own inaction? The public’s perception of politicians is totally negative. It is seen that we are prepared to use the public to get into power, and that once in power we do not want to listen again until we need the votes of those very same people. That tars us all with the same brush—as self-serving, and as looking after our own self-interest first. There are virtually no checks or balances. Politicians appear to do exactly as they wish, instead of placing the interests of the people first. Is it any wonder that New Zealanders feel powerless? They have no real say when the momentous issues facing society are decided.

When the current number of MPs in New Zealand is compared with selected countries that we like to compare ourselves with—Australia, Canada, and the UK—the New Zealand rate per 100,000 citizens is significantly higher. In Canada there is one MP per 100,000, in Australia there are 0.7 MPs per 100,000, and in New Zealand there are three Lower House MPs per 100,000. Different numbers will be quoted in this House, but the question must be asked, and it has been by the people: are New Zealanders getting good value from this representation? Government departments and businesses go through cost-cutting exercises to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and that certainly is an exercise that Parliament could carry out. With many MPs having been involved in cost cutting in the corporate world, they should be able to align themselves very closely with the reality of cost savings. Like all other workers, MPs would have to learn to work smarter for the good of New Zealand.

Estimated savings per year as a result of the bill will be $8.7 million in reduced salary costs, reduced funding costs for MPs, and members’ support funding. If we look at Vote Parliamentary Service, which includes both fixed and variable costs, depreciation, etc., we will see that the estimated savings are over $15.5 million per annum. Those additional funds could be used elsewhere in this country, in areas such as education, dental care, health—I could go on all night with that particular list. If, as politicians, we were looking at any other Government department or Crown entity, we would still be looking for and demanding those savings. Can we apply those same rules to ourselves? I hope we can be honest and do that.

In New Zealand, on 15 March 2006, this House has a rare opportunity to build some respect by heeding the will of the people. New Zealand politicians have the power to empower voters by supporting the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill to a select committee so that submissions may be heard and the issues around this proposal can be vigorously debated. I urge members to take that course.

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 Māori 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.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, with a standard 6-month report-back time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member seeks leave for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

I am pleased to join this debate, although not so pleased to have the member who has just resumed his seat misrepresenting what actually took place in question time yesterday. But I suppose that is something I have become accustomed to, from that member. However, I find myself in some agreement with some of what he said, surprising as that may seem. I will start by acknowledging what I think is the genuine intent of the sponsor of this bill, Barbara Stewart. She has raised some issues that are legitimate to raise, but one of the concerns I share in part with the National member, Dr Worth, is the fact that this, in effect, is a piecemeal approach—an attempt to tweak the current electoral legislation—and I think therein lies one of its fundamental flaws, as a bill. To try to modify one piece of the electoral arrangements without looking at the implications and flow-on effects to the whole is almost certainly always going to produce more problems than it may set out to solve—if indeed the problems are real, as suggested by the member.

We have heard reference to the Royal Commission on the Electoral System of 1986, and I think we should bear in mind that the royal commission specifically recommended that if New Zealand went down the path of a mixed-member proportional representation system, it needed 120 MPs in order to populate that system and to make it work effectively. So that was not some arbitrary decision made—as perhaps the impression might have been given—by politicians for some personal reason; rather it was specifically the recommendation that was the backdrop to the change in our electoral system that ultimately took place in the 1996 general election, following the 1993 referendum.

So I think we should look very seriously at the warnings and guidance given by the royal commission, in saying that the need for 120 members of Parliament was proven by the extensive process it went through. The commission talked about the risks in reducing the size of Parliament in terms of the relative reduction in the effective scrutiny of the executive. That should be a matter of real concern to all members of the House. I happen to sit on this side of the House at this point in my political career, and I am a member of the executive, but I still believe passionately, as a democrat, that there must be effective scrutiny of the executive. Frankly, one of the by-products of MMP, as was predicted at the time, has been a serious increase in the role and the influence of the select committee process, and we need to have enough members of Parliament to operate those committees effectively, and for members to be able to do their jobs thoroughly. Again, the royal commission was mindful of that when it talked about the need for 120 members of Parliament.

The other thing that is of concern to me, and Barbara Stewart may unintentionally have done it today, is that we see perpetuated the idea that New Zealand has a relatively large number of members of Parliament. That simply is not true. The example was given of Australia. It is very popular for people who want to make this argument to be very limited in the information they provide. Australia does indeed have 150 members of Parliament in its Federal Lower House, and a dozen for each of its states in its Upper House. It has a bicameral system. But what the member forgot to mention, of course, is that it has states. It has six states and two territories, and we can take one of the larger ones, Queensland, as an example. If we add in the Legislative Assembly numbers, there are 129 elected representatives for Queensland. If we look at Victoria with its two houses, the numbers are even greater. It has 44 and 88 members respectively added to its Federal representatives, to give a total of 228 elected representatives for a population of a little over 5 million.

The point needs to be made that there is a cost to having a democracy: it is an adequate number of elected representatives. We mess with the structure in one part, without looking at the whole, at our peril. I certainly think that, good intention or not, this bill is a matter of ad hoc tweaking around the edges of the system—I think, in the case of the member moving it, with sincere intent. But for some others it is a purely political expedient, and I am concerned about that. The Labour Party will not support this bill, because in the end any major addressing of the electoral arrangements for our country should be handled comprehensively, not in a piecemeal way.

Here in Aotearoa we are very fortunate to have one of the most representative Parliaments in the world. We have a very good balance of genders in this Parliament. Compared with many legislatures, we have quite a high representation of women, one transsexual MP, and a broad array of ethnicities. There is an MP who is Asiatic, an MP from Pakistan, and I myself am an MP who is descended from Hungarian and African—

💬 Hon Mita Ririnui: A few Poms.

There are quite a few Poms, yes. In this Parliament we have a broad representation of different ethnicities and, in particular, a very strong representation of indigenous people. That again, I think, is a rarity, at least among colonial nations. We have quite broad religious diversity. We have a Muslim MP, a Rastafarian MP, and MPs who probably practise traditional Māori spirituality, although I have not specifically asked about that of members. We have a great deal of diversity, and that is a direct result of MMP.

Something I hear a lot in this country is people saying that although they support that diversity in Parliament, they do not always agree with what representatives of that diversity have to say. What they do value is the fact that that representation is here—that the diversity of voices and all those different perspectives are represented in this Parliament. I believe that plays a strong role in what I consider to be a pretty good social cohesion in this country. People are willing to deal with conflict by sitting down, talking about it, and negotiating it, rather than by resorting to violence. I think it is because people, at least to some degree, feel represented in decision-making places, like Parliament.

Unfortunately, I believe that this bill would significantly reduce that representativeness and that diversity. New Zealand has one of the most open democracies in the world, with public involvement directly in legislative decision-making through our select committee process. The Minister, the Hon Mark Burton, referred to that. Most people in this country probably do not have a very good idea of what select committees are and what they do. They are the powerhouse of this Parliament. They are where the bulk of the work of members of Parliament actually takes place. The number of MPs is absolutely crucial to select committees being able to do their work effectively, and that was one of the quite specific reasons why the Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended the number of 120 MPs.

I can tell members that the select committee I sit on, the Justice and Electoral Committee, deals with pretty heavy pieces of legislation. We have just been dealing with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, which is a significant rewrite of the law and regulations governing lawyers and how they operate. On that committee are three members who have practised as lawyers: Richard Worth, Russell Fairbrother, and Christopher Finlayson. This is a pretty crude way of saying it, but if we just knocked off the last 20 list MPs in the current Parliament, then we would find that both Russell Fairbrother and Christopher Finlayson would not be there. I cannot begin to imagine what a loss that would be for our select committee, because the work that those members do—although I do not always agree with their points of view—is extraordinarily valuable. The expertise they bring to issues is absolutely invaluable for those of us who do not have a legal background. I think it would be a tragedy to lose those members, which would be the direct result of this bill. This bill would make select committees less effective.

My problem is also that the bill does not affect the real concern I think people have. A lot of people in New Zealand intuitively like the idea of reducing the number of MPs, because they are sick of the infantile behaviour that goes on in this Chamber just about every day. It is unfortunate that if that is the concern, this bill will not address it. In fact, it will be counter-productive. I have not done the figures for the new Parliament, because there is a new intake of MPs. But Rod Donald addressed this very question in 1999. He pointed out that the 21 lowest-ranked MPs who would lose their seats were the best-behaved MPs in Parliament. Not one of them was expelled from Parliament, compared with five constituency MPs and three higher-ranked list MPs who were. Only four of them had to withdraw and apologise, compared with over half of all constituency MPs and almost half of the high-ranked list MPs. By tossing out the best-behaved MPs in the House the behaviour in this Chamber would actually get worse. The measure would be absolutely counter-productive.

Mr Burton has already referred to the royal commission’s recommendations. One of the points the commission made in arguing for 120 MPs was to ensure that the executive was not able to use its numbers to dominate the Government caucus, and through them the Parliament. For example, I know that ACT members have often stood up to support the rights of Parliament and the ability of Parliament to challenge the executive. I am surprised to see the ACT party supporting this bill, because I think—

R Doug Woolerton: Mr Prebble used to do that.

That is right, and I respected his contribution in that regard, because it was genuinely a concern for the rights of Parliament. I think it is a shame that the ACT party is supporting this bill. It would tip the balance in favour of the executive and it would make this Parliament less representative and less effective.

There is a familiar saying in Māoridom: anō ko te mārama kua ngaro, kua ara anō—which can be interpreted as: just like the moon that disappears and rises again. And, indeed, just like the waxing and waning moon, Māori electors will continue to believe in the right to full and effective Māori political participation, whatever permutations of electoral reform come before the House—like the latest today, the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill.

We support the right of all New Zealanders to be able to describe the type of electoral structures they want to see in this Parliament. That is why we are supporting this bill to go through to the select committee. It is about walking the talk. If we really are about power to the people, then we must let the people have the power to determine the preferred political structures for this Parliament. In speaking up for the right of people to speak up, we do so mindful of the need for checks and balances, which in itself is a logical outcome of an MMP environment.

Essentially, this bill affects the proportionality of Parliament. It is therefore incumbent upon the select committee to turn its mind to the increasing and compelling challenge of diversity. The challenge before this Parliament, and therefore of this bill, is how we adequately reflect diversity, whether it is to be with 99 members or 120. Today’s bill seeks to return Parliament to the situation of the Parliament of 1993, the last of the Parliaments elected under first-past-the-post rules.

I think it makes for an interesting comparison to look back to first past the post in 1993, and to contrast it with the implications of MMP in 2006. In 1993 0 percent of the Parliament was Asian; in 2006 1.6 percent of current MPs can claim Asian ethnicity. Pasifika representation has grown from 1 percent to 2.5 percent, and Māori representation has grown from 7 percent to 17.3 percent, which is about proportional to that of the population, and growing. The questions we need to be asking ourselves are: What would be the overall effect if the numbers were actually reduced? Is it desirable that our Parliament reflect diversity and, if so, how do we preserve that diversity?

I am reminded of an organisation called the One New Zealand Foundation, which raised its ugly, monocultural head during the halcyon days of the 1980s, when Government recognised the value of Māoritanga within the public service. Indeed, the Labour Government of that day, through the policy document of Pūao-te-ata-tū courageously recognised and acknowledged the existence of cultural, personal, and institutional racism that existed within the Department of Social Welfare. The right-wing conservative reaction to documents such as Pūao-te-ata-tū was led by organisations like the One New Zealand Foundation—an organisation opposed to the Māori world views and certainly opposed to diversity. We will be supporting this bill to go to a select committee because we firmly believe that dialogue about diversity, about representation, about accountability, and about checks and balances needs further airing in this Parliament.

We are pleased this bill states that there will be no changes for Māori seats as a result of this bill. Tangata whenua throughout Aotearoa in just 2 weeks’ time will be making a clear political statement about their preferences for electoral representation. Between 3 April and 2 August the Māori nation will experience profound political change as they participate in shaping the lie of the land, electorally, for Māori electorates. The bill states there will be no change in Māori seats, but there will, very likely, be a change in Māori representation. While the Māori Party is happy to let the bill go forward to the select committee, it is concerned that, despite this bill appearing to favour elected parties such as ours—and that should make us happy—and despite what we may see as muted Māori voices in other parties in this House, the bill in its current form may have the likely effect of eliminating Georgina te Heuheu, the colourful, irascible Tau Henare, Winston Peters, who is the Māori father of the House, Pita Paraone, Shane Jones, and Metiria Turei, all of whom add colour, flavour, pizazz, and intellectual grunt to the House.

As we know, the moon will continue to move, whether it is over Taupō, Auckland, or Tonga, and with such movement Māori will continue to fight for their right to democratic and effective political representation. We hope the select committee process will enable all New Zealanders to have a say as to the best possible mechanism for having real political power.

Congratulations to Barbara Stewart on taking the trouble to prepare this bill and put it in the ballot, and having the luck of bringing it out. I thank her for that. This bill and debate mark a big difference in the parties in this House, because our democracy and our Parliament do not belong to us, the politicians; they actually belong to the people of New Zealand. It is the people of New Zealand who should be saying how our democracy should be run. We see this in the parties in this House: New Zealand First, the Māori Party, the ACT party, and the National Party want to hear from New Zealanders. We want New Zealanders to have a say. This is their Parliament. It is their democracy. We have the Greens and the Labour Party—the authoritarians—not prepared to let New Zealanders have their say about how many MPs there should be.

R Doug Woolerton: Very sad.

That is very, very sad, and it goes to the true colour of the Green Party and the Labour Party. What is wrong, pray tell, with letting New Zealanders have a say about how many MPs there should be? After all, it is their democracy, and they are the ones who have to pay for it. Is it the case—and I think it is—that the Green Party and the Labour Party do not trust New Zealanders, that they do not think New Zealanders are clever enough or smart enough to actually have a say? The one time that we had New Zealanders having a say, over 80 percent of them said: “We favour 100 MPs.” But the Labour Party and the Green Party are saying that those 80 percent have got it wrong, and they are not even prepared to send this bill to a select committee to give New Zealanders an opportunity to come forward and have their say.

It may be that the Green Party members disagree with this bill, but they are doing something stronger than just voting against a reduction of MPs. They are voting against the opportunity for New Zealanders to have a say. That is what I find so sad about the Green Party and the Labour Party on this. Yes, there is an argument to be had over 120 versus 100 MPs. I personally favour 100 MPs. I think that would be a far better Parliament. But what I do believe is that it should be the people of New Zealand having a say. Nandor Tanczos and the Green Party, and Mark Burton and the Labour Party are not voting against 100 MPs; they are voting against New Zealanders having a say.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I want to begin by congratulating the member Barbara Stewart, who has brought this bill to the House, because she has focused attention on what is a critical issue for a number of people. But I say to her that although we respect her ability in bringing the bill forward, United Future will not be supporting it.

I want to outline the reasons why. This bill essentially proposes to take the House back to where it was in 1993, prior to the introduction of the MMP electoral system, by providing for 100 members of Parliament. One of the immediate difficulties that arises is that between 1993 and the present the population of New Zealand has increased by just under 18 percent, yet this bill contains no mechanism for recognising that adjustment. In fact, if we were to go back to the point we were at in 1993 and calculate the number of seats on the same basis that we would have at that time, Parliament would now comprise around 115 or 116 members. So we see little point in going back to a situation whereby we might end up pretty much back where we were at the time before the Electoral Act was passed. That is the first point we have, by way of difference with this bill.

The second point deals with our MMP system. I note—and I assume from the member’s comments—that there is no intention to overturn that, so this would be MMP with fewer members than we have at the moment. But the bill does not specify the split between list and electorate seats. I want the House to recall that at the time MMP was introduced it was argued that for the sake of proportionality we needed to have a fifty-fifty split between list and electorate members. In fact, we have never had that because the MMP system effectively caps the number of seats at 120, barring overhangs, and any adjustment upwards in the number of electorate seats is at the expense of list seats. So instead of having 60 list seats and 60 constituency seats, we now have 69 constituency seats and 51 list seats. That problem will get worse as the population increases. Adjusting downwards the number of members of Parliament will simply exacerbate that, in the absence of any wider consideration of the nature of the electoral system.

We say that the bill is well intentioned and I recognise the work that Margaret Robertson and her supporters did, back in 1999, and the public mood at the time, but the bill would not work as it is currently drafted. The issue that I think we ought to be considering, frankly, is not so much whether we reduce the number of members of Parliament, but, when the current system is reviewed, should we maintain the fact that there is no upward cap? How long can we go on increasing the number of general seats by three or four each census period—and maybe one or two more, depending on the outcome of the Māori option—at the expense of list seats, before we seriously disturb the proportionality within the MMP system at the moment? It is already quite seriously disturbed. The idea that we have one for one never eventuated even in 1996, and as I say the deficit is now 18. I imagine that on current population projections it will be somewhere over 73 or 74 general seats at the next election, and we will be down to about 45 or 46 list seats. That will carry on. Until we address that point by considering whether we need a cap, we will not make progress.

I respect the member’s motives entirely and, as I say, I congratulate her on her initiative, but the changes proposed in this bill would not work. The bigger issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee needs to look at is how the current system works, how long we can tolerate the imbalance between list seats and electorate seats that we have at the moment, and whether the number of voters per constituency seats should be reviewed, or whether we should look at removing the cap on the number of seats altogether. Until we do that, we will not get the benefits of MMP that its advocates ascribed to it all those years ago. I think that is the area we should be making our focus.

Naturally I want to speak in favour of the bill. Although we accept the arguments made by Peter Dunne, we nevertheless believe that Parliament can operate perfectly well with 100 members, and we see no reason why that should not happen almost immediately. This bill is the result of a referendum in which the public of New Zealand spoke overwhelmingly in favour of a reduction in the number of MPs, and we are following through on that. If you like, it could be described as our listening to the people. At the very least, we believe that this bill should be sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee, so that it can be openly debated and people can make submissions upon it. They can bring their arguments to the table, and we can hear what they have to say. As Mr Rodney Hide pointed out, this is the Parliament of the people of New Zealand; it is not our Parliament. We are merely the people’s representatives.

I know that other speakers have mentioned that there could be an overhang, and I think it was Mr Worth who said that that could lead to increased instability. All I want to say to that comment is that we have an overhang now, as far as that goes, and there is no instability in the House, as much as some people would try to make it appear to be so. We do not believe that just because there is an increased likelihood of an overhang, that would necessarily lead to any sort of instability.

We cannot let this chance go by without talking about the benefits MMP has brought, at least to our mind, to the Parliament of New Zealand. We have far wider representation now, under the MMP system. We believe that would continue with 100 members, and we believe it is important that it continues. We have to speak also about the select committees. Other people have said that the select committees now, under MMP, are far stronger than they ever were, and that is certainly true. I am told by visiting MPs, and by people whom we come into contact with overseas, that we are at the forefront of world practice as far as the use of the select committee process goes. Our select committees indeed do have real power. We do not accept that lowering the number of, in this case, list MPs will change that substantially. Again, the practice at this time is that not all select committees have a proper representation of the parties on them, because of the number of votes that are achieved by the two biggest parties.

It is not as though we want to review every detail of the MMP system. This is a clearly set out bill, for one purpose and one purpose only. It responds to a public call for fewer MPs in Parliament, and that is exactly what the bill provides for. We believe that referring it to the Justice and Electoral Committee will provide a great chance for that committee to discuss the wider issues regarding the electoral system, but we believe that it would be absolutely wrong, and misleading in fact, for those issues to be included in this bill. There is no question that they will be debated as part of the discussions on this bill, and we think it is right that that should be so.

Obviously, we are seeking support for this bill. We hope some of the parties that currently oppose it will see the wisdom of our arguments and change their minds.

It is a privilege to be able to speak on a very important piece of legislation under the Electoral Act that could affect the way we operate in the future, and I congratulate Barbara Stewart on bringing this bill forward. It is not the first time we have debated the number of MPs, the composition of the House, and the electoral system. Jenny Shipley had a similar bill, and it was carried through and picked up by Simon Power.

But it is also interesting to note that although New Zealand First is promoting this bill, it did not take the opportunity to make submissions when the review of MMP took place in 2001. I think it is significant that New Zealand First, which is now championing the cause of having fewer MPs, had the opportunity then to make submissions. I will read from the paragraph headed “Invitation to join the Committee” in the report of the MMP Review Committee on the inquiry into the review of MMP: “All the political parties represented in the House were invited to participate in the review of MMP by nominating a member to join the committee. The ACT, Alliance, Green, Labour, National and United parties all did so. The New Zealand First party declined to participate. In addition to this, all the parties in the House were invited to make a submission to the committee on the review; all did so with the exception of the New Zealand First party.”

In the context of what transpired in the past and what we are seeing tonight, I am pleased that Barbara has moved forward. I do not know whether this is a change for the New Zealand First Party, but in our view it is a move in the right direction. Way back in 1999 a citizens initiated referendum was held, which was significant because 1.7 million people—81.5 percent of those who voted—voted for a reduction in the number of members of Parliament. That was a huge indication of public support for a change to the number of MPs from 120 down to 99. Yet here we have a Government that tonight is saying it will not support this bill.

💬 Hon Member: It’s a shame.

It is a shame. It is an absolute disgrace that a party is not taking note of what has been advocated and voted on in a referendum whose result was overwhelming. In 1999, 81.5 percent—1.7 million New Zealanders in total—of the New Zealanders who voted in the referendum said they wanted the number of MPs reduced from 120 to 99. What do we hear tonight? We hear that, no, the Government will not participate. It will vote against this bill.

Let me remind members of what Jim Anderton said, who, I suppose, will vote with the Government tonight. On 3 August 1993 Jim Anderton spoke in the debate on the Electoral Reform Bill. I will quote from Hansard, Volume 537, at page 17130: “I also give notice that on behalf of the Alliance I will be moving an amendment to reduce the number of seats in the referendum about MMP to 100. That is, 60 constituent seats, 4 Maori seats, and 36 list seats—enough seats to ensure proportionality …”. Here is a member of the Government propping up this minority Labour Government. I will be interested to see whether Mr Anderton’s party of one will actually subscribe to the fact that in 1993 he said that there should be a reduction in the number of MPs.

This Government, with the Greens supporting it, is saying no to public feeling. It will stand against this bill going to a select committee. I give notice to the Labour Government that this sort of insult to what New Zealanders want—which is the accountability, flexibility, and transparency that a reduction in the number of MPs would give, if the bill were allowed to go to a select committee—will be the Government’s downfall. Do members know why MMP was introduced and why we had 120 members? The reason was that there would be a large pool of people to fill ministerial positions. Well, what have we seen in the last couple of days? We have seen the David Benson-Pope saga. Has having 120 MPs added to Parliament’s value, tradition, or credibility? The answer is no. In the last couple of days we have seen Chris Carter with a problem relating to the Whangamata marina. That is the sort of thing that happens. We have too many MPs. We need to reduce that number and support New Zealand First in this bill.

I rise to say, quite clearly, that Labour does not support this bill. We heard from the Opposition that it was the will of the people to reduce the number of MPs. The non-binding citizens initiated referendum took place in 1999 after three terms of a National Government. There was disillusionment among the people, and I did not blame them, as I too felt pretty depressed after the end of those three terms. I truly believe that that vote was a vote of no confidence in the National Government. In fact, people voted with their feet, and that resulted in the election of a Labour-led Government. I do not believe, though, that that was a true indication of the feeling of people at the time.

I have a lot of respect for Barbara Stewart. She is a very well-meaning member. But to amend the Electoral Act to reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 99 would mean we would lose a lot of skills and diversity within our Parliament. It is very important to both our Parliament and our society to have that diversity. I know that the National Party does not think so. If we look across to the National benches we see that those members have burnt off most of their people who are not white or middle-aged—and probably male, in most instances. But enough of their leader—let us talk about the bill.

This legislation has a number of problems. Reducing the number of MPs would reduce the number of members available to sit on select committees. I want to talk about the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is a very hard-working and, I think, effective select committee, and it has pretty good leadership. The Labour members on that, who comprise a combination of electorate and list MPs, contribute greatly to the committee, as does Nandor Tanczos, a list member from the Green Party. Chris Finlayson, who is a list member, also contributes a lot of common sense to the committee. We may not always agree on everything, but it is an indictment on the National Party for it not to acknowledge the contribution made by its list members.

We in Labour are not like that. Our new people who came in under this Government include Darien Fenton. She is a real asset to this party. We have Maryan Street, who has had a very diverse background, including in health. Sue Moroney played an integral part in the changes to the racing situation—or will, some time in the future. We know that Shane Jones is a real asset to our party. This would not have happened if we did not have the numbers associated with MMP.

I accept that on the other side of the House—and I know from my own electorate—we see from time to time some list members who really do not pull their weight. My sympathy is for the National Party in that, but that is no reason to cut the numbers of MPs.

Professor Nigel Roberts, head of political science and international relations at Victoria University, has said quite clearly that if we lop off 20 list seats, there will be problems. The fewer list seats available, the greater the chance there will be an overhang. In terms of getting a representation that is truly representative of New Zealand—as we see in other parties in this House but certainly not in the National Party—it is really, really important to retain those numbers. I am proud that Labour is being upfront in opposing this bill.

I begin by thanking my parliamentary colleagues for their very careful and considered debate on this bill, for the many replies to the letters I sent to everyone, and for their support.

This is not an easy issue for politicians to deal with as it directly affects them, and that is what we have heard tonight. There is not one of us here in this House who does not believe it is a true privilege to be here representing the people who gave us their trust and their hope that we would make New Zealand a far better place to live in. It is fair to say that we all do our very best to do that. However, the bottom line is that Parliament should be a more responsive and accountable institution and should aim to give real power to the people. That is the basis of any democracy.

For the people of New Zealand, this issue is really simple. The overwhelming majority want less government and they see that one way of achieving that is to have fewer politicians. Many voters believe that one of the main disadvantages of MMP is the number of MPs. Opponents of a reduction tonight have stated that it would make the House less effective, less stable, and would result in an overhang. An overhang is something we currently have.

However, it is time we had a good look at ourselves and our processes and learnt how to work smarter—like the rest of New Zealand. It is certainly past time for this House to be responsive to the will of the people. An appropriate response is to support this bill to amend the Electoral Act going to a select committee. More than eight out of 10 voters have asked for that; I ask members again on their behalf to ensure that this bill can be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny.