Parliamentary Debate

ELECTORAL REFORM BILL : Introduction

LIANNE DALZIEL (Christchurch Central): I join colleagues on this side of the House in congratulating the Minister on introducing the Bill before Parliament before Christmas. I certainly do welcome its introduction. The Bill has been long awaited and I believe that on this particular matter public interest is very high.

I want to begin with the point that we must be very cautious as we move on from here. The select committee itself must allow a considerable amount of time to study the Bill and for submissions to be made. That is why I was pleased that the Bill was being introduced before Christmas.

I think it is important that as a result of the select committee process we put two clear options to the people of New Zealand: one option that can be supported by those who support the present electoral system---the first-past-the-post system---and one option that can be supported by those who want proportional representation. In particular, I obviously refer to the MMP (mixed-member proportional representation) system that was supported at the referendum of 19 September.

The task of the select committee must be to produce those two very clear options: one that those who want the present system will support, and one that those who want MMP will support. The select committee will have to listen carefully to the submissions that are received, and it should aim, if it is at all possible, for consensus amongst those different groups. I had asked---as had other Opposition members---that the Bill be introduced before Christmas so that plenty of time could be given to this process.

Tony Ryall: That's the reason we have it.

LIANNE DALZIEL: I am very grateful to the member for acknowledging that it is due to the good hard work of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition that the Bill is before the House before Christmas.

I accept the Government's statement that the use of the royal commission's recommendations is in order to achieve this; to have this process commence. I am equally trusting that the Government will be free to alter some of the recommendations as the Bill passes through the select committee, if the weight of submissions requires such changes. I would not be happy at all to see Government members tied to any particular position.

In particular, I mention the issue of the Maori seats, which my colleague the member for Southern Maori has talked about this evening. I believe very firmly that this is an issue for Maori to decide, and that it ought not to be a decision imposed upon them.

I also trust that the select committee will consider the first-past-the-post system in this context, and may be persuaded to change the number of seats. I agree with the member who spoke earlier that it is not particularly necessary in terms of the number of seats, given the Senate proposal that the Government is putting forward, as well. However, I do believe that it is very important that there is as clear a choice as possible between the first-past-the-post system and MMP in the referendum itself.

I agree with previous speakers that the Prime Minister made a sorry contribution to the debate.

John Blincoe: He always does.

LIANNE DALZIEL: He began by attempting to justify his statements made prior to the referendum on 19 September. The point needs to be made that no one disagreed with what he said at the time, in terms of reporting the royal commission's recommendations on the size of Parliament under MMP and the Maori seats.

It was how the Prime Minister said it, when he said it, and what he did not say, that was the cause of all of the Opposition's complaints about him. The comments that the Prime Minister made were to denigrate the change option, and they were made just before the referendum took place. Clearly, what he was saying was an attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum.

I do not believe that that was an appropriate role for the Prime Minister to play. The Prime Minister did not say at the time that the royal commission recommended that there be 120 members of Parliament, regardless of the change to MMP. If members are familiar with the report they will know that the royal commission actually recommended that there be 140 members of Parliament across the board, but realised that it was politically unsustainable at a time when people could not stand the 97 members of Parliament that they had.

I also want to respond to the Prime Minister's statement that there are two extremes to the argument, one extreme being that MMP will solve all the problems of the House. It will not, and I do not believe that anyone is saying that. I think that it is wrong for the Prime Minister to come to the House and make that statement if it simply is not true. No one thinks that---not even the proponents of change, and not even the general public. It is true to say that cynicism about politicians and Parliament is at an all-time high, but no one believes that that will change the minute that a new electoral system comes into force.

If the Government had been prepared to address the broader issues, such as the power of the Executive and the funding of political parties, I believe that that would have had a greater impact on public opinion than the change to our electoral system.

The next area that I shall comment on is the Senate option. I want to register my concern that this option is being raised at the same time as the issue of the 1993 electoral referendum. I have said before, and I will continue to believe, that that will do nothing but add confusion to the debate.

It is my view that the issue is being raised as a last-ditch attempt on the part of the Government to prevent a positive vote on the MMP system. Anyone who thinks that can think again, because it simply will not happen. The people of New Zealand expressed their views very clearly on 19 September, and those views will be repeated in the 1993 referendum.

I believe that a decision may have been taken for that reason to delay the introduction of the Bill until after the Wellington Central by-election. I do not think that the Government wanted that message to be exposed before that important by-election.

There has not been any clamouring for an Upper House---or, if there has been, I have not noticed it; I do not know whether other members have noticed any clamouring for an Upper House---whereas there has been a consistent and long-term call for electoral reform. One cannot help but feel that the issue of an Upper House is a red herring in the debate.

With the exception of the Minister's introduction speech tonight, I have heard only the Prime Minister speak in favour of the Upper House option. I think the fact that the issue was raised in the National Party manifesto should not create any sense of obligation on a party that before tonight has ridden roughshod over that particular document without compunction.

I express concern about some issues in the Bill that have already been raised by my colleagues. I will go through those issues. In terms of the membership of the House of Representatives, there is a call to increase the size of the House to 120 members. I believe that the MMP system will operate better with additional members of Parliament, as there will be some difference between those who represent constituencies and those who are elected through nationwide party lists.

To ensure that the number of constituency seats is not too large, the additional number of members of Parliament could well be justified. I do not have a closed mind on most of those issues, and I hope that the select committee will also have an open mind as submissions are received and the views of the general public are taken into account.

In relation to the separate Maori seats, I like the recommendation that was proposed tonight by the member for Palmerston North that there be a commitment to Maori representation by maintaining the Maori seats for a further period of time beyond the referendum. I say that because another form of representation that would ensure ongoing representation for Maori in Parliament is something that should be developed over a period of time, and not something that should be just wished upon Parliament.

The concern that I have is that, if we remove the Maori seats now, and the removal of the threshold of votes does not produce four Maori members of Parliament as a minimum, we will be putting Maori at a great disadvantage. I believe, as I have said before, that Maori ought to determine the future of Maori representation in Parliament.

In terms of the party-list members, I am concerned about the lack of direction in the Bill in relation to the selection of party-lists. Although the Minister said in his introduction speech that the method by which parties choose list candidates is irrelevant to the voter, I think that that is not entirely true. I believe that what is relevant to the voter is that the process is democratic. The select committee should pay close attention to that.

I say that because those people who oppose the MMP option will be very keen to say that party-lists will be made up of party hacks and various other people who might want to share a gin and tonic in Wellington with the party leader. That is not the case, and I think that the importance of this issue will be undermined without there being clear direction in the legislation regarding the democratic selection of party-lists.