Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Justice and Electoral Committee be instructed that as part of its consideration of the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill, it may consider any amendment based upon the recommendations of the MMP review conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2012.

This bill is the result of a long process that is worth recalling in order to give the bill some context. It began with the announcement by the Government that it would hold a referendum on whether or not New Zealand should continue to use MMP as our system for electing our Parliament. As part of the legislation that enacted that referendum, it was agreed by Parliament that should New Zealand vote in favour of retaining MMP, a review would be carried out to consider some of the issues that members of Parliament on all sides understood that the public had around MMP. In the event, it did come to pass that New Zealanders did vote to retain MMP, but it was clear to us all that there were issues with the system that the public wanted us to address. So the review as legislated for was carried out, and the review reported back to Parliament with a number of recommendations.

The Minister of Justice referred the review to the leaders of all political parties represented in Parliament at the time, asking for their views on the recommendations of the MMP review, and each political party responded to the Minister of Justice with their views on each of those recommendations. At that point the Minister of Justice declared that there was no consensus, and the process stopped. It was in response to the fact that the process was not going to be continued by the Government that my former colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel drafted this legislation. Upon her retirement from Parliament I picked up the legislation, and shortly after I did that, it was drawn from the ballot.

The bill does three things. First, it abolishes the one-seat threshold that allows parties that do not reach the party vote threshold to bring list MPs into Parliament; secondly, it reduces the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent; and, thirdly, it allows for a review of the party vote threshold after three elections with the new party vote threshold in place. It is important that we consider why we need to implement these recommendations from the MMP review. The one-seat threshold has never really served any real purpose in the New Zealand context.

💬 Chris Bishop: It increases proportionality.

I will address the point that Chris Bishop has interjected on. The one-seat threshold was simply a carry-over from the German system. In the German system there are a number of states. There are regional parties that must reach a three-electorate threshold in order to bring list MPs into the federal Parliament, and that has actually occurred only on four occasions since MMP was introduced to the German system in 1949. The royal commission that recommended the shift to MMP recommended the one-seat threshold in the context of abolishing the Māori seats. Of course, Māori seats were never abolished, and therefore the one-seat threshold was never required. I do accept the point made by Chris Bishop that a consequence of retaining the one-seat threshold is that it can, in certain circumstances, increase proportionality, but that was not the purpose for introducing the one-seat threshold. In fact, it increases proportionality on an ad hoc basis. It increases proportionality only when parties win one seat or more and when those parties gain enough party votes to bring additional list MPs into Parliament. There are better ways of increasing proportionality, and that includes reducing the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent.

Moreover, and most important in the public’s mind, is the fact that the one-seat threshold, which serves no real purpose, has become something that has been abused by political parties. What has occurred is political parties have made deals with parties that may support them in Parliament, by essentially giving up a seat and encouraging voters to vote for the other political party, knowing that that political party will not reach the party vote threshold but has an opportunity to bring MPs into Parliament through the one-seat threshold. That is a situation that New Zealanders have resoundingly told us they are sick of. It does not matter which parties do it—it does not matter which parties do it—it is simply something that New Zealanders have loudly and clearly told us they are sick of, and they want us as MPs to address this issue, whether or not we in our political parties stand to gain from it personally.

The other thing that this bill does is it reduces the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent. That is an acknowledgement of the fact that getting rid of the one-seat threshold does have an impact, in certain circumstances, on proportionality. In fact, reducing the party vote threshold ensures that proportionality is increased at every election, and that there is a clear rule that everybody has to meet. Every party, if it reaches the 4 percent threshold, has the right to bring list MPs into Parliament. That is clear, and it affects everybody, and it is the case at every election. It is not an ad hoc way of increasing proportionality—list MPs will be brought in only in the event that parties win one seat and only in the event that those parties gain enough party votes to bring additional MPs into the House.

I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding this legislation. First is that there is apparently no consensus. Well, in fact, there has been no opportunity for political parties to reach consensus. We were given an opportunity to provide our opening position, the position from which we would be prepared to negotiate with other parties. But what we were not given was the opportunity to carry out that negotiation—the opportunity to reach consensus. Sending this bill to a select committee is, in fact, that opportunity to reach that consensus. Secondly, the issue was raised that not all the recommendations of the MMP review were contained in this bill. I actually appreciate that concern that has been raised, and, as I began my contribution, it is my intention, in the event that this bill passes first reading and is sent to the select committee, to move an instruction to the select committee to consider all recommendations of the MMP review. That then gives us the opportunity to consider the recommendations as a package and reach consensus around them.

However, on the issue of consensus, I would say there is a very clear consensus, and that is the consensus amongst the New Zealand public, the voters who put us here, the people who have clearly said they want us to address this issue. In a UMR poll, 71 percent of those polled were in favour of abolishing the one-seat threshold. Just 13 percent were against, and 16 percent were unsure. It is clear in the minds of New Zealanders that the one-seat threshold—coat-tailing, as it has come to be known—is unacceptable and the public no longer tolerates it. They want us as parliamentarians to address this issue. So those who vote against this system will be seen in the public as putting their own interests and their own party’s interests ahead of making an amendment to our electoral system that makes it stronger, more robust, and more closely aligned with the way New Zealanders want our electoral system to work. So I do ask members of Parliament to put a strong and robust electoral system ahead of our own interests. Send this bill to a select committee, let us consider all the recommendations of the MMP review, and let us craft an electoral system that New Zealanders can have faith in.

I want to, firstly, congratulate Iain Lees-Galloway on bringing this bill to the House. It is always—

💬 Chris Bishop: Don’t do that. He doesn’t deserve any congratulations.

Of course he does. Every member deserves congratulations on bringing a member’s bill to the House. It is a great privilege for a member of Parliament to have the ability to bring a member’s bill to the House, and with that privilege comes a high degree of responsibility. And therein lies one of the issues I have with this member’s bill. It is to do with the fact that it is completely out of date, and that concerns me. For a member who comes to the House and wishes to implement quite sweeping changes to the Electoral Act across a number of fronts, he brings a faulty bill to the New Zealand Parliament. I find it extraordinary that a member would do that, and it rather undermines any argument that that member might advance towards his bill.

So if we go back in history a little in respect of the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill—the member himself wished to go back in history, so let us do our own little bit of history—we recall that this is a bill that was first brought to the House by the Hon Maryan Street—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: No, Lianne Dalziel.

I beg your pardon. It was Lianne Dalziel back in 2012; that is right. So back in 2012 the bill sat in the ballot, as do a number of bills, and it was not drawn by the time of the 2014 election—oh, well—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes, it was.

Well, it was not drawn by the time the Hon Lianne Dalziel left the House. I am thanking the member for helping me with the history, because here we get to the nub of the argument. This is the member’s history, of course, which is why I am seeking his help with it, and I am grateful for it. But if the member cares so much about the history around this bill, then maybe he might have thought to update the objectives of the bill, which I would have thought were pretty pertinent to the debate at hand. So I would invite that member to approach the Table and pick up a copy of what is now his bill. He did pick it up on behalf of the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who left Parliament, and promoted it as his own bill, and he has argued very passionately in this House this afternoon towards the objectives of the bill.

Unfortunately, the objectives are out of date.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Hope to get to the substance.

Well, you see, now the member is trying to defend himself by saying that this is not the substance of the bill.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: But you haven’t actually told me what I’ve done wrong yet, Jacqui.

Well, let me help the member, and I will read from page 1 of the bill, “Objectives”. These are Iain Lees-Galloway’s words: “This Bill proposes to implement the main recommendations of the Electoral Commission review of MMP in time for the 2014 election.” This bill is out of date—this bill is out of date. This member did not take the opportunity to update the wording in his own bill.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Ha, ha! Own goal—beautiful own goal, Jacqui. Well done. Is this the best you can do?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The first point—[Interruption] No, the first point of order was from Jacqui Dean. I will hear Jacqui Dean.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Rare and reasonable interjections are fine, but I think a barrage of shouting is a little unreasonable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that. I hear what the honourable member is saying. I did indicate to the member who was interjecting, Iain Lees-Galloway, that it was unacceptable, and I know he will not do it again, because I am not in the frame.

Thank so much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do find it distressing that even now the member has not caught on, if you like, to the fact that he did not take the opportunity, when he assumed ownership of this bill, to update the bill, and felt that it was acceptable to bring a bill to the House in this state.

I will just turn, perhaps, to page 2. Right at the very bottom—the member may care to do that; he clearly has not looked at this bill since he assumed it. Maybe he might have taken the time before bringing the bill to the House to have a look at the final sentence on page 2: “That is why, in order to keep faith with the integrity of the referendum, these changes must be implemented in time for the 2014 general election.” Is this lazy work on behalf of this member? It is, indeed, very lazy work on behalf of this member, who could not even read the bill—his own bill. It is pretty symptomatic of that party, I would contend. He is too lazy to read his own bill before he resubmitted it in the ballot, and now we have an objective in the bill that is out of date.

However—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re a star!

I think he has been hurt a bit, because he is getting a bit personal. I think that may have cut a little bit deep. However—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: No, I feel bad for you, Jacqui, because you are making such a fool of yourself.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Similar to my first point of order, rare and reasonable interjections are fine, I know, but a barrage of noise—perhaps not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member is saying, and I will just ask that from now on we actually concentrate on the substance—[Interruption] I am on my feet; well, I am standing—of what is in a first reading, and that there be some material now related, with 4 minutes to go, to what is actually in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So it is no surprise, I would imagine, that National does not support this bill. National opposes this bill. It is shoddy, it is lazy, and it takes no account of the proper processes that underpin the electoral process in New Zealand. New Zealand is so fortunate that our electoral system has a very high level of integrity. I would have thought that any member bringing a bill to this House around the electoral system would have presented a bill that at least was not so laughably out of date.

Prior to the last election new electoral laws were passed—which is why it is so embarrassing that this member has brought this bill to the House now—to provide better services to voters, candidates and political parties. A number of changes were made to enable people to enrol and update their details fully online, which is very beneficial, particularly for people residing overseas. The law was changed to make loans to parties subject to disclosure rules for greater transparency in our electoral law, and to allow parties to lodge bulk candidate nomination and party list documents by email. Good process underlined and underpinned those changes. Good process is integral to good electoral law, not, I would imagine, out-of-date, lazy members’ bills. It is important to continuously improve our law and processes in light of changing—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: It was drawn on 14 November 2013. Didn’t you bother to read that?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am attempting to make a contribution to this debate, but there is a barrage of noise coming across.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, look, this is a debating chamber—[Interruption] I do not want any comments when I am ruling. This is a debating chamber. I am the judge of whether I feel that the barracking is unacceptable, and in that case I did not accept that it was. So with 2 minutes remaining I will ask the member to continue.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I invite the member, who is obviously so passionate about this issue that he presented a bill to the House that is horrendously out of date, to make a submission to the inquiry into the 2014 general election. Although the member may feel that a way to influence electoral law is to do it by way of a member’s bill, I believe that a more substantive and responsible way is to, in fact, make a submission to the inquiry into the general election. In fact, I invite the member to do that. In fact, I will go further than that. I challenge the member to do that, because he raises some substantive issues that, of course, have been raised in the review already. We have kept, in the Justice and Electoral Committee, the terms of reference deliberately wide and open so that all views can be heard. Instead of cherry-picking a few recommendations or a couple of issues that were originally from a previous member of this House—nothing wrong with that—it would be better, in my view, when we are looking at electoral law, to look at it as a whole. That is a process with far more integrity than just looking at one narrow part of electoral law.

So, in closing, National will not be supporting this out-of-date, narrowly focused bill that has been picked up by Iain Lees-Galloway, but I invite—and, indeed, challenge—him to make a submission in the proper place, which is to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s review of the 2014 general election. Thank you.

I have to start my contribution in this House, first, by thanking the member Iain Lees-Galloway for bringing a bill that generally has a consensus view in the public that this is something that this Parliament should do. So that is my first point: my thanks to him for bringing to Parliament something that the Government should have actually brought here but did not, so we are being forced to have this debate via a member’s bill.

Second, though, to begin my contribution, I want to rebut what Jacqui Dean, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, had to say. I have great respect for the chair; I think she is an excellent chair, and I enjoy being a member of her committee. What she failed to acknowledge in her contribution—which seemed to focus solely on, first, the date of the implementation of this bill and, second, whether or not it is the most appropriate mechanism; she failed to make any other substantive statement on the content of the bill itself—is that the bill was drawn on 14 November 2013. It was perfectly reasonable for the bill to make reference to its coming into force in 2014, because of when it was drafted. Of course, all members of the House know that commencement dates change frequently because bills are frequently delayed. So the only point that the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee just made was, actually, to remind this House of how members’ bills can drag. Members’ bills can drag, particularly when there are elections in between, so I think it is unfair of that speaker to have called this member, Iain Lees-Galloway, lazy. It is absolutely outrageous when there is a very reasonable explanation for why we have the date that we have on this bill.

The second substantive point that she made in her contribution was the notion that there are better ways to bring up an issue like reform of our electoral system. We probably would not disagree with that. We believe—we would have probably preferred this—that the Government should, ideally, have taken the review recommendations of the Electoral Commission, its full report on MMP and the voting system, and should simply have packaged them together as a bill for this Parliament to debate; that the Government should have put to the floor the issues that were raised by that review and let us decide.

💬 Chris Bishop: By consensus.

That would have been a reasonable way for us to have that discussion. The Government did not do that. So what are we left with, except the option of using mechanisms like members’ bills? I believe absolutely that Iain Lees-Galloway has done the right thing by bringing this bill to the House in this form.

The member across the way starts raising the issue of building consensus around this issue. We have to acknowledge that in the past there has not been consensus on some significant electoral reforms. There were divergent views on issues like whether we should have MMP as an electoral system. The problem is that when you have got political parties debating issues like this, self-interest is going to come into it. With all due respect, do we really believe that ACT is going to want to get rid of a provision that allows it to have greater representation in Parliament? Really? Although I respect the member’s ability to step away from issues and take a non-personal approach and, rather, to take a considered view, it is probably a bit of a stretch to ask him to go that far. I would welcome a counterview from the member, but, obviously, smaller parties that have relied on the threshold before and the life raft position within this bill are probably not going to want to support it.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Labour is doing what is in its best interest too.

Jami-Lee Ross says that Labour has some self-interest in this bill. I welcome him to stand up and go through all of that self-interest. Ultimately, we just want good electoral reform, to the point that Iain Lees-Galloway has written to every member of this House and has said that for all of the other issues that were in the MMP report by the Electoral Commission, let us debate every single one of them at select committee. Let us put them on the table. Let us have a discussion. If you think that we are simply just cherry-picking, if the members think that, then be willing to send this bill to select committee to discuss every single recommendation and to bring it back to this House.

If there is a view that there is not consensus in Parliament, I can tell you that the one place where there is consensus on this issue is among the general public. In a survey in December 2013, 71 percent of people wanted an end to coat-tailing. In a Stuff poll in 2014, 81 percent of people wanted an end to coat-tailing. The people have formed consensus around this issue, and yet, unfortunately, we still have a view among some MPs that this is not something that we should proceed with. We should. It would improve our electoral system. I hope that the bill is sent to select committee so that we can have a decent debate.

Thank you for the opportunity to be able to rise and take a call on this bill. If there was ever a bill that was an answer looking for a problem it seems to me that this is it. Actually, I am surprised that the member who has brought this forward, given his Midas touch history with members’ bills, actually has wasted the opportunity on such a bill. But there you go. I guess we have got to put anything forward that we think may get somewhere.

There are three main parts of this legislation and I want to address each of them in turn. The first one is the reduction of the threshold from 5 percent down to 4 percent. I have got to say that neither in reading the background nor the introduction to the bill, nor in any of the arguments that I have seen put forward today, have I heard any plausible rationale for that. You could argue that 5 percent is, in fact, just a random number to some degree and that there is not necessarily particular meaning attached to 5 percent; but neither is there any meaning to 4 percent. So if we are going to change it from 5 percent to 4 percent, then why are we not changing it to 3 percent? Or perhaps the Conservatives might like 3.6 percent after last time? It has equal meaning to say 3.6 percent, 2 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent—to me there is nothing specific that really says that we need to pick just another random number.

In fact, when we look at the other countries around the world that use a proportional system there is a wide range of numbers that are used. Actually, the most common number used is 5 percent, but they vary anything from 10 percent in Turkey down to 0.67 percent in the Netherlands. From my perspective until I hear a specific rationale that says 4 percent is somehow more of a magic number than 5 percent and is one that is convincing to me—and, yes, I have seen some arguments; what I am saying is that I am not convinced by them—that is an important part of it.

Arguably, Germany has got a very system operating. A lot of people talk about the success of the German MMP system, and it uses 5 percent. Yes, its threshold is three seats to our one seat in terms of the seat threshold perspective, but what you have got to remember, of course, is that Germany has 631 seats in its Parliament. So proportionately the three-seat threshold in Germany is far lower than the one-seat threshold in the system we use in New Zealand.

When it comes to abolishing the one-seat threshold—coat-tailing, as others have described it—initially I did have some sympathy for this. You know, when you look at the 2008 example that has been used, at face value to some people it does seem unfair and at face value it could seem unfair. However, I think that unless you are going to do away with thresholds altogether in terms of percentages, actually they are really important. If a person from a party by winning their seat finds themselves in Parliament it seems absolutely ludicrous to me that other people from their party, if they have achieved some level of proportionality above the one seat allocation, should not be there. There is no justice in excluding them if the party is in Parliament. So I think there is no reason that I can see to do away with that if it is about fairness, because whichever way you cut the cake there is always going to be some argument against fairness. There is no perfect system; we have just got to get the best system we can.

In fact, I have heard it argued plenty of times over the years when we have had parties represented in Parliament that have not even actually managed to win any seats. It seems a little bit weird to me that sometimes we have parties represented—yes, they might have got 5 percent or 6 percent of the vote—but none of the people in their party were able to win an electorate seat. Some people have said that perhaps we need to have at least one seat plus whatever percentage you get. There are all sorts of permutations that we could come up with, but I do not think that discussing this bill any further is going to take us any further.

Finally, it says in this bill that we should review it every 3 years—to put that in legislation.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: No, after 3 years.

Every three elections—sorry, my correction.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: After three elections. Not every three elections; after three elections.

After three elections there should be a review. Well, I am quite confident that any Parliament will take a review if and when it is required. At the moment I do not see the need for us to change anything and—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill. This bill aims to do a number of things that came up during the MMP review conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2012. The Green Party at the time really supported the review and noted that it was a Government review that was brought about because of its own coalition agreement. Although the Green Party has an electoral reform plan and a set of policies that are different in some part from the recommendations that the Electoral Commission came up with, we said that we would support the changes that were recommended by the Electoral Commission because they were changes recommended by the Electoral Commission. It had done a great deal of work. It had taken submissions, and I personally submitted on that. It took a great deal of time and thorough consideration to arrive at the conclusions that it did. The proposals that it made, whether or not we actually disagreed with them, were ones that were well-considered by the Electoral Commission and then were completely shelved by this Government because they were inconvenient to this Government’s short-term interests. That was unfortunate. It was unfortunate that we wasted the resources and the time of the Electoral Commission. It was unfortunate that we spent the money on that review, and then did precisely nothing with it.

So for those reasons we support Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill because it does advance at least some of the recommendations that were outlined in the Electoral Commission’s review. The three main recommendations were to remove the one electoral seat threshold, to lower the party vote threshold to 4 percent, and to review the party vote threshold after three general elections. I just want to respond to some of the points raised by the previous speaker, Jono Naylor, where he was kicking around a number of other options. I am sure the Electoral Commission did consider them as it was moving through its deliberations. Given that the Electoral Commission deliberated on those and then chose the recommendations that it did, I do not think it is helpful now to kick around a whole bunch of other things that have already been considered.

We do support this bill. The most important part here, and the reason why we supported this one at the time, is that public opinion and faith in the MMP system is degraded by the presence of the one-seat rule. We recognise that that is not convenient necessarily to all of the parties in this House, but there is a greater need here, I think, which is the requirement for integrity in the system, in the sense of public faith that the system is a good one and at least has the perception of fairness, although I note, as Mr Naylor said, that that could be a relative thing. It is pretty apparent that a significant portion of New Zealand voters consider that the one-seat threshold is a rort. The media keep using the same thing when talking about, for example, Epsom and Ōhāriu. They refer to those two cases as kind of examples of how political parties undermine the overall system and use it to—

💬 Chris Bishop: A bit like Coromandel in 1999.

—I am just reporting what people say, Chris—undermine and get around the electoral system. We know that this bill is not going to be supported by the Government, for the same reason that the Electoral Commission’s report and recommendations were also not supported by the Government. But if they were, then that would restore some level of faith or increased faith in MMP. It would be great if this issue did not have to come up via a member’s bill. It would have been better if the Justice and Electoral Committee took another look at those recommendations, because any time you change the electoral system it is going to have winners and losers in terms of the MPs and parties that are in Parliament. One option would be to grandfather this bill out so that it takes effect in two or three elections’ time, so that current MPs and parties—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but the honourable member’s time has expired.

Look, it is probably my fault, you know. I was the Minister of Justice who really could possibly have spent the next 2 years trying to get consensus amongst seven different parties in Parliament. If only I had done that, we could today have Colin Craig as an MP. If only I had done that. I mean, for goodness’ sake! Let us have a look at the results. We have talked a lot today about this. [Interruption] That would have been good—and by the way, all the rest of them. The Conservatives had 3.97 percent out of the 2014 election. Do you really think that if we had gone to that election with a 4 percent threshold, the party could not have got another 0.03 percent? It would have been a doozy, and we would have had that.

Who actually benefited out of this so-called coat-tail, one-seat threshold in this particular election, the last one? The only one, actually, is the Māori Party. We would have had one member. I do not know how the Greens would feel about that. Did they really not want Miss Marama Fox in here? Let us go back to the 2011 election result. I know that these are facts, and they do not like that in the Labour Party. But let us have a look at it. What have we got? The Mana party were in here. It was not supporting the Government, was it? It was 1.08 percent of the vote, and apparently that is no good either.

Let us just go back a little bit more, to 2008. Oh, we had Mr Jim Anderton’s Progressive party. I have heard Mr James Shaw, who has never won an electorate seat and never will, talking today about—[Interruption] No, he has not. He was talking about Epsom and Ōhāriu. Apparently the people do not like it. Which people do not like it? Clearly the people in Epsom and Ōhāriu do not mind, because guess what? The people in Wigram were asked by the Labour Party to vote for Mr Jim Anderton’s Progressive party, and guess how much he got—0.91 percent. It was not even 1 percent. He was just a minnow compared to that fabulous Conservative Party.

Let us go back to 2005—an election that Labour claimed. What did we have here? Who was coat-tailing then? Well, the ACT Party. It coat-tailed. It got 1.51 percent. It got Epsom, and it also got one more MP. But actually Mr Peter Dunne’s United Future New Zealand Party, which at that stage supported the Labour Government, got 2.67 percent and he got one seat. But in the end he got three seats, after his electorate seat. I did not hear the Labour Party members all crying about that one. No, actually they were very happy to take Mr Peter Dunne’s party, and also Mr Jim Anderton’s Progressive party. That was an election where we had eight parties represented here in Government, and four of those parties had fewer votes in terms of the percentage than the Conservative Party at the last election. So maybe we should drop the threshold a bit more, down to 2 percent.

Let us go back to 2002. Guess who was coat-tailing again. Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition party. Guess how many seats it won in the electorate seats—one. Guess how much of a percentage of the vote it won. Hmm—1.70 percent. And guess how many seats in Parliament it got.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Two.

Two. You are so right, Mr Macindoe: two. [Interruption] Mr Seymour, you got that, and Mrs Tolley. My goodness gracious. And guess who was crying about that then. The Labour Party? Mr Iain Lees-Galloway? Any distraught people from the left? No.

The fact is if you can win an electorate seat in Parliament, that means there are enough people there, 60,000-odd voters, who think there is a little bit of sanity in that party. It actually brings in a bit of sanity, and it actually means that a party has to go back to the electorate and say “Well, this is what we’ve been doing.”, and it actually stops people being complete fruit loops when it comes to politics. But when you have got parties that have no respect for electorates, no respect for the work that goes on representing people, whether they vote for you or not—people like Mr Shaw, who is a nice chap, but really he showed his colours today. He says that he submitted to the Electoral Commission, so therefore he represents the people. Let me tell you this: most people did not submit. There is a reason. The only people generally who submitted were absolutely into politics and had an agenda, and unfortunately I just could not get consensus. But is it not a good thing I did not, otherwise we would have Colin Craig here?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am going to ask for your forbearance. It has come to my attention—and I need to start by saying this is the first opportunity that I have had to come and raise this point of order in the House. It is regarding a matter that I think you should take very seriously. It has been reported back through my office, to me, that in this debate, at a time when the honourable Jacqui Dean was speaking, a member on the Government benches made a very unparliamentary comment about you, Mr Assistant Speaker. At this point in time Chris Bishop has not stood to withdraw and apologise—

Order! A point of order was raised at that time. I indicated to the person who made that comment that it was unacceptable. Although I did not take it further than that, the point was made and I ruled at that time, and that was the end of the matter. So there is no further discussion on it. I acted on it at the time. I am calling the next speaker.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hope you are not going to be—

Just to be sure, are we talking about the same incident? This was not clearly audible to you. You gave no sign. My reports from the people who had been listening and watching were that you did not act on this particular occurrence from Chris Bishop because you did not hear it.

Well, if a member in the House had heard something at the time, they would have brought it to my attention. There was nothing brought to my attention at the time. You cannot, at a later stage, come in and say something happened. It has to be dealt with at the time. I did deal with an issue that came up. A point of order did come up from Chris Bishop, and I dealt with that at the time, just as I did with Jacqui Dean at the time. [Interruption] Order! I am trying to rule here. At any point if some indiscretion has happened, it must be dealt with at the time, not at a later stage. So as far as I am concerned that matter is over and we are now moving on with the debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hope you are not going to relitigate what I have just ruled on.

I am not going to relitigate that incident, but I am going to make a request of you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): What is the point you are making?

The question is if an incident such as the one just described occurs and a person is unable to get to the House for some time, is that not considered to be the earliest possible moment? Could you please deliberate on that and give us a ruling, because this means that if no one else heard it but one person, and that person was on the motorway driving, and it might take half an hour or an hour for that person to get to the House—if you are saying that because it was not raised at that very—[Interruption] Points of order should be heard in silence, Anne Tolley—

Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will sit—[Interruption] Order! The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. I have ruled on this matter, and, as the Clerk has just informed me, if there are matters where someone feels aggrieved or an indiscretion has happened, they have to be brought up at the time by someone who was present. You cannot come back at a later stage and then indicate that you feel aggrieved because one heard something by way of audio or by way of television. I have ruled on this matter, and that is the end of the story. We are now moving on to the next speaker.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on this matter, Mr Peters, and I hope that this is a new matter.

It is a new matter.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Then I will hear the new matter—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

It is your very reputation we are seeking to defend, Mr Assistant Speaker. Do you recall that there is a precedent that is opposite to the one that the Clerk has just given you? It was when my colleague made a sign in this House, which was later picked up by a camera and then, long after the event, long after the time frame that we have got here, it was raised in this House as being improper behaviour. Mr Assistant Speaker, I have heard the Clerk’s ruling, but there is a precedent outside of that ruling and my colleague, unfortunately, is the centre of that precedent. That is why I am asking you—is the Clerk sure of his facts here?

I thank the member. I will ask Chris Bishop when he made a comment that someone might have taken offence, that is—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am just asking first whether Chris Bishop said something that I was unaware of, and it was directed at me, I understand. If he did—

💬 Chris Bishop: Mr Assistant Speaker, I think—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, just answer my question. Did you or did you not make a comment that reflected on the Speaker?

I was reflecting back what Mr Lees-Galloway was saying to my colleague Jacqui Dean, and pointing out that the reference to you—

That is right. Well, that is exactly—[Interruption] Order! Thank you. And that is—[Interruption] The member will sit, thank you. That is exactly—[Interruption] Order! Order now! I heard the comments made by Mr Iain Lees-Galloway on two occasions. At the time, I indicated to Mr Lees-Galloway that that was unacceptable. He acknowledged that. At the time of the two points of order, first, by Jacqui Dean about barracking, I dealt with that matter. Chris Bishop then indicated his point of order, which was in reference to what Mr Lees-Galloway had said, and I ruled on that matter at the time—end of story. Now we are moving to the debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just think it is important, as we discuss this—and I am not trying to relitigate, but, in fact, the matter that the Rt Hon Winston Peters raised was absolutely incorrect. And I would hate that to stand on record, because, in fact, Ron Mark denied that he had made that unparliamentary comment and was caught out simply because someone was signing—

Look, this has got nothing to do with this. The member will sit. We are not delving into it. I am going to call Denis O’Rourke as the next speaker. Denis O’Rourke.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

No, I have dealt with this matter, Mr Peters. [Interruption] I have dealt with it, and I do not want to hear any more. Will the member—[Interruption] We are moving on.

I seek leave, therefore, to table not the comment that was offensive, as the member just said, but the photograph that was the offence. I seek leave to do that.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. I am calling the next speaker.

New Zealand First will support this bill only to the select committee at this stage. And I might say that the reason, mainly, for that is that that is what the public of New Zealand expects. It expects that we will have a robust debate and discussion about these very important issues, and that they will not simply be brushed aside, as the National Government wishes to do. The last speaker, Mrs Collins, only gave us a list of what this party did, what that party did not do, and what the results of various elections were, and that is hardly the basis on which these sorts of serious issues should be decided. So it shows that this Government is taking a cavalier attitude to these matters, and that is not what the public wants.

The public wants a good and proper and robust discussion. The only way that can happen is at the select committee and through that process. In that process New Zealand First will support the abolition of the coat-tailing provision—the one-seat threshold, as some call it—but we will not agree to the lowering of the threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent. So we agree with one part of the bill, but not with the other. We wish to have the opportunity to discuss all of that through the select committee process.

The big issue for electoral reform in New Zealand is that coat-tailing provision. That is what the public thinks, and that is what New Zealand First thinks as well. For those who do not understand it who may be watching this debate: well, you are not alone in not understanding it, because it is a completely illogical provision. There is no reason for it. The 5 percent threshold is for parties that get list seats, and that should not be compromised by a one-seat threshold, either. There should just be the one threshold, and that should be it. That is what the electoral committee says, that is what the public expects, and that is what this process should result in.

Why are we in the position of even having to debate this? It is because parties, both parties now and other parties in the past, have both seen the opportunity to use that coat-tailing provision for their own political purposes—not because it is proper, not because it is democratic, and not because it is in the national interest. No independent or professional advice has ever supported the coat-tailing provision. To the contrary: every formal recommendation that has been made so far—and that includes the Electoral Commission itself—says that that provision should go, because it is unfair, because it is undemocratic, and because in an MMP system it is actually illogical.

The results have been many and various. In 2008 New Zealand First had more list votes than other parties that won an electoral seat and got more than one seat in Parliament, and yet on that occasion New Zealand First got a little less than 5 percent and got no seats in Parliament. That is not fair, that is not logical, and that does not fit well with what is supposed to be a proportional system under MMP. The MMP system is grossly compromised by the coat-tailing provision, and it is time that it went. Other parties have allowed obvious, cynical, and blatant gerrymanders of the system. An example of that is the ACT Party, which was gifted a seat in this Parliament. Why was it gifted a seat in this Parliament? The reason is that the National Government wanted to see the coat-tailing provision in operation, with the hope that not only would it get David Seymour into the House but it would get other seats as well that were not deserved, and that, exactly, is a good reason why the gerrymander has to stop.

The threshold of 5 percent is necessary because it is a good balance between on the one hand a fair and democratic system of representation for small parties, but on the other hand nobody wanting to see a proliferation of very tiny parties with one or two seats in this Parliament. So that is what the threshold is there for, and 5 percent is the right level and no other.

This bill, the sponsor of it would have you believe, is being advanced with noble intentions. It is seeking just to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission review. Labour is not trying to play party politics with this issue; it is all for the glory of the country and the benefit of our electoral system! It is not about the self-interest of the Labour Party or the Green Opposition; no, no, it is all about the beauty of the electoral system. That is what they would have you believe, except the truth is the exact opposite.

There are four reasons why this bill should be voted down tonight. The first is that it has been advanced in bad faith by its sponsor. As I said before, Mr Lees-Galloway would have you believe that this is some sort of noble endeavour, except that—and here is the rub; here is where his argument falls down—the Labour Party’s intention to lodge this bill and to get rid of the electorate seat threshold waiver was announced before the Electoral Commission review reported back. So before the recommendation was made to reduce the threshold down to 4 percent and get rid of the electorate seat waiver, the Labour Party had put on the record that it was going to get rid of it.

That absolutely puts a lie to the claim that this is some noble sacrifice or noble act by Iain Lees-Galloway and the Labour Party members. They had announced it before the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. Why? Because this bill is all about politics. It is all about the fact that the Labour Party and the Green Party do not like the outcome of the 2008, 2011, and 2014 general elections. They do not like them because they lost. They do not like the fact that the good people of Epsom elected my colleague David Seymour, and they do not like the fact that my colleague Peter Dunne was elected by the good people of Ōhāriu, so they are seeking to relitigate that through the petty political point-scoring of a member’s bill that they know has no chance of success, and it is also hypocritical.

The second reason is that it is hypocritical for Labour to advance this bill. Why? Because Labour itself has relied on coat-tail MPs in the past. When? Well, in 2002 when it relied on the vote of Jim Anderton, who took his good mate Matt Robson into Parliament with him after the election and who propped up the Labour Government of the time. So it was OK for the Labour Party back in 2002 to use Jim Anderton’s seat of Wigram, and it carefully encouraged people who were actually Labour Party supporters to vote for Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition, the vainglorious party named after him. It was OK for the Labour Party back then, but the moment Jim shuffles off his political mortal coil, the moment he is gone, no, no, it is not good enough for any other party to use that provision. That is absolutely hypocritical and absolutely grotesque.

The third reason why this bill should not advance is the reason that my colleague Judith Collins pointed to and that also Jacqui Dean pointed to, which is that there is not any consensus on this issue. It is very important. Reform of our electoral law should be based on consensus—broad-based consensus. We know that the Labour Party has form, or lack of form, in this area, I should say, after its disgraceful attempt—not even its attempt but its successful measures—to ram through Parliament, before the 2008 general election, the disgraceful Electoral Finance Bill, which cracked down on free speech and really struck a hammer blow to the heart of our democracy, all because Labour did not like what some groups did in the 2005 general election. So, notwithstanding the concerns of the Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Law Society, most of Parliament, and all the submitters to the select committee on that, the Labour Government rammed it through. So we know that it has form when it comes to consensus on electoral law issues.

The point is that when you do change electoral law it should be something that is almost above party politics. You are never going to completely get rid of party politics out of a situation where you get politicians talking about the electoral system, but it should be something that is a little bit independent, is looked at impartially, is looked at a little bit neutrally, and where things are done in good faith. That is certainly not what has been done by the Labour Party in the debate today.

The fourth reason, to close my speech, is that there is a very good reason for the so-called coat-tail provisions. The very good reason in our electoral law for those provisions is that they actually increase the proportionality of Parliament. It was absurd to hear Denis O’Rourke railing against them, saying that New Zealand First is going to vote for this bill. After the 1999 election New Zealand First did win an electorate seat when Winston Peters won Tauranga. It got 4.3 percent of the vote and it brought in four list MPs. So the New Zealand First Party has been a beneficiary of the provisions. If this bill had been in place, if this was the law, only one New Zealand First MP would have been elected. The coat-tail provisions increase proportionality. They make Parliament fairer. They make it more proportionate to the actual will of the voters. That is why this is a silly bill advanced in bad faith.

I seek leave to table a document titled Representation vs Stability: The Five Per Cent Threshold in MMP, written by one Christopher Bishop, which advocates for removing the party vote threshold altogether.

No, no. I am sure anyone who wants to know Mr Bishop’s views will probably be able to find that. [Interruption] No; the matter is finished. I have dealt with it. I am calling David Clendon.

I am pleased to take a brief call—and it will be brief—on this very good bill and to congratulate the member on bringing it to the House. The Greens like this bill. It is very much in line with our own party submission to the MMP review, where we argued for the elimination of the one-electorate seat threshold on the basis that it was creating disproportionate outcomes. We argued for a reduction in the percentage threshold, and we highlighted the fact that the original Royal Commission on the Electoral System pointed to 4 percent as being an appropriate level for that.

We have heard much from the Government side this afternoon about the self-interest of Labour and, by association, the Greens in bringing in this bill. I think it would be helpful for those members to actually read what the Electoral Commission had to say in 2012. I would think it would be a very brave or foolish person who would accuse the Electoral Commission of self-interest or political interest. It said that the party vote threshold is the mechanism for achieving the competing objectives of proportionality on one hand and stable and effective Governments on the other. One argument is to have everything wide open with no threshold at all, which means you would have lots of one-member parties in this House, and that would not be a stable environment. The commission went on to say: “At 5%,”—the percentage, that is—“it is higher than it needs to be to strike the right balance. It could be lowered to 4% without any risk to effectiveness or stability and this is what we recommend be done.” It goes on to say that “The one-electorate-seat threshold should go”, because although it concedes “it does increase the proportionality of Parliament, it does so in an arbitrary and inconsistent way … Its effect has been to undermine the principles of fairness and equity …”. I would be interested to hear an argument that that is a politically loaded position or a self-interested position from the Electoral Commission.

Having said all that, I have heard an argument—and I am slightly influenced by it—that we should not worry too much about the coat-tail rule because the evidence is, and it was reinforced by the member for Papakura, that parties that rely on the coat-tailing provision actually do not survive very long. They do not thrive. They may maintain a residual presence, as we see, with all due respect, in the member to my left, the ACT Party member—the entire ACT Party caucus—present in the House today. The reality is that, I think, the ACT Party’s support peaked with a magnificent 3.6 percent in 2008. Under the coat-tailing provision, that brought in four list MPs behind the then leader, Mr Hide. I have to say that those MPs, in their own unique way—I am looking for a word other than “value”—added a layer of interest to this House.

I think one of the most remarkable speeches I have ever heard in this House was in the context of another electoral bill, as it happens, the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act, which, to this day, should be looked back on with shame by the National Party, which supported it. One Hilary Calvert, the then ACT MP, made the most extraordinary 47-second speech that I think this Parliament has ever heard. So although there is a level of interest added to the House by the presence of these smaller parties, which are relying on coat-tailing, ultimately, I think we have to concede that they do not thrive in the long term.

However, the reality is that we need to get the best possible outcomes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted, and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

I have been waiting for this bill for some time. Unwrapping the Order Paper has been much like a game of pass the parcel, hoping each time that Mr Lees-Galloway’s bill would finally be up for debate. Tonight it is. The reason why I have relished debating this bill is that often in politics and public policy there is actually legitimate cause for debate and valid points on both sides, but in this case, the Opposition is so wrong on every count that it is a delightful case to prosecute.

💬 Richard Prosser: Spot the vested interest.

Well, we will address that. Let me start with a little bit of history. We have an electoral system that has two tests for whether or not a member, or members, can enter Parliament. One is that they must win an electorate—win the majority of voters within a geographical area. The other is that their party must win 5 percent of all the votes. The objective of this policy—that is, to balance proportionality with stability of Government—is something that this bill is seeking to change. They decided, back in Germany, post-World War II, when this particular system of electing representatives was designed, to have two tests: one was to win some geographical areas and the other was to win 5 percent of all votes. Why? Because they were concerned, as it happened, that ethnic Danes, who were concentrated in certain geographical areas but who had brethren represented around the rest of the country, might be fully represented by passing not just the one test but actually both. So what that achieved was that the proportionality of Parliament could be enhanced while also having a clear test for stability, and that nobody would be elected unless they could persuade the majority of a particular geographical area to vote for them.

Fast forward to 1986 when our own royal commission on the electoral legislation actually contemplated that Māori and Pacific Island peoples, who might be concentrated in a particular geographical area—Carmel Sepuloni is really thinking right now—would be able to elect members and also enhance the proportionality of Parliament through representation being proportional to their brethren, if you like, in the remainder of the country. Interestingly, as it comes to pass in this House today, the sole beneficiary of the coat-tailing rule that this bill is seeking to remove is actually one Marama Fox. I do not know what the Labour Party could possibly have against Marama Fox, because she is a fabulous member of this House. But let us be clear: the only net effect on the current House of changing this Act would be to remove Marama Fox from it. Why does the Labour Party hate Marama Fox? That is the question that I would like to be answered tonight. It is certainly not clear.

We heard earlier in this debate a superb contribution from one Judith Collins, and she recited the history that in 1996 it was, indeed, the Labour and Green parties who strategically elected Jeanette Fitzsimons to Coromandel in order to take advantage of the coat-tailing rule. My earnest friend here, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, had his political skin saved in 1999 by the people of Tauranga and New Zealand First via the coat-tailing rule. But let us be honest about the real motivation for this bill on the part of its proponents, and that is that if you take the entire history of MMP, for a period the coat-tailing rule benefited the left and then it benefited the right. There is no more to it than that. There is no more sincere motivation on the part of the proponents of this bill other than the fact that it has politically disadvantaged them recently. The Rt Hon Winston Peters knows that he has been kept away from the cross benches at least twice in the last three elections by this Act. For that reason, he is very angry about it too, and I understand—I understand. Time is running out. None the less, I will be opposing this bill, because there is no sound principle—only self-interest on the part of the proponents of this bill. Thank you.

Well, this has been a fascinating debate in which there has been an astonishing amount of clutching at straws by the Government members, desperate to find any reason to vote against this legislation, the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill. We started with the astonishing, nearly 10-minute attack on me by Jacqui Dean because apparently I had got the date of commencement wrong in this legislation. The minor detail that Jacqui Dean overlooked was the fact that this bill was drawn from the ballot in November 2013. That was well in advance of the last election, and the Standing Orders say I cannot amend the bill after it has been drawn from the ballot, but that is not a big deal to Jacqui Dean. I wondered how a member could come up with such an illogical argument, and then I remembered that Jacqui Dean was the one who was taken in by the dihydrogen monoxide hoax. So Jacqui Dean has not learnt a thing from embarrassing herself in public in the past and demonstrating her ignorance. Once again, she has been able to demonstrate her ignorance this evening.

I want to address some of the comments made by Chris Bishop and also by David Seymour. Chris Bishop and David Seymour both raised examples in the past of when other parties have, indeed, been able to bring people in by virtue of the one-seat threshold rule. They noted Jim Anderton and suggested that the Labour Party did a deal with Jim Anderton to help him win Wigram. Well, I have to say that a small thermonuclear weapon would not have got Jim Anderton out of Wigram—likewise with the example of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Here is the key difference between what has happened in the past and what has happened with the ACT Party: yes, Labour has sometimes in the past said: “Look, you have got a choice between the Greens and the National Party. We are out of this race, so you have got a choice. Either vote for the Greens or vote for the National Party. We’re not particularly fond of the National Party. We suggest you get in behind the Greens.” The key difference is that National should win Epsom every time, and the only reason David Seymour is here is because of the largesse of the National Party. That is the only reason why ACT is here. That is the key difference between what has happened in the past and what has happened now.

But actually all of that is irrelevant. It is irrelevant whether lowering the threshold would allow one party or another party into Parliament. It is irrelevant whether people have made use of the rules as they stood in the past. What is relevant—the only thing that is relevant here—is that there was a review, and the review, an independent review not governed by any special interest of anybody in this House, came up with these recommendations in response to an overwhelming demand from the people of New Zealand for this Parliament to stop putting self-interest ahead of the way they want to have a fair system of electing our representatives. Yes, we are talking about a balance between proportionality and, I suppose, governability in the House. That is why the recommendation was made to get rid of the one-seat threshold and lower the party vote threshold to get the balance between proportionality and governability right.

But, again, I want to address what David Seymour said. He said that this comes from the German model. The German model was worried about ethnic representation. I wonder how many ethnic Epsomians need to have their representation guaranteed in Parliament by having the ACT Party represent them. We do have a desperate shortage of straight, white men in this House! Thank goodness, that through the one-seat threshold, that ethnic representation of Epsom has been able to be represented by David Seymour and Rodney Hide in the past! Actually, that is the truth of that particular argument.

What we have heard from Government members is a line-up of spurious arguments, idiotic attacks on the Opposition, and clutching at straws simply to divert attention from the fact that they are voting against this legislation tonight because they have an interest in maintaining the one-seat threshold and maintaining the coat-tailing so that they can get an unfair advantage in Parliament. That is the only reason why, and they are not listening to New Zealanders. They are completely out of touch with what New Zealanders want. They have put their own self-interest against thousands of submissions, an independent review, and promises that were made by the National Party that they would make the changes that this bill seeks to implement. They are full of broken promises, they are full of silly arguments, and they will rue the day they voted against this legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

I just want to remind members of what happened to the last member who was caught interjecting during a vote, and I am sure the member who interjected then would like to stay for her leader’s speech.