We had a great debate on the MMP remit today. The most challenging part of the debate was over the proposal to reduce the size of electorates, resulting in fewer List MPs. Some say that this will be bad for diversity and proportionality. I am told that the Greens think it will leave them with one MP. Let me make it clear that none of the smaller parties will lose any MPs as a result of this proposal, as overall proportionality would still be retained – unlike the Supplementary Member system being proposed by the government. As long as we retain overall proportionality then it isn’t a problem.
The remit we passed today says Labour should initiate the debate on improving MMP and so we should – otherwise the government will run a “for or against” referendum designed to engineer a vote against MMP by highlighting its shortcomings, while denying the public a chance to fix some of the faults in the system. None of us can pretend the current system is perfect – how could you argue that, when NZ First has no MPs in Parliament despite winning more Party Votes than the ACT Party, which has 5 MPs simply because Rodney Hide won Epsom? Delegates at the conference argued that if we were going to fix this “coat-tails” anomaly, then we should reduce the threshold from 5% to 4% in line with the original Royal Commission report. This is not clear-cut, but the public should be asked to reflect on what happened at the last election and also on the current threshold keeping the Christian Heritage Party led by Graham Capill out of Parliament in 1996 (4.3%).
I have taken a very positive message from the debate about the idea of smaller electorates and fewer List MPs. The truth is that the Party Lists have made a real difference to Parliament, especially in terms of diversity and representation for constituencies that are not geographic. There are more women in Parliament, more Maori, Pacifica & ethnic MPs, and there are more openly gay and lesbian MPs as well. Delegates expressed concern that this diversity might be lost with fewer List MPs. The challenge is for all parties to step up to the plate in terms of selecting constituency candidates. Labour does very well in this regard – two of our Pacifica MPs are electorate MPs and one of our gay MPs is too – and the other two will be in the future. Labour has always contributed far more women to Parliament than National well before MMP came along. So I don’t fear this shift in emphasis – electorate vs list – some of the electorates are simply too large and constituents should have no trouble accessing their MP when they need to.
I believe as MPs we have to set aside our personal interests in this debate, and ensure that all these issues are put on the table, so the public has a genuine say about the future of our electoral system. I don’t want to go back to a two Party system with elections won or lost on a handful of votes in a tiny number of marginal seats, because that’s what Supplementary Member is – First Past the Post with a winner’s bonus!
This referendum must not be allowed to proceed as a “for and against” vote. The option of debating some of MMP’s features must be part of the process or it will lack integrity.
(how do you do that neat indented/red quote thing?)
“MPs who identify as disabled”
There was the debate on a bill to extend provisions re guide dogs to dogs which assist people with a disability generally. Three MPs, IIRC, including Gerry Eckhoff and John Wright told the House they had hearing disabilities.