Electoral Referendum Bill

I have a very brief call to make, simply to alert the Committee to my amendment to the Electoral Referendum Bill, which is to remove clause 54. The effect of removing clause 54 would be to require a review of MMP to occur after the next election, and it would occur regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. Clause 54 currently requires the review of MMP provided for in Part 4 of the bill to come into force only if, in fact, the first referendum decides that an alternative to MMP is preferred. That then means that the second referendum, if National were to be re-elected, would be held on the basis of a flawed version of MMP, which people agree is flawed. Rather than actually fixing what is wrong with the system and putting that up against a new system, a flawed system would be allowed to go up against a brand new version of whichever system is preferred out of the four.

The one point I make is that if I had been writing the rules for this referendum, I would have ensured that MMP was reviewed before the first referendum, but I was not, so obviously Labour has had no influence in that regard. It was a Government decision to put the flawed version of MMP up for consideration without fixing the problems with it, and then to put it up for reconsideration. But given that situation, the Labour Party will make a pledge at the next election that should we become the Government, we will ensure that the second referendum is held after the MMP system is reviewed and any of the flaws in it are resolved, so that it will be the reviewed MMP system that goes up against the preferred option at the 2014 general election. We are committed to the same timetable that the Government has set out, but we will review MMP and we will fix any of the flaws that we find in that system, as evidenced from the input of the people of New Zealand.

First, I will take this opportunity to simply say that the ACT Party will be voting against the amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I assure the National Government and the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, that we will be voting against this amendment.

A couple of comments from the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, need to be responded to. Given that none of the National members took the call, I will respond to those comments.

💬 Amy Adams: Give us a chance.

Amy Adams said to give those members a chance, but National has taken just one call, I think, in this debate—one call since quarter-past 3. We have heard from Lianne Dalziel that MMP is flawed. Well, who says it is flawed? Yes, some people say it is flawed, but I ask what right the Labour Party has to pronounce that MMP is flawed. Who says so? Where is those members’ evidence? Where is the overwhelming evidence it is flawed?

Lianne Dalziel talked about fixing the problem. Well, there is no need for a review, and the ACT Party will be voting against her amendment. However, Lianne Dalziel raised a very, very good point. She has just told the public of New Zealand, notwithstanding the consultation and the extraordinary effort the Minister has made to reach agreement—and he has conceded a number of points, not least of which is a $300,000 limit on the right of free speech—that if Labour wins the next election, all bets are off. All bets are off. She said: “We have reached consensus, we have reached agreement, but if Labour wins the next election, we will screw you.” That is exactly what she said. She said that if Labour wins the next election in 2011, Labour will not proceed down the second referendum road unless the Government goes and fixes the system—the system that we do not even necessarily know is broken.

I put it to National members in the Chamber this afternoon that Mr Power is a gentleman. Mr Power is a gentleman. He has gone along to the Labour members and has consulted with them, but I say to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber that they have been screwed. They have been screwed because they are being told this afternoon that, rather than trust their judgment, allow third parties to campaign for what they believe, and put the Minister’s bill through in the way that he had originally presented it, they have fallen for a trap. That is one of the reasons the ACT Party strongly opposes the $300,000 limit. Let me simply say to Mr Mallard and Ms Dalziel that a further reason for the National-led Government to be re-elected in 2011 is so that it can give effect to the compromised agreement that this bill represents. Thank you.

To conclude this debate, I make a couple of comments in respect of Part 4, and in particular the amendment by Lianne Dalziel to delete clause 54 from the Electoral Referendum Bill. That was well signalled to the Government, and we were quite aware that that was Labour’s position. National will oppose Ms Dalziel’s amendment on the basis that we think it is important that the vote on the question of the electoral system that the New Zealand public chooses is between two systems that they have experienced and worked under. Essentially, that is the difference between the two positions.

To say that the negotiations between all parties have not been done in good faith is probably taking it a step too far. To be fair to all parties present in the Committee stage since 3.15 p.m., I have not seen any evidence of that; each party has done what it said it would do. In fairness, that is what we are ultimately trying to achieve by Part 4 and these three bills. There may be aspects of Part 4, the rest of this bill, and the preceding two bills in Committee that each individual party would rather have done another way. I can assure members of the Committee of the whole House that indeed we would have done some things differently, as I know other parties would have, having listened to their contributions to the debates this afternoon.

In the end, Part 4 and the rest of this legislation has to do one thing—that is, to endure beyond the change of Government where we get ourselves as a Parliament and a country into a situation where a winning political party forms the view that its might makes it right. The concluding point about the Committee stage of this legislation is to ensure that at the very least there is a consistency of approach to how we conduct elections in New Zealand, whether it be an MMP referendum or, for that matter, electoral finance legislation. There are many aspects of this legislation that parties would do differently, but the nature of broad consensus for this sort of work to endure is that we all have to come slightly short of what each party regards as an ideal position. To that end, National will not be supporting the amendment as tabled by Ms Dalziel. I am looking forward to the conclusion of this debate, the third readings tomorrow, and Christmas.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 54 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.