ADDRESS
BY THE HON. WINSTON PETERS, DEPUTY
PRIME MINISTER AND TREASURER OF
NEW ZEALAND, TO THE PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA
25th
July 1997, in the Council Chamber,
University
of Melbourne
VENUE MADE
AVAILABLE BY THE UNIVERSITY'S CENTRE FOR COMPARATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES
Professor Cheryl Saunders,
Director, Centre for Comparative
Constitutional Studies,
University of Melbourne:
Minister,
and Mr Yan Flint, Consul-General of
New Zealand;
Mr Geoffrey Goode, ladies and
gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to
welcome you here this evening on the
part of the University of Melbourne
and the Centre for Comparative
Constitutional Studies, and in
particular a pleasure to welcome our
guest of honour, the Honourable Winston Peters,
Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer
of New Zealand, and some of his
colleagues who are able to be with
him tonight. My function is simply
to welcome you and to say how much I
am looking forward to the speech we
are about to hear.
As you are all
aware, New Zealand adopted a very
new system of representation for
elections to the last Parliament,
and both the process by which New
Zealanders made that decision, to
adopt a new system of
representation, and the consequences
of that decision, are something of
great interest to constitutional
lawyers not only in New Zealand, but
certainly in Australia and elsewhere
in the common law/Westminster world.
These are matters that are being
discussed elsewhere in the common
law world, and in a rather desultory
fashion I suspect in the United
Kingdom
at present. It is a major
constitutional step, and of great
interest to us.
I suspect that it
is not a step that Australia
is likely to take for its Lower
Houses on the mainland in the near
future - I think we are too wedded
to our system of preferential
voting. But nevertheless we also are
interested in ways of improving the
effectiveness of Australian
parliaments, and the more we can
find out about the way in which
other people go about doing that,
the better. I suspect that the
Minister's presence in Australia
at present is a little bit more due
to the Bledisloe Cup than the
pleasures of talking to us tonight,
but nevertheless I - no, not true,
Yan Flint is shaking his head,
sorry. I was very pleased when the
Proportional Representation Society
worked out that he was likely to be
in Australia
at some stage, and took the
opportunity of inviting him here
this evening. I will now hand over
to the National Vice-President of
the Society, Mr Geoffrey Goode, to
introduce the speaker.
Mr Geoffrey Goode,
National Vice-President,
Proportional Representation
Society of Australia:
Thank
you Professor. Minister, I first
wish to mention some apologies. I
have an apology from the National
President of the Society, who
resides in Canberra,
Mr Bogey Musidlak - he is unable to
come down. We have apologies from
the State Minister for Planning and
Local Government, the Honourable
Robert Maclellan, and an apology
from one of his parliamentary
colleagues, the Honourable Rosemary
Varty MLC. I want to mention that we
do have some guests that we are
appreciative of receiving tonight. I
understand that in the audience is
the Honourable Sir John White, a
former Justice of the High Court of
New Zealand. I haven't met Sir John,
but I am pleased to hear that. We
also have former Australian Democrat
Senator Sid Spindler with us, and I
also understand there are other
parliamentary representatives
present from Victoria.
I want to remind
the meeting - I don't need to remind
Professor Saunders or Mr Peters -
but I will remind the meeting, how
successfully New Zealand adopted the
proportional system it is using, and
it has disposed of its very
longstanding single member
electorate first-past-the-post
system, which our Society, the
Proportional Society, and anybody
favouring that approach, regards as
probably the antithesis of the way
to go - the democratic approach.
That was done by referendum. We, our
Society, was obviously opposed to
the system.
Because it was a
two-stage process, we did not
actually support MMP; we supported
the Single Transferable Vote (STV),
which was an option being voted on
by the New
Zealand
people. Our support for that was
based on our consideration of it for
Australia.
We believe that this is the natural
system for Australia.
It is the system that is used in our
Upper Houses mostly, and has been
used in the Lower House of Tasmania
for nearly a hundred years, and has
worked very well - without fault. We
recently campaigned in the A.C.T.,
when it was introduced by
referendum, and shortly after that,
some years after that, it was
entrenched by referendum in the
A.C.T. So we are very strongly
committed as you would understand,
Sir, to that particular form of PR.
But PR is in the name of our Society
and we are very pleased that a
proportional system has replaced the
single-member inadequate system that
New Zealand
had.
Before I ask you
to speak, Sir, I would just mention
that we prefer our system because it
involves a completely direct
election system. Every single member
is directly elected by the people.
You may wish to comment on this. We
would hope that questions would be
asked, and that there may be a
rejoinder to this. That is one of
the concerns we had.
The other thing
was the 5% threshold, which doesn't
exist in our type of STV or Quota
Preferential system. There is an
arbitrary threshold below which
votes are just wasted - thrown away
- not transferred. And that flows
from the fact that it is a
non-preferential system. New
Zealand
has never had a preferential system.
It would have been hard to introduce
it there. Australia
has had one since the 1920s.
Therefore in the 1940s it was easy
to introduce it for the Senate on a
preferential basis. But I believe
that some work needs to be done,
particularly in New Zealand - you
may differ - to interest people in
the virtues of preferential systems,
and that is one of our Society's
strong points. We believe it is very
important. Having said that, I would
now ask you, Sir, if you would
address us.
Hon. Winston
Peters, Deputy Prime Minister
& Treasurer of New
Zealand:
Professor,
Mr Goode, ladies and gentlemen,
thanks for your invitation to be
here this evening; but if you had
listened of late to some misled
ditherings of some dingoistic
bureaucrat, then I shouldn't be! I
wouldn't be giving my time to three
speeches here in two days in Melbourne
on a subject as important as
proportional representation. I would
be preparing myself for a night out
clubbing on the town! And in a town
such as Melbourne,
as attractive as Melbourne,
it is really an appealing idea,
especially as your city sets a very
festive mood, to mark the encounter
at the MCG tomorrow night.
Speaking of which
though, I could have saved us all a
lot of trouble if I had left the
speech out in the foyer, and we
could have all repaired to the
nearest hostelry and read about it
with the certain assurance that it
would be there tomorrow in the
newspapers. But I've got to give you
the credit - that Australians do
know how to play rugby, and on the
basis of that misplaced briefing
paper I would say that some of your
departmental officials have a thing
or two to learn about their
neighbours in the region. Now we are
not in New
Zealand
ones to be small-minded. If the
nameless authors are prepared to
identify themselves during my time
in Australia,
then I will gladly take them off to
the nearest club so that I might
debate with them the merits of their
claims and their advice to certain
Ministers in Australia.
But we are here
tonight on a much weightier note.
Australians, I would say - have a
thing or two to learn, and
understandably so, about
proportional representation, which
is why we are here, and I thank you
again for your interest. Now at the
outset let us admit that Australians
don't suffer from that alone. New
Zealanders also have a lot to learn
about proportional representation
and electoral reform, and the first
few months of New
Zealand's
experience with the new electoral
system have not been the most
eloquent of introductions. But it is
not our mixed-member proportional
system, or MMP, that's failed us.
It is the
politicians who have been unable to
adapt to it. You see, some New
Zealand
politicians have failed to
understand the system and, more
importantly, their responsibilities
within it. Others who should know
better, without me naming who they
might be, have wilfully misled the
public and pretended there are
problems where, in this case of
electoral reform in action, none
really exist. I said before, that New
Zealand
adopted MMP, but a new electoral
system would not by itself give us a
ready-made guaranteed perfect way of
conducting politics - no such system
could. But as a strong supporter of
MMP, I believed it would merely give
us the potential to lift our game in
a political sense.
It was always
going to be up to us, the
politicians, whether we would
realize that potential or not. And
given the gap between potential and
reality, some dashed expectations
were inevitable. You all, I believe,
should understand that. But when I
see a wilful refusal to adapt to the
new rules, that's when one's
patience runs out. And I suspect
that an Australian audience needs
some background on why, and how it
was that, New
Zealand,
a country I think which is only one
of nine that can claim an unbroken
line of democracy for over 130
years, went down the path and
changed from first-past-the-post to
MMP.
A reminder will
not be lost on some New Zealanders,
who seem to have remarkably short
memories as well. For starters, New
Zealand
politicians didn't choose MMP. Few
of them wanted it. The great
majority were against it.
Proportional representation wasn't,
you see, in the interests of the
large established parties in New
Zealand,
because it would inevitably share
more power with smaller parties and
give a greater voice to those who,
in past times, were left out or
marginalized. MMP was chosen by the
people of New
Zealand.
They demanded it, because they
believed the old first-past-the-post
system was not reflecting their
views.
Now David Lange,
of whom you have no doubt heard -
some - or a lot, the former Labour
Prime Minister, likes to tell the
story that New
Zealand
set out on its way to MMP because of
a mistake in a television debate
during the 1987 election campaign.
And the way he tells it, that his
notes on the debate prompted him to
say ... that it was Labour Party
policy, if re-elected, to hold a
referendum on proportional
representation. As you know, Labour
was re-elected in 1987, and welshed
on that promise. The truth is, as
most things are in this business,
something else. In fact it hadn't
been a Labour Party policy at all,
it had never been in their manifesto
at all, but nor was the first step
to MMP just a glitch in the heat of
the political debate.
Labour in its
first term had abandoned, and this
is the reality, the heartland of its
policies. It had turned its back on
its supporters. It had delved into
the hard-line monetarists' text
books, and came up with an agenda
that was nothing like the programme
that its voters had expected, or
they had campaigned on. It began a
rot at the core of the old electoral
system in New
Zealand.
It confirmed the view that many, I
might add, have always had, that
politicians could not be trusted.
Now New
Zealanders came to believe, that
once elected, politicians could do
what they liked, and the
first-past-the-post system
encouraged them to believe that they
could get away with it. And the old
system of winners-take-all - that
mechanism inevitably swelled the
majority for the winning party. The
figures tell a very compelling story
of the old system's lack of
fairness. For example, in 1984, the
year of Labour's landslide victory,
it scored just 43% of the vote, but
it took 56 of the 95 seats in
Parliament. So that with well under
half of the vote, it got about 60%
of the seats in the House. Minor
parties won 2l% of the vote that
year, but got just two seats between
them.
In 1986 the Royal
Commission on the Electoral System
had made a compelling argument for a
fairer, proportional system. But
Labour hoped that its Report, as so
is the wont of parliamentarians to
do, would gather dust in a
parliamentary backroom until the
issue went away. If the large
parties, though, hadn't abused their
windfalls from the throw of the
electoral dice, then maybe New
Zealand
would never have lost its patience -
or lost its patience in sufficient
numbers - with the old system. But
abuse it they did. When the National
Government at last honoured the
promise to hold a referendum in
1992, only 15% of voters wanted to
stay with the old system. A full 85%
of voters wanted change. And MMP, I
am sorry to tell you Mr Chairman,
was the option they preferred.
They had a
run-off in September of 1982 to see
which system would run-off against
first-past-the-post, and it was a
very interesting referendum process.
The idea was that you have four
versus each other, and then the
winner would face the
first-past-the-post option. It was a
strategy where the fundamentalists
of the old established parties had
clearly set out to pervert even the
referendum itself, but they failed.
There would have been no difficulty
in putting the four up against
first-past-the-post in a clear
run-off. Do you want STV or
first-past-the-post; MMP or
first-past-the-post or some other
system versus first-past-the-post?
You would have still got the same
referendum result. But in the end
the MMP train was on track and
gathering steam between September of
1982 and 1983. Most politicians who
opposed MMP knew that in the
interests of survival, and their own
political longevity, they should
keep their heads down, and let the
people get on with their decision.
Now a business-backed campaign -
heavily backed by business - funnily
enough in a circumstance which you
would never tolerate in most other
countries, backed by a national
campaign, argued the danger and the
instability of proportional
representation. This, in a country
that had, from 1972, routinely
swapped governments with
'land-slide' swings from one party
to the other. But it didn't wash,
and a second referendum in 1993
delivered a clear 'yes' to MMP.
As you know, our
election last year was the first
under the new system. New Zealanders
entered the election, profoundly
uncertain about its likely outcome.
The matter hadn't been helped by the
very transient nature of the
political climate in the lead-up to
the election in 1993. Thirty-four
constituency seats were to be lost
under MMP. Any former politician
here in this room would know just
what anxiety and paranoia was being
peddled in the corridors of
Parliament. From 99 constituency
seats, down now to 65. I suppose
that a few MPs were entitled to feel
with some justification for their
actions, for having begun a new
career, the vehicle to continue
doing so was soon to be made,
without reference to them, obsolete.
Some 13 MPs left
the two main parties in 1993-96.
Most of them imagined that if they,
without any political precedent,
created new instant overnight
political parties, they would
increase their chances of survival.
Of course they were wrong. Just one
of those politicians who opted for
the life-boat of a new party
survives in Parliament today and
his, understandably so, is a voice
that is in the wilderness. Two
others followed the 1911 precedent
of joining an existing elected
party, and happily were returned to
Parliament. In 1911 four Liberal MPs
deserted the Liberal Party, crossed
the House and joined the Reform
Party and turned over the
Government. So there was a precedent
for people to actually leave a
party, provided they were joining an
existing elected one. There was no
precedent for someone walking off
and starting his or her own. Now
that was Lesson No.1 under MMP.
People weren't
fooled by the old guard's attempts
to reposition themselves under new
labels invented purely for the sake
of MMP, or more particularly and
personally, for their own survival.
Now it's always easy to be wise
after the event. It is true that I
had predicted before the election
that the new parties represented in
the MMP Parliament would be largely
those that had successfully faced an
election under the old system. They
were parties such as New Zealand
First, which had come into being
under the old system, and for urgent
and valid reasons of their own.
Another source of confusion in the
lead up to MMP was the attitude of
some politicians to coalition
building. I know that here in Australia
you are familiar with coalitions.
For when the Liberals have been in
power, or for most of the time that
I have studied it anyway, it has
always been in coalition with
others. It is different when Labor
is in power, but that could be
perceived as a coalition of even
more disparate groups successfully
kept together. And MMP will
inevitably produce coalitions and
coalition governments because of the
extreme unlikelihood of any party
winning an election outright. That
is the essence of why people chose
MMP in New
Zealand.
They wanted more co-operation - more
sharing of power.
Now some
politicians believe the lines of
shared responsibility had to be
pre-set before the election. In
short, they said, 'We will not go
into a coalition that is not
organized before election day', and
the left-wing Alliance,
particularly, wanted any possible
coalitions to be declared before the
election. Now the problem with that
is, that it is an attempt to
pre-empt or deny the voice of the
voters. There was an attempt to
subvert the change that MMP
entailed, whether New Zealanders
understood that, or not. The reality
is, they certainly demanded to
preserve the authority of an
election and its outcome for
themselves. In short it had to be
voters, not politicians, who decided
the strength of any party's power in
the new Parliament. Only then would
potential partners know the strength
of their hand and begin to
negotiate. Now that might seem
obvious, but it wasn't obvious in New
Zealand
at the last election. That we
politicians had to wait until the
voice of the people was heard,
before we attempted to reflect that
voice, in Parliament and
Parliament's organizations. And the
posturing of the Alliance
meant it was consigning itself
really, to opposition. Now since
then it has changed its view, but at
enormous cost I think, to the Alliance
itself. It intends, this time, to
leave the question open as to whom
they will go with.
In the meantime,
parties such as New Zealand First
were accused of playing both sides
of the field when we refused to rule
in or out any future coalition
arrangements. Now it was
extraordinarily costly for us. We
had begun in the mid year, with
about 29% of the popular vote,
according to the polls, but at every
meeting we were asked, and on every
occasion we were asked 'Who are you
going to go with?' Whilst we would
talk about the necessity of the
public firstly, and secondly, the
composition of the Parliament, so we
would know who to talk to, it didn't
wash with the media, and we must
have lost about 15 or 20 Members of
Parliament as a consequence. For, as
I say, we were accused of playing
both sides of the field when frankly
it would have been an exercise in
anti-intellectualism to even
contemplate naming who you were
going to go with until you could
actually to talk to someone who was
prepared go with you, and on what
terms you would go with them. In the
meantime as I say, we were accused
of playing both sides of the field
and that was lesson No. 2. of MMP.
But the parties can't call the tune.
They must let the voters do that on
election day.
Now the third
lesson of MMP came immediately after
the election When the votes were in,
New Zealand First had 13% of the
vote, which mightn't sound much to
you, but for a party that was three
years old, less than three years
old, it wasn't a bad effort.
National got 34%, Labour got 28%,
Alliance 10% and the party called
ACT, Association of Consumers and
Taxpayers I think it is, got 6%, and
for the first time in New Zealand's
history those proportions were
closely reflected in the number of
seats in Parliament. Seventeen for
New Zealand First, forty-four for
Nationals, thirty-seven for Labour,
thirteen Alliance,
eight for ACT and one for United.
Now it was
immediately clear to me that the
voters of New
Zealand
had given us, New Zealand First, a
very awesome responsibility. Or how
shall I put it? It became very clear
within twenty-four hours after the
election, because election campaigns
are exhausting for all the party
members and candidates, on election
night, even the thing that you have
worked for, for a long, long time,
does not have that immediate
apparency to you that you would
expect. You might not understand it,
but if you have been in politics,
and been in a long campaign you see
how, on election night, so many
people behave in a most stupid
fashion. You might criticize them,
but when you are on your feet and
exhausted, and your advisors can't
get near you because the media are
in front of you with their notebooks
you are liable to say something
stupid, and I have seen people all
round the world say something awful
on election night.
Well, we set
about negotiating in good faith with
both the National and Labour Parties
to determine which combination would
be durable and in the best interests
of New Zealand
and whatever party we formed a
coalition with, we knew there would
have to be compromise on both sides.
And that is the essence of MMP. All
parties must strenuously advocate
their own policies in the campaign,
and then afterwards, sit down and
work with each other to sort out
which combination is going to secure
the most workable long-term
arrangement. Then our policies must
stand or fall in the Parliament, and
any coalition agreement is nothing
more or less than a statement of
which policies the coalition can
jointly promote as a programme of
government. In fact, your coalition
agreement becomes your agreed
manifesto for the duration of that
term, or for the duration you keep
those parties together.
When after
arduous weeks of negotiation we
reached an agreement with the
National Party, naturally we were
accused then, by the losers, of
selling out our policies. Now sure,
not every New Zealand First platform
made it to the coalition agreement,
just as not every National platform
made it to the coalition agreement.
But we secured much more than we
gave away, and critics have failed
to understand a further great lesson
of MMP. It means compromise for the
sake of larger interests. That's why
the people of New
Zealand
chose MMP, and the budget presented
last month showed a coalition
agreement at work, delivering on its
programme that reflects the aims and
agendas of two political parties.
Neither gets entirely what it wants,
but both can honourably say that
they are pursuing a broad shared
platform. That lesson has taken a
while to settle in, and so has a
further lesson of MMP - that it
means a significant rethinking of
our approach to Parliament itself.
Under MMP,
Parliament is paramount. The driving
impetus behind the groundswell for
MMP was the wish that Parliament
should be a genuine arena for the
nation's decisions. New Zealanders
were tired of dictatorship by the
Executive, which they had had for
far too long, of ruling parties that
believed that governance resided in
Cabinet alone. They believed, in New
Zealand,
that Cabinet could rule and
Parliament would merely rubber stamp
its decisions. I don't know whether
that's apparent in Australia
or whether that's a fact in Australia,
but it certainly was a fact in our
political history, and the swollen
majorities of the
first-past-the-post encouraged that
attitude.
Instead, under
MMP all parties with a sizeable vote
of more than 5% are represented,
with the expectation that all would
play their part in Parliament's
decision-making. And I would defend
the threshold of 5%, which is a more
difficult threshold than the German
system, which most approximates
ours, which has also a threshold of
5%, but it is regionalized, and
therefore much more easy to
traverse. I defend it for the same
reason that one would be concerned
about the number of parties that are
in Parliament in Israel,
or were in the old Italian
Parliament - where I think they have
had more governments since the last
war than there have been years since
the last war. A 1% threshold enables
any loony tune group, or bunch of
misfits or extremists, to gain
access to Parliament and I think
that is the reason why New
Zealand
has settled for that 5% threshold.
Maybe we could have settled for 4%,
given that our systems across the
nation are not regionalized. Either
way, it would eliminate certain
extremists in society.
Our system is not
a complicated system. Just over half
of the Parliament, 65 of the 120
seats, is made up of members
directly elected from electorates.
The remaining 55 seats are allocated
among candidates on each party's
list, but the proportions in
Parliament aggregately reflect each
party's share of the overall vote.
Now as you may have heard, New
Zealand
has just witnessed an incident that
shows that some still do not
understand that principle. One of
the Alliance's
list MPs, a lady called Alamein
Korpu, decided that she didn't feel
comfortable within the Alliance, and
she's resigned from the Alliance,
to become an Independent MP. Her
defection from the Alliance has
upset the proportionality of New
Zealand's
Parliament. She has ignored the fact
that MMP put her there in Parliament
to maintain the proper share of the
public vote. The Parliament is still
undecided today about what can be
done about that situation. In fact
the case has been referred to the
Privileges Committee, although what
we are going to do from the
Privileges Committee is not clear.
But in essence, it is very simple.
For one, my
stance has always been that when
members resign from a party that put
them in the Parliament in the first
place they should, under normal
circumstances, resign from
Parliament and let the voters have
their say. Either that or join an
already elected political party, for
which there is a constitutional
precedent in New
Zealand.
Resigning from Parliament is not
something that I would lightly
advocate, but it something that I
did, personally, back in 1993 when I
was refused candidature, or vetoed
as a candidate for the National
Party and the result was the
formation of the party I lead, New
Zealand First.
Under MMP, the
resignation of a list MP from the
House would mean the seat is
reallocated to the next person on
that party's list. Now, there's the
rub! In the current case that
formula is upset by the fact that
the Alliance
is an uneasy cobble of diverse
parties; five in fact! The next
person on its list would not be from
Mrs Korpu's party, and it merely
underlines the instability of the Alliance
in my view, which will not survive
under MMP, because it was designed
for first-past-the-post. But the
principle remains clear, the
paramountcy of Parliament has been
abused by this move, and I say that,
whether or not the coalition stands
to gain from Mrs Korpu's vote, that
is a fact.
The honourable
thing for Mrs Korpu to do, as a list
MP, would be to resign from
Parliament. That would show respect
for the system that put her there,
and for the institution of
Parliament itself. But the
honourable thing for Mr Anderton,
who leads the Alliance of course, is
to have the next candidate on the
Alliance list, now chomping at the
bit to get into Parliament, to
tender to the Speaker, a Letter of
Waiver, in favour of Mrs Korpu's
party, or former party, Mana
Motuhake, in favour of their
candidate, who is below the new
Labour member, who is next on the
list after Mrs Korpu. In short, you
have Mrs Korpu here at No. 12. Alliance
got 13 members in Parliament. The
14th one, who would replace Mrs
Korpu, not from Ms Korpu's party,
but rather from the new Labour
Party. The next one, No. 15, is from
Mana Motuhake, Mrs Korpu's former
party. I say if Mr Anderton is to
maintain the principle of honour,
then the number 14 candidate should
send a Letter of Waiver to the
Speaker, and then it can be
demanded, as a matter of honour,
that Mrs Korpu go. You see, the Alliance
promised its constituent parties
internal proportionality when
compiling its list. Now, let me make
it very clear, and I'm certain any
politician here would respect that,
that honour isn't a quality that can
be legislated for. In fact, I'm sure
we'd all appreciate that, not just
the politicians, perhaps you would
appreciate it a darn sight better
than the politicians, but it is not
a quality that can be legislated
for. Some MPs are suggesting
legislation, in New
Zealand,
to bar an MP or to expel an MP from
leaving their party and remaining in
Parliament. Now that's a draconian
response to a new situation. Once
again it is a failure to understand
and respect the rule of Parliament
under MMP.
It must become a
matter of parliamentary convention
and personal honour. No legal
change, in my view, is required, and
as long as Parliament continues to
squabble and score points, such
honour will be a long time coming.
You see every MP in the new system
carries the responsibility of
lifting the tenor of Parliament to
honour the expectations of the
voters who chose MMP in the first
place. That will come, if we are
committed to that - but not on
current form. I think you shouldn't
hold your breath, and it might take
a while.
The disputes and
the disarray that we are now
witnessing have a very simple point
of origin. Many politicians in New
Zealand
haven't adapted to the new order.
They are working by the old rules,
and every one of us has a
responsibility to change that. In
time, the layout of the House itself
must change to accommodate MMP
itself in New
Zealand.
You see, we have a system in New
Zealand, a parliamentary seating
system, which is designed for first-past-the-post
best epitomized by the braying
raucous behaviour of the old House of Commons
in England - them over there and us
over here! If you travel throughout
Europe and see proportionality and
other systems of government, there
is a deltaic presentation there, the
parties are set out very much like
this room is set out, and there is
no them and us, by way of internal
construction or design. One party to
the right would be there, then
slightly to the left would be there,
and then the centre party would be
there, and then you have the parties
of the left, but they would be all
looking in the same direction - and
hopefully, when they look at that
simple order, they are all looking
in the same direction when they
deliberate on policy and programs of
economic and social change. It might
seem to you to be a small thing, but
I think under the new order of
things in New
Zealand,
it is very important. They came very
close to actually taking that
suggestion on board but, as with a
lot of things in politics, they
decided that the construction of the
building was more important than any
electoral reform that we might have
had in mind. You see that in
European parliaments, and I think we
need to make that change ourselves.
But that maturity will eventually
come.
I believe that
the coalition government is proving
that MMP can work, and that PR, in
large measure, both National and New
Zealand First are committed to that.
We've got to be committed to it,
because it is the only system we
have, and it will not be changed. I
say that because, if it were put to
referendum tomorrow, every timorous
National, Labour, Alliance, ACT, New
Zealand First or other voter will go
with the status quo they have, for
fear that their opponents might get
power.
It's the same
reason why, in New Zealand, we
cannot extend to a four-year
Parliament simply because every
different voter from the parties who
are not in power, votes to constrain
the length of time of the party in
power, and the party in power has a
lot of diffident voters who are
fearful that they might lose, and
don't want four years for the new
incoming government. By such fears
are a nation's parliamentary terms
ordered. What I am really saying
though, is the arrangements that we
are speaking about - the reform and
the parliamentary shape of its
debating chamber - will encourage
politicians to rethink our knee-jerk
reactions - our passions for
conflict -without a similar
commitment to necessary compromise.
But that maturity will eventually
come, and I believe that the
coalition government is proving
therefore that it can work.
Ladies and
Gentlemen, no new organization is
overwhelmingly successful in its
early days. I have never seen any
sporting team that was the best in
its early days. Now we're down here
in Melbourne.
I know it took the Swans in Sydney
about - am I right? - seven years to
get to the top, but get to the top
they have, or near enough to it. It
just takes time to make things work,
and seven months is far too early to
be making judgements on how
successful things are in New Zealand
with respect to electoral reform or
MMP in action, but already there are
the signs of long-term success.
First of all, in
Government today, we have a far
greater range of voices and
representation and people. More
women, more Maori, even some who
have views that are strongly
environmentalist, and they are
engaged at the highest level of
Cabinet. That could not have been
conceived in the old system. So here
we are, in July of 1997, seven
months in operation since the
coalition was formed, and New
Zealand
has not fallen apart. Thank you very
much. (APPLAUSE FOLLOWED)
Professor Cheryl
Saunders:
The
Minister is happy to take questions
I understand, so who would like to
start? Sid.
Question from Mr Sid
Spindler, Former Australian
Democrats Senator for Victoria:
Thank
you Chairman. Minister, my name is
Sid Spindler, formerly of the
Australian Democrats in the Senate.
... If the major traditional parties
opposed MMP, and business opposed
it, I wonder what the role of the
media was, and I wonder whether the
opposition of the major parties was
indeed monolithic, or whether there
were some cracks in that edifice. In
other words, I'd welcome, if you
could expand it a little more, on
how it was actually possible, and
how the campaign developed, and how
it was possible to get it through
when there were some fairly
formidable forces arraigned against
it. It is an experience that I
suspect we might be able to learn
from.
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
Well,
you know the saying that success has
as many fathers - failure is an
orphan. When the electoral reform
referendum was won on election night
1983, it had all sorts of people
claiming to have been the cause of
its success. I personally found that
astonishing, given that I hadn't
heard of most of them, or seen any
of them doing any work at all, and I
do know how it arose in New
Zealand.
It arose out of the circumstance of
political betrayal, initially by
Labour - I think it is well
understood here, the economic
revolution that Labour entered into
after the 1984 election. The people
who were most disturbed of course
were Labour's own supporters.
National supporters couldn't believe
their luck. They had voted against
Labour, and here they were doing,
far more courageously, the things
that National would talk about but
never do! And of course, they were
the darling of big business. Well,
that was at enormous political cost
to Labour, and by 1990, National for
the first time ever had, because
some of us had promoted it, an
electoral reform plank to its
manifesto. That's the first thing.
The second thing
is that the heat was on Labour in
the closing months of the campaign,
and commitments were being made by
National which went even further
than its manifesto commitments.
Then, in power, National - having
promised to slow down change - and
to give better balance and a human
face to the new economic order, were
similarly being accused of political
betrayal. I don't want to - because
I'm a coalition partner these days -
relitigate that. It would be most
unwise to in fact, but if you want
an honest answer, it was a trend
that kept going in terms of public
animosity of the Government, and of
the system itself.
National was then
forced into a referendum which it
had committed itself to. It took the
options against each other hoping
that - I can't tell you what they
hoped to do - because there was a
strategy to pervert. It didn't.
People went for one of the options,
and one of the reasons why we got
MMP was that a number of people who
wanted electoral reform decided to
stop fighting each other and go for
one - and the great majority went
for MMP, because there could not be
an assembly of people, of any
numbers, behind any other option.
Now, when big
business came in, and backed heavily
the status quo in 1983, I think
initially it turned the vote toward
the status quo, but then people
began to see that they were
interfering, and I think it was
counterproductive in the end. They
threw millions at it - we didn't
have anything like that sort of
money, and I think in the end the
public just got a bit sick of this
unfair, non-evenhanded treatment.
Now, you will say, 'What did the
major parties do?' Well, National
had more reformers in its ranks than
did Labour. Labour tends to have
collective views on even matters of
social conscience, and although
electoral reform was regarded as a
conscience issue by National, Labour
had a view that was so rigid it
debarred probably all but about two
people from a magnet that wasn't
clear except for the difference in
the parties.
The referendum
was never meant to win, but it did.
How did that happen? I think it was
because National made the mistake of
promising it, and then in the
enormous heat that was building up
in the period from 1988 to 1993 when
they were under political threat -
the polls were all lousy - that they
thought they'd better go with it,
just to get it off their backs, and
the rest is history.
Question from
Unidentified Member of the
Audience:
Minister,
I am a private citizen who is
interested in political reform. The
question of interest to me is as
regards to directly elected Members
of Parliament versus Members elected
as List MPs. Is there any difference
between the two in the operation of
Parliament?
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
Between
the two? Yes, there is a possible
difficulty, which I don't think you
will find abroad, for they are, with
the experience of practicality I
suppose, much more mature though. It
is true that we had to decide in New
Zealand to ensure there was not an A
team and a B team, but right across
the party divide you have members
calling list members of their own
party the B team - not realizing
that Helmut Kohl has never won a
constituency, but he is probably
Europe's longest serving democratic
leader. Yet there is a divide there
that all parties have to strive
against to ensure that it does not
become permanent. It's only seven
months - but you know what people
are like.
Question from Mr
Tim Glenville, Australian
Electoral Commission:
Two
things. Can you tell us firstly what
those four options were, and
secondly, could you tell us what
happens when a constituency MP
resigns?
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
(Mr
Peters began with a laugh). I was
going to remember those four now.
You might think this is ridiculous -
you should be able to remember those
four, but frankly I was always for
MMP - because I thought it was a
winner, and I never paid the rest
any mind at all, not because of
their substance or quality, but
because they simply - politics is
the art of the possible - and some
reform was better than no reform.
But one was STV, then you had ...
(Mr Peters gave an aside, 'Come on
you guys.', and Professor Saunders
said, 'Geoffrey can probably tell
you.'
MR GEOFFREY GOODE
(responding to assist): Yes I can
help, Mr Peters. MMP won 70% of the
100% for the four, next was the
single transferable vote, or
quota-preferential as we call it in
Australia, with 17%, and then, I am
not quite sure of the exact figures
for the last two, but they were the
Australian single-member
preferential system (Mr Peters said,
'That's right.') we use in our House
of Representatives - it won just a
piddling amount. And then there was
(INTERRUPTED BY LAUGHTER) Well, it
is a single-member system.
HON. WINSTON
PETERS: Are you surprised?
MR
GEOFFREY GOODE: It was a
single-member system - you wouldn't
expect much there! And the other one
was a system that has recently been
adopted for the Lower House in Japan,
and that's a supplementary system.
HON. WINSTON
PETERS: Ah, yes, yes, yes.
MR GEOFFREY
GOODE: Single member plus a top-up
proportionally (Mr Peters, 'Yes,
that's right) and that was
fortunately voted down too.
HON. WINSTON
PETERS: (To questioner) It might
interest you to know. I suppose it's
very unkind. I won't say. Your
second question was what happens
when a constituency member resigns
from Parliament? If it is within six
months of the time that an election
must be called, if it is within that
time, Parliament can meet and decide
not to hold a by-election in the
interest of costs, or the proximity
of an election but, if it's outside
the six months, then there must be a
by-election as you would have in the
case of death. Now that rule applies
on the occasion of death or
resignation.
QUESTIONER
(Addressed by Professor Saunders
as 'Adam')
I just wanted to
ask the question - which is probably
more relevant to your coalition
partners. Let's assume that at the
next election the National Party
polls better than it did last time,
and particularly in the
constituencies. This would mean its
constituency representation would be
much greater, and its list would
come down. How would they sort of
organize it so that they are going
to get the people they want in
Parliament in, rather than have
someone who is perhaps just a little
bit too far down the list and misses
out altogether?
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
It
is obviously an internal problem
that would exercise the minds of all
political parties, and hence the
reason why there is such competition
for the top of the list. It's just
so difficult, if you've got people
of considerable quality that you
want who are down the list a long
way, you may well be hoping that you
don't win constituencies, but you
get the party vote up.
SAME
QUESTIONER:
Can you run both
for a constituency, and be on the
list at the same time?
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
Well
most parties have a range of choices
such as that. You've got the
extreme, which is New Zealand First,
which says, 'You cannot make the
list unless you are on a
constituency nomination'. Other
parties have a more liberal policy
than that. You can be both, or you
can be just one.
Questioner (Mr
Neville Ford):
I
was once a municipal councillor in Victoria.
I would like to ask you about the
quality of the politicians rather
than the number of them. We've had a
television program here called 'The
Last Governor', on Hong Kong
and its transfer of power. It's been
very intimate, and quite revealing.
The Governor would go when the vote
had been taken and say, 'Good God,
how come he got elected?' because in
their Parliament some are functional
constituencies, and some are elected
from the broad mass of people. I
have lived in Hong
Kong for a bit, and it
has always amazed me, the quality of
those from the functional
constituencies vis-a-vis the elected
members, and that clearly came
through in the last Governor's
comments - off-the-cuff personal
comments.
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
Do
you mean that the functional
constituencies attracted a higher
quality?
SAME
QUESTIONER: The functional
constituencies attracted a higher
quality of person than the
democratically elected people.
HON. WINSTON
PETERS: Let me put it this way.
Observing that of the 156 years that
they were in Hong
Kong it took them a
perishingly long time to decide that
they should get democracy! And I do
think that the event of the handover
of Hong Kong had a lot to do with a
contract that was coming to its end,
and not a great deal to do with
someone seeking to become the next
leader of the Tory Party in England,
if you know what I mean.
That said, when
you talk about quality, I hope that
you measure it by all factors, a
sense of humanity, a sense of
justice, a sense of fairness, a
sense of decency. I mean, do these
functional politicians have all
those qualities as well? You might
well find Members of Parliament that
may not. I'm not pushing our
collective occupational barrow here.
They may not be of business
excellence, or even professional
excellence, but when you're
measuring people's abilities I hope
you include those factors as well,
for there would be many functional
politicians who would - yes - be
very good at business, but what do
they care about the rest of
humanity? Parliament should be about
representation. That's why they call
it the House of Representatives, and
elitist selection would not make it
representative, and with all its
failings, that's what democracy
should be about!
Unidentified
Questioner Asking about Maori
Seats:
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
You've
got five seats, constituency seats,
set aside for Maori, for Maori
voters. It is a fact it is seen by
many observers as an anachronism.
The reality is that in 1867, the
Colonial Office, seeing that the
indigenous people had no
representation at all, and were not
getting a great audience with the
then Government of New Zealand,
demanded that they be given four
seats; East, West, West South, North
Maori or Northern Maori, and hence
they gained them in 1867 and were
seen in time by Maori to be their
stake in democracy. There will be a
time in New
Zealand
where the Maori do not think they
are any longer necessary; but the
only vehicle for delivery now, I
believe, will be MMP.
With MMP they end
up with fifteen people of Maori
extraction in Parliament. Five in
the constituency direct selection
and ten from list seats; from
Alliance, Labour, ACT, even the
National Party got one in, and two
list from New Zealand First to
complement the five, who won the
five Maori seats, and they are still
there because although many of us
argue that it was not required if
MMP was coming, there was an attempt
to deter the Maori people off MMP at
the referendum time, at the
referendum date, by saying, 'If you
vote MMP then you will lose the
Maori seats'. The Maori people were
not fooled by that; they were the
heaviest supporters of MMP, as they
saw it in a positive way as being
able to keep our five constituencies
and they would get many more, which
they did.
QUESTIONER: I
seem to remember one criticism of
MMP a result where one candidate was
soundly defeated in the
constitutional election then was
appointed under the list so it was
felt that this person got into
Parliament against the wishes of the
electors. How would you answer that
criticism?
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
That
is correct with respect to the
wishes of that electorate, and only
for that electorate. For there are
many seats, where for example, just
to use any old figures just to make
the case out where the electorate
would have voted say one third for a
Labour candidate but on their party
vote, 50% voted for Labour, knowing
that this person who was getting
one-third of their vote,
nevertheless was on the list. So
what do you read from that ? And
don't forget, MMP affords you that
luxury. You might be Labour and
prefer the National man or woman, or
you might be National, but prefer
the Labour woman, which is more
frequently what happens, and more
frequently to women, and that
happened in a number of seats, that
a Labour woman won in circumstances
where the Party vote was clearly
against Labour, and for National.
Question by Mr Norman Ellis
(A former President,
Victorian Branch, Proportional
Representation Society of Australia):
I
heard with interest your historical
perspective on how MMP came about.
It seems it may have been a
situation where even a drover's dog
- to use an Australianism - could
have beaten first-past-the-post.
... I believe that a preferential
vote wedded to the New Zealand
system would better serve your
country's system, and specifically
would address the current problems
you're alluding to with the Alliance,
where one member has resigned. As I
understand your system, if the
constituencies still had first-past-the-post,
and you had for the list system -
precisely that, a list - single vote
filled from the top down. If a
preferential system had been married
to that, then surely the Alliance or Alliance
supporters would have had a better
chance of ensuring the complexion of
the Alliance
representation in Parliament, and
you may not have had the need for
this 'A' team, 'B' team, if STV had
been used across the board rather
than MMP.
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
Yes,
I know what you mean. That is a
factor, but I don't think that in
the long term in MMP the 'A' team,
'B' team scenario is going to
develop any currency. It is
something that was new, because the
system was new. The second thing is,
what you say, it doesn't obviate the
problem we've got, which is someone
has resigned, and you still have
that in the system you are
advocating. I do note that when I
was in Ireland
studying the electoral system there,
which is STV, I couldn't find a
politician who was for it. What they
said was, 'Whilst I'm busting my gut
down here in Dublin
trying to represent my people,
somebody is cutting my throat back
in the electorate.' They said that
its greatest defect was that it
encouraged disloyalty. Now
disloyalty being such a present
element in politics at any level, at
any time, no more encouragement in
my view, should be given to it.
That's just my personal view.
QUESTION: I have
a practical question following on
from that, 'What does a list MP do?'
(LAUGHTER FROM AUDIENCE). If you're
a Minister, or a constituency MP you
go and see your groups and that sort
of thing, but what does a list MP
actually do?
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
Well
there's an ideal job description for
them, that is to go out and sell
your party as hard as you can from
one end of the country to the other
end of the country so that even in
the little hamlets or places which
aren't traditionally seen to be your
supporters, you nevertheless are
extracting the maximum vote for your
party. But unfortunately, this 'A'
team, 'B' team scenario has tended
to see list MPs putting up
electorate offices all round the
country, sort of like 'I am the 'ACT
man' for Wellington,
or I am the 'ACT man' for Dunedin.
And so you have the constituency MP
in one office in one street, and the
list MP's office on the next comer,
and what they are not allowed to do,
of course, is to put up
'Constituency MP', and some have
tried 'MP for the town in question',
and they've been told to pull those
signs down as well, and they only
write MP.
Now it's true
that if you want a presence in the
constituency of your people that you
can provide in a seat where you
haven't got the constituency member,
nevertheless a presence for those
who refuse to go to the constituency
MP. It's all rather uncertain at
this point in time, if I could put
it that way, and it's all working
itself out. A good list MP though
has got his or her head screwed on
properly, and would be out stumping
the country as hard as they can go
and make themselves as valuable to
the party as possible, thereby
ensuring a high place on the list as
well as being capable in their
parliamentary duties.
Question by Mrs
Alison Harcourt:
Yes
my question is related.
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
I
think that is what's happening, and
you wouldn't expect them to uproot
their house and shift to some end of
the country. Who do they represent
in terms of a comparison with a
constituency MP who says, 'These are
my constituents'? In many ways a
list MP has to believe that as well,
for they are on the list that the
public has voted for. Now they might
find it difficult to give geographic
parameters to that statement, but
they should be out there to
represent anyone who comes to see
them, regardless of what their
political preferences when they come
as voters, and in other countries
they have taken that view. A person
is in a region, working as hard as
they can for their party.
You see all
comers in terms of their electorate
constituency work, but they don't
have the added bonus of being able
to say, 'This is my constituency'.
But I've got to tell you, that
having a constituency is tough.
Probably more so than most of you
think here, other than the
politicians. Having a constituency
is a tough responsibility when you
are involved at the national level
heavily. On Fridays you have got to
be back there, and on Saturdays,
then out of there, and on the road
again. It is becoming a seven days a
week job for anybody who is serious
about it. It's no cake-walk, and no
beer and skittles, and you say,
'Well no, particularly when you come
from a small party.' So ... it would
be less onerous to be on the list.
One question.
MR GEOFFREY
GOODE: Professor Saunders is
suggesting, Mr Peters, that perhaps
one more question might be
appropriate.
HON. WINSTON
PETERS: Yes. I'll take two, then
I'll finish.
Unidentified Questioner,
Suggesting that
Proportional Representation
might Lead to Weak Government:
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
I
see what you're saying. The people
who say that proportional
representation represents, or these
sorts of governments represent weak
governments are really
traditionalists. They are arguing
without any substance whatsoever.
I've seen first-past-the-post, and
by gee, I've seen some political
weakness, spinelessness and
gutlessness with anything else you'd
like to see all wrapped up in one.
If you are
seeking to lobby from outside a
country, it is much more difficult
to lobby when you have got more than
one party to lobby - far more
difficult to put pressure on when
you have more than one party to put
pressure on. So I think that the
very converse is the case. One
question over there, and that's the
last one. Yes.
Questioner:
What are your
thoughts on the effectiveness of
budgetary policy, and the long time
it might take to develop budgets
with a number of parties involved?
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
I think it
depends what structures you have in
place to ensure that there is
transparency, information to the
market, and to all your voters,
clarity of intent so that your
people know what you are going to
do, whether it be national or local
government. People are entitled to
know. If I make important business
decisions, what climate am I going
to be living in? The more clearly
that that is made to them, the
better people can make business
decisions with certainty. So those
structures need to be put in place
regardless of what system you have.
But it works very well under MMP as
well.
I lost the last
part of your question. (Questioner
repeats) Under first-past-the-post,
New
Zealand was
becoming famous for policy
revolutions done with breath-taking
speed - a bit like taking a dog out
of the central suburbs of Melbourne,
out to some outback place where
there are rabbits, let the dog go,
it sees the first rabbit and it
starts running after it. Next thing
it sees one out here, then out here,
then it sees about fifty and it's
running around in circles, and all
of a sudden it's dizzy. That's what
happened in New
Zealand,
they had hardly got to fixing one
reform, then came another one, and
then another one, and the MPs didn't
know whether they were Arthur or
Martha, and were thoroughly
confused.
It was
breathtaking speed and it happened,
in a way it could never have
happened under MMP, because under
MMP you have to convince more than
one party. You have to take more
than one caucus. In fact it's
beginning to be the case where the
substance and quality of a debate is
likely to win arguments, rather than
political might. And I think it's
not a bad thing that you are forced
to slow down the process of change,
for you are forced to win debates on
the substance and merits of them
rather than on whether you have got
the numbers behind you or not, and I
think incremental change is more
lasting in society in the long run.
(APPLAUSE FOLLOWED)
MR
GEOFFREY GOODE: Thank you Mr Peters
for those answers. Before I ask
Professor Saunders to conclude the
session tonight, we had asked Mrs
Nancye Yeates, the Secretary of our
Victorian Branch, who actually met
Mr Peters in New Zealand and invited
him here, if she would kindly say a
couple of words.
Remarks by Mrs
Nancye Yeates,
Secretary, Victorian
Branch, Proportional
Representation Society of Australia:
Buried
away down here I have something that
I am now going to bury behind my
back. Mr Peters, because you have
come here as a result of my
opportunistic approach to you, when
you were in New Zealand, on behalf
of embarrassed Australians such as
myself I would like to offer an
apology to you for the rude things
that have been said (via the media).
Having said that,
I will move on. I totally believe
that our democracy stands on two
strong legs - two fundamentals - a
very fair voting system, and
Parliamentarians who are fair, and
who are honest and have integrity.
Without that, we have no democracy
at all. You have demonstrated by
taking up my impertinent request to
you to come, that you are a man of
honour, and that you have kept your
word, for which I am duly grateful.
Thank you. We are delighted to have
you and, Mr Peters, might I say to
you from this opportunist to another
opportunist, (LAUGHTER HERE) 'Carpe
Diem, Seize the day!' (Mrs
Yeates handed Mr Peters a gift from
the Proportional Representation
Society of Australia) (APPLAUSE
FOLLOWED)
Response by Hon. Winston
Peters:
Are
there any media here at the moment?
(MR GEOFFREY GOODE: There is a
television camera.) Oh! It is clear
to me that some people have been
taking those notes from Cairns far
too seriously since I've been here
and it's getting better and better,
but thank you very, very much for
that, and on your gracious comments
with respect to those notes from Cairns.
The reality is, you know, that New Zealand
and Australia
are two countries that have worked
alongside each other, they have
fought alongside each other, they
have died alongside each other.
That is a
relationship that should not be
imperilled by some, as I said,
dingoistic bureaucrat, looking
around for a job description, or how
we feel about what might be
perceived to be an insult. We are
bigger people than that in New
Zealand, and I am certain, as
someone who came here when very
young, to work in the Snowy
Mountains, as a second-class miner,
eleven miles underground, in the
Eucumbene-Island Bend tunnel for
those of you who are interested, and
also as a blast furnace worker on
the fourth pot at BHP in Newcastle,
we've got a lot of reasons to be
grateful to Australia and - vice
versa. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE FOLLOWED)
Professor Cheryl
Saunders:
I
opened the proceedings, and I will
close them, after Geoffrey has said
something else.
Mr Geoffrey
Goode:
I'm
just representing the PR Society,
and I think Mr Peters is very much
to be congratulated for tonight, and
I want to echo some of the strong
points he made in favour of
proportional representation. Just
before I do that - I just mention
that the Irish electoral system
might not suit the Irish MPs. Irish
governments have twice tried to
have it removed from the
Constitution, but twice the Irish
people, in a simple majority vote
said 'No'. So the people of Ireland
like their electoral system I
suggest.
The other point I
make, and this is a live issue in Australia
at the moment, certain Federal
Government MPs and party people have
been suggesting for our Senate's
proportional representation, that it
would be highly convenient and
desirable, and good for the country,
if there was a threshold as well as
a quota. In our system of quotas, in
the Senate, you have to get 14% of
the vote - but you can make it up
from primary votes (first preference
votes), or votes transferred from
other Parties - and it irritates the
Government very much that the
Western Australian Greens, for
instance, have a very small primary
vote - well below 14%.
In fact they
would be wiped out under a threshold
system, but because the supporters
of the big parties don't accumulate
votes to enough extent to add
another senator to the big parties,
those votes are transferred, through
the workings of the system, quite
fairly - because there are more of
them that actually go to the Greens
- to build up the Greens to the 14%
required to win a Senate place.
So that's the
difference between a quota and a
threshold. Those votes, they're
actually the people's votes, are not
put in the dustbin, but are used in
accordance with their wishes, and
that's the very big difference that
we feel strongly about in the PR
Society.
Finally, I said
I'd echo those strong points you
made, Sir. You said the distrust
produced by the single-member
system, by abuse of the
single-member system, paved the way
for the acceptance of PR, and we are
very pleased to hear that. We
understand that, we echo that. You
referred in your address to
coalition building, and the way you
have built a coalition strikes us as
extremely democratic. You have
weighed the options, you have
considered it, you had not, as you
say, done it beforehand. You had
observed the situation, the
characteristics of who was actually
elected. We believe that coalition
building, with its purpose being
building a majority, not setting it
up beforehand and offering it as a fait
accompli, but building it
though compromise for a wider
solution, is the way to go.
And your final
comment, which I have noted down
here, and this is a splendid
comment, the wording is excellent.
Our book, which we are going to
offer you later - one of our little
publications called 'Mirror of
the Nation's Mind' - that's a
sort of slogan for PR; but your
slogan, 'A genuine arena for the
Nation's decisions', is probably a
better one. Thank you. (APPLAUSE
FOLLOWED)
Professor Cheryl
Saunders:
Well
I really will bring proceedings to a
close on behalf of ourselves and the
Society. Minister, it has been a
very great honour to have you with
us this evening, not only for the
reason that a number of embarrassed
Australians have already mentioned,
but also because you have given us
such an entertaining and thoroughly
informative speech. I, and I think
many people around the room, did
know a little bit about the MMP
system, at least in theory in New
Zealand.
In fact we have had
a number of New Zealanders here
explaining it to us as we
approached the last election, but
what I didn't know, and I suspect
that nobody else did either, is
how it is actually working in
practice, and what reaction it is
producing on the floor of the
Parliament, and what are the
parties doing, even your point
about the layout of the Parliament
was very informative. So I
thoroughly enjoyed it, and I'm
sure everybody else has, and I
very much hope you will come back
here to Melbourne
University
on another occasion when you are
in Australia.
Thank you. (APPLAUSE FOLLOWED)
|
