Electoral Referendum Bill

I shall take a brief call on the Electoral Referendum Bill. The Green Party was very pleased with the discussion at the Electoral Legislation Committee about how the referendum was to be structured. There was a lot of discussion about the nature of the ballot paper itself and ensuring that the language used was readily understood. We used an English for speakers of other languages process to test that it was easily understood and that simple language was used to help those for whom English is a second language or who have difficulties with literacy. Some good work was done on this bill.

The Green Party was also very pleased to see caps on spending by the various players involved in the referendum campaign. Of course, at the last referendum we saw extraordinary amounts of money thrown at an attempt to keep first past the post—and the same people will attempt to return us to it this time, actually. They fought very hard last time for first past the post and used vast quantities of money. So we are very pleased to see the caps, notwithstanding the fact that I know that other parties disagree with it.

The issue we had with the bill, however, was the question of the point at which MMP will be reviewed. The provision in the bill, as it stands, is that if MMP wins the first referendum in 2011, there will be a review of MMP at that point. It will concern a number of factors, and the bill sets out some of those. That is good; we should continually review our electoral system to see what is working and what is not. MMP is still comparatively young in this country. It has been in use only since 1999, so it is important to—

💬 Hon Member: 1996.

—1996, sorry. It is important to look at it and, in light of the experience we have had, to decide what changes need to be made. When the public are asked about MMP they have lots of ideas about what could be changed, and that is an important discussion for us to have. But the Greens say that that discussion should have happened before the proposition of a referendum was put forward. Voters, the public, citizens are entitled to a structured and resourced discussion on the kind of electoral system they want. If MMP was going to be put to the vote again, there should have been a chance for the public to engage in a discussion on the flaws and benefits of the current system of MMP before going to a vote on it. That would have been a way to ensure that our community had the best information available and were able to participate in the kind of system we should have. That did not happen, because of some strange electoral promise that, it appears, National made to somebody, although nobody knows whom. It came out of the blue that there would be a referendum. So now we are to have one. It is always up to the public to decide to vote on the electoral system, and that is fair enough.

As I said, MMP will be reviewed after the 2011 election, if it is successful in the referendum. But if it is not successful, then the system we will have during the period 2011 to 2014, in the lead up to a runoff between MMP and a new system, is the old form of MMP, which has not been changed since 1996. It will be compared with a very new system that will have been developed in light of our experience of MMP and in light of different electoral developments internationally. It will be a system that has been devised according to the best practice that we know of at the time. So it will not be a fair runoff. It will not be a fair runoff. Not only that; because of the process for constructing the new system and what it will look like, information about it will have been made very clear and available to the public. There will be a lot of discussion about the way that a new system might work and a lot of public engagement in that process. But there will not be a lot of discussion about, and engagement in, the MMP system that we use now, because so much focus will be on the new system. So the public discussion on the two different options they will be asked to vote for will be very, very different. The level of knowledge and information available to the public about the two systems that they will have to choose from will be very, very different. Because MMP will not have been reviewed, there will be the same level of public discussion about MMP and how it could be better.

The Green Party says there should be a review of MMP regardless of the outcome of the 2011 referendum. We say the public is entitled to have a say on, and make changes to, the MMP system, regardless of the referendum result, so that should MMP not succeed at the next referendum, the public will have the best choices from which they can make their decision. They will have available to them the most information about the benefits and the disadvantages of both systems. That is only right, because the voting system is a system that belongs to the people, it is a system that belongs to citizens, and citizens are entitled to make decisions based on the best possible information. There will not be that opportunity for our community to have the best possible information and to be able to make a choice between the two best types of systems, because the old, creaky MMP that we know could do with a little bit of looking at will be set against the brand new, shiny version of something completely different, and we do not even know what it will be. There is a real disincentive here, and I think the Government has set up the referendum in such a way to make it more difficult for a proper set of choices to be put to the electorate in 2014, if MMP does not make it through the 2011 referendum.

I know there are lots of concerns about the nature of this discussion, but in my view, no matter what our views are about how we construct electoral law, the No. 1 most important thing is that the public have the best access to the best possible information so that they can make the best decision in their interests, because the voting system belongs to them. The Government in constructing the referendum as it has done in this legislation has taken from the community and from citizens the ability to have access to that best possible information, and that is wrong. We should not be doing that in legislation, and we certainly should not be mucking around with that principle when it comes to the most important question of all, which is not what Government one elects but how one goes about electing a Government. That has got to be the most critical constitutional electoral decision that any community will make—not who is elected but how they are elected.

What we want in this country is the fairest, most transparent, and most representative system for electing people to Parliament who are therefore represented in the formation of the Government. That is what MMP does. It is a much fairer system than the one we had in the past. We should always be looking to improve and make fairer and more representative our electoral system, so that the public can have confidence that when they go to the ballot box their vote will count, which happens under MMP—people have two votes and both count—and that they are represented in this House of Representatives, first and foremost; that their voices will be represented in this House by the people whom they most prefer to speak for them, which is part of what representative democracy is all about. But also, when we make laws about how that process works, we must have first and foremost in our minds the need for our people to have a fair system that they can have some faith and trust in.

I have already said in the earlier debate on the electoral finance law that I have concerns about the integrity of our electoral finance system. On this matter I think there is an issue of integrity, too. We are not ensuring that we have the most integrity in the process by which we are to choose our electoral system. I am not sure whether the Labour Party has put up the Supplementary Order Paper that it was intending to put up to make this change, but I want to highlight for the community that a real concern is that people will not have the opportunity to make changes and to discuss and consider the MMP system in the way that they ought to, should it not be successful in the referendum in 2011. Thank you.

I was not going to take a call on this part because this part is not particularly relevant to the issue that Metiria Turei just raised, but I thought I should foreshadow that, yes, we will be moving an amendment to remove clause 54 from the bill, which is in a later part. I will talk to the reasons why we will do that at the appropriate time, because I am sure the Chair will rule me out of order if I was to try to discuss it now. He is nodding his head very sagely.

I will talk about clause 3, “Purpose of Act”. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for an indicative referendum to be held in conjunction with the first general election after the commencement of this Act, in order to provide electors with the opportunity to express an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives in New Zealand.” I think it is worthwhile to reflect in the Committee stage on why the purpose has been written in that particular way. As a country, we did not know that we would be having a referendum on MMP, despite the very widely held misbelief that we had been promised one when MMP was first introduced under a National Government in 1996, but we did have a very strong signal from National in this regard.

I have a quote from the coverage of the announcement made when Mr John Key, then the Leader of the Opposition, announced in the lead-up to the 2008 election the 10 election pledges that the National Party was taking to the election. One of the pledges—in fact, the very last pledge of that list of pledges—was a promise for a referendum on MMP. I will come to this point later on, when we get to the provisions relating to the caps on expenditure for third parties, but it is important to remember that we already have provisions in law on citizens initiated referenda. This is a citizens initiated referendum. It is masquerading as a Government one, and the deal was done in the lead-up to the 2008 election. Here is the quote from the New Zealand Herald: “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’ ”—that is a split infinitive if ever I saw one, but there we go—“ ‘but I think they will vote in another proportional system,’ he told reporters. ‘I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.’ 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.’ ” I hate that expression; in fact, recently he has used it very inappropriately in relation to the Pike River disaster, as well. On this particular occasion, he is making it sound as if kicking the tyres is a very casual thing, but, actually, it is not. This is quite deliberate, and we know exactly who is behind the desire to have this referendum.

We also know that this statement: “I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.” was put there deliberately, because the target is the supplementary-member representation system. The target is to get rid of MMP and replace it with the supplementary-member representation system, which is first past the post with a winner’s bonus. That is all it is. It is nothing more than that. It is not a system of proportional representation. Of the 120 seats in Parliament, only a small number—30 of the MPs—are voted in under the supplementary-member representation system, so it does not make the result proportional, at all.

I think it is important, when looking at the purpose of the legislation in clause 3, that we are talking about people expressing an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives. This was a deliberate strategy to get this in front of the public eye. It has nothing to do with kicking the tyres; it has everything to do with the predetermined plan—well, I was going to quote that wonderful expression from Justice Mahon from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Air Disaster, but I will not use that language because I might be held up for a breach of the Standing Orders for that, as well.

When we get to the other provisions of the bill, I will certainly talk about the amount of the cap and why it is important. I will also talk about the amendment that I am moving by way of Supplementary Order Paper.

I will respond to the comments of Lianne Dalziel and Metiria Turei, but before I do so, I will place something on record. The Hon Lianne Dalziel keeps asking why we are discussing these bills individually and not as a group of three. Let me advise her and the rest of the Committee that the ACT Party had no objection to discussing the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill together. All we asked was that they not be discussed at the same time as the Electoral Referendum Bill, which we saw as a totally separate bill. We wanted it discussed in a totally separate debate, as had been proposed prior to 2 o’clock this afternoon.

Let me come back to the comments of Metiria Turei. Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that Metiria Turei had used the opportunity of speaking on Part 1 to engage in quite a wide-ranging debate. She related the history of MMP. I will come back to the history of MMP and the reason why we are having this referendum, but this afternoon Metiria Turei made comments that simply astound me. I cannot believe what she has said.

Metiria Turei said that there would not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. Those were her words. She said that there will not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. She said that we have taken from the community the chance to have the best possible information. What, she asked, is more important than informing people about, and voting on, the system that elects their politicians—not so much the politicians themselves but the options for our electoral system. She criticised the fact that people will be denied that information. Well, the reason I find those comments absolutely astounding is that I suspect the Green Party and other members of this House are voting for provisions that will restrict that very information and deny groups the opportunity to pull together and form organisations to stand up and speak for or against a particular electoral system.

The reason this bill is so flawed is that it restricts the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to spend more than $300,000 promoting a particular system. They can spend no more than $300,000. Metiria Turei should be taking a good, hard look at herself and at her party’s position. She criticises the fact that the people of New Zealand will be denied the opportunity to have the best possible information, yet Metiria Turei and other members of this House are doing exactly that, because they are restricting the right of third parties to be involved in this debate.

I come now to the comments of Lianne Dalziel. I think she made some very important points. Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Party are another group of people who have argued that we need to restrict the rights of people to put their position. I think that the Hon Lianne Dalziel has explained very well this afternoon why we should not in fact put on that restriction. She has just quoted a statement that our Prime Minister made when he was the Leader of the Opposition. She said—and I have no reason to disbelieve what she said—that John Key, who is now the Prime Minister of New Zealand, said that he thinks people will vote MMP out and that they will not vote for first past the post but for a new proportional system.

The reason I make those points is that the Prime Minister was making a comment. He was giving the public a steer. He was indicating that maybe it is not such a good idea to have MMP, but that if we are to vote out MMP, then perhaps we need to vote in a new system that is proportional—or, as Lianne Dalziel would argue, only slightly proportional. The Prime Minister’s view has huge weight. Just by the very manner of his position, his view has huge weight. If one takes the position of the Labour Party and is opposed to what the Prime Minister is saying, then one will find that we are restricting the right of ordinary New Zealanders to stand up and speak out against the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: And spend $300,000. How many ordinary citizens have access to $300,000?

Yes, they have $300,000, but they have $300,000 in the context of a general election where the Labour Party will spend close to $5 million and the National Party will spend close to $5 million. The Green Party spent $1.8 million at the last election, so we have no reason to believe that it will not do the same thing again at the next election. So in the context of political spending, whether it is $10 million, $12 million, $15 million, or maybe millions more dollars, people who want to put the alternative view to the Prime Minister’s—and I am not saying whether the Prime Minister is right or wrong—are restricted to spending no more than $300,000.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: So is the Prime Minister.

I say to the Hon Lianne Dalziel that the reason why it is important not to have those restrictions is that the Prime Minister is in a very powerful position. He can make comments, which are carried in the media, that favour one particular voting system, and he can steer the public in a particular way. That seems to be what Lianne Dalziel is criticising.

So if people strongly support MMP—and there are people in this country who do—how do they counter the Prime Minister’s comments? How do they counter the free publicity the Prime Minister gets when he goes on national television and says: “Look, these are the faults of MMP, but we’ve got a better deal for you.”? The only way people can counter those comments is to try to get into the media, to try to get a campaign going, and to try to put up arguments so that the people of New Zealand are informed and can be in exactly the position that Metiria Turei wants them to be in—informed, and with very best possible information.

The ACT Party will be supporting the Electoral Referendum Bill. We think that the people of New Zealand should have that opportunity. It is a very, very sad day for New Zealand when we pass a bill that restricts the right of New Zealanders to participate in this referendum and denies New Zealanders the ability to get the best possible information, in the way the Green Party says they should be able to. Thank you.

I start by asking for your assistance, Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that we are still on Part 1—is that correct?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes.

One would not know it from the tenor of the speeches—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have strayed a little bit broader than I would have hoped, actually.

Yes. I thought that was the case.

I will make a brief contribution to the debate on Part 1. I will focus on clause 3, “Purpose of Act”. It is worth summarising the purpose of the bill. New Zealanders understood—the Hon Lianne Dalziel mentioned this in her contribution, and she acknowledged that it is the case—when they voted to switch to the MMP system of voting in 1993 that there would be another referendum on the matter. In this House we all understand that that, technically, was not correct. I talked in my earlier contributions about how the small print at the bottom of that very clearly stated that it was if Parliament agreed. None the less, there is a strong feeling out there that New Zealanders thought they would have another say on this. That is why it has always been the National Party position that we would give New Zealanders a chance to have that second say on MMP.

That is exactly what this bill does. It says to New Zealand that we are now 14 years into an MMP system of voting, and this is a chance for people to come back to the issue, to turn their minds to it again, and to decide whether it gives them the system that they thought they were getting. If it does, then we can move into a review of that system so the issue can effectively be put to bed. These things are never finalised, of course, but it would be nice to think that if, out of this process, New Zealand elects to retain the MMP system of voting—I should say “keep”, because that is the language we adopted with the paper—then that will certainly put to bed the issue of whether there should have been a second referendum. I think it is just worth commenting on that.

When there was a select committee inquiry into MMP in 2001, the issue of whether there should be another referendum was hotly contested. I know I was not here, but I have certainly read through all the papers. It was very interesting to me that even then it was decided by only a very narrow vote that there would not be a second referendum. The only reason why a second referendum was not supported was that it was thought to be a bit too soon.

If 2001 was too soon—and arguably it was—I think the time has come. It has always been the policy of this Government to deliver on it. That is why we have the bill before us, and that is why the purpose of this bill, as set out in clause 3, is to give New Zealanders the chance, through an indicative referendum, to once more comment on the system of voting that they want to use to elect the House of Representatives.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There are amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 5, 12, and schedule 1, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198, but they have been ruled out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding was that that amendment would not come up in this particular part of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have a running sheet here, and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of Hilary Calvert are on it. I tell the Committee that it has been ruled out of order in connection with Part 1 of the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper refers in part to clause 5, and clause 5 is in Part 1, so therefore I had to deal with that amendment now. I have made that explanation, so I will now put the question.