Parliamentary Debate

SENATE BILL : Report of Electoral Law Committee

SENATE BILL

Report of Electoral Law Committee

TONY RYALL (Chairman of the Electoral Law Committee): I am directed to present the report of the Electoral Law Committee on the Senate Bill. I move, That this report do lie upon the table.

Richard Northey: Mr Speaker---

TONY RYALL: This reporting back from the Electoral Law Committee---

Hon. Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The chairman of the Electoral Law Committee, in relation to the Senate proposal from his leader, moved that the report lie upon the table. He then sat down, whereupon the member for Onehunga sought the call. That being the case, I think the member for Onehunga has got the call, and I bring it to your attention.

Rt Hon. Don McKinnon: Once a member has moved that a select committee report lie upon the table, there is the chance for the Chair to intervene in that time in order to allow the motion to be put, and hence the speaker will then continue. No less a member than the chairman of the Electoral Law Committee was well aware of that and was waiting for you to make the appropriate nod and comment.

Mr SPEAKER: I need no further advice. I did not see the member sit down. I was referring to the Order Paper at that particular moment and I did not notice that he had sat down. I refer members to Speaker's ruling 154/3, which, in effect, states that if the member does sit down he or she loses the right to continue speaking. On this particular occasion I did not notice the member, if he did sit down, and I will allow him to carry on speaking.

TONY RYALL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This reporting back from the Electoral Law Committee is one of the less momentous outcomes arising from last year's referendum. This Senate Bill could have stayed in the select committee, on the Order Paper, but the select committee felt it was the right and proper thing to do to report it back to the House.

Hon. Winston Peters: It's a dead duck.

TONY RYALL: The member for Tauranga is correct; it is a dead duck. I do not want any dead ducks on my select committee or on the Order Paper, and the member should reflect on that.

Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not happy about relitigating a comment you made earlier, but you did make it clear to the member that, if he had sat down, that terminated---

Mr SPEAKER: There is no need to relitigate that particular point. I have ruled on it. I said I did not see the member, if he did sit down. I did not ask him to. I allowed him to carry on.

Trevor Mallard: I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. You made it clear, in the Speaker's ruling that you referred to, that if the member had sat down that would have terminated his speech. My request is that you ask that member whether he had sat down. Then you would be in a position to rule on whether it is proper for the member to continue.

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no need for any further advice on the subject. I have already ruled on the matter. I said that I did not see the member sit down. I did not ask him whether he did. I accepted that the fault was partly mine, and I have allowed him to continue.

TONY RYALL: In speaking to the reporting back of this Bill, it is appropriate to review how the Bill comes back to the House today. Members will recall that the Government decided, in line with its manifesto commitments, to hold a referendum on reform of the electoral system. Reform of the electoral system was promised several years ago by the party of members opposite but was never delivered upon.

This Government introduced legislation in 1993 in order to have the final referendum. As part of that referendum there would be a referendum on the creation of a Senate, which would be held at the same time as the referendum on the mixed-member proportional representation system (MMP). It was requested that detailed development work on a Senate was to be included in the original electoral reform Bill, which was to enable the people of New Zealand to consider any practical form of a Senate, before voting.

The Senate provisions were to become the Senate Act of 1993, coming into force only if voters had decided not to support a change in the electoral system to MMP. The 1993 Bill stated that the Senate option would be dropped from election day if it had continued in the legislative process and if the people of New Zealand had voted against MMP.

But in June 1993, this House decided upon the recommendation of the Electoral Law Committee of the time---so ably led by the present Minister of Housing---that we should drop this proposal out of the Bill. It was in response to the vast majority of submissions that were received from the public. Members should reflect on the fact that 167 oral submissions and 437 written submissions were received, and I could count on one hand the number of submissions received in favour of a Senate. By far the largest number of submissions requested that the select committee drop the Senate option out of the final referendum, and in fact the Prime Minister had indicated some weeks earlier that he was quite supportive of this approach in line with what the public was wanting.

It is worth reviewing what the Senate Bill proposed. It proposed a Senate of 30 elected members, elected under a single transferable vote (STV) system; senators could have been Ministers of the Crown; they would represent six senatorial districts with five senators elected in each district---two districts in the South Island and four in the North Island. The Senate would not have had the power to reject Bills or to introduce money Bills. It would have had the power only to amend all Bills, excepting money Bills, and to delay---there would be a delay-power of 6 months.

It was quite clear that the people of New Zealand were not in favour of such a move. In July 1988, in an article in the Parliamentarian magazine---a publication most members would be aware of---the present Prime Minister said: ``The fear that New Zealand could have an elected dictatorship gives added urgency to the debate on possible reform of New Zealand's electoral law and practice. I envisage that the prime function of a Senate would be to act as a check on the Executive to prevent it acting in a manner which could abrogate democratic rights.'' In fulfilling a manifesto commitment of the National Government, the Electoral Reform Bill was promoted in the House.

It was pretty clear from the submissions that there were consistent lines of argument both for and against the Senate. Those in favour of the Senate argued that it would permit a second appraisal of legislation, allowing flaws to be detected. It could give more attention to drafting problems. Legislation could move more slowly. It would act as a brake on this House---the Lower House---and it would be an important constitutional safeguard against a single assembly seizing excessive power.

The members of the select committee will know there were some very strong and compelling arguments against an elected Upper House---arguments such as that it would do all the things a single House could do, a second time; one political party could control both Houses; and the fact that one party could control the Senate, another could control the Lower House, and thus inhibit the Government's free passing of legislation.

Indeed, in the run up to the referendum, and even before the select committee considered in June that it would split the Senate Bill from the remainder of the legislation, there was a very clear lack of support. Indeed, a survey taken by the One Network News Heylen poll group in March and April 1993 showed that only 38 percent of New Zealanders supported having a Senate, 50 percent did not, and 12 percent did not know. It is interesting it was only 38 percent, but it was an increase from 29 percent from the previous period.

A further survey conducted by the State-owned radio network, Radio New Zealand, revealed that of 1,400 people randomly sampled, 62 percent did not want New Zealand's Parliament to have a Senate, which, lo and behold, actually equated to the percentages of the One Network News survey. That was quite interesting.

Members of the public who made submissions to the select committee were quite strenuous in relation to one point. They suggested that to have a Senate referendum would merely have clouded the whole issue of the MMP referendum. The present Minister of Housing, when chairing the committee, acknowledged that it was most important in dealing with such a complex issue that we should provide very clear and concise options for the people. I am quite fulsome in my praise of how that member handled the committee.

Members of the public also said that the people did not feel that the Government had any mandate to produce the Senate option for the people. But the Government felt it was very important to fulfil its manifesto commitment to give people an option. We certainly did not want to add to the four manifesto commitments that we did not keep, and that is why the Government has moved in the way it has.

Finally, the only contentious point in this reporting back might be the fact that we are having a reporting back at all. Some members have said that we should have more correctly just kept this Bill languishing on the Order Paper, being considered at the Electoral Law Committee. But it was certainly the view of the Government that to keep faith with the undertakings given to the people of this nation before the referendum, this part of the Bill should be reported back. It was certainly the view of the select committee, and not one member of the Electoral Law Committee voted against the reporting back of this Bill.

Representatives of every party who attended this select committee supported the reporting back of this Bill now. The select committee comprised members of the Labour Party, the member for the Alliance, and I cannot recall whether the member for Tauranga was there---but he is a very good attender of the committee, so I would be quite certain that had he been there he would have attended to his business and voted to report back the Bill.

It is the final act in the referendum that we experienced last year. It closes off the Senate Bill suggestion and fulfils the undertakings this House gave to the people of this nation last year.