Evidence of meeting #9 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was zealand.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission
It's a three-year term in New Zealand.
We've had seven MMP elections, and to date each government elected under MMP has been a coalition government or has had arrangements with other parties, and each government has retained the confidence of the Parliament for the duration of the parliamentary term.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Really? That's quite interesting.
How much more time do I have?
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Another question or thought that has come to my mind is that we've talked a little bit about having integrity in our system. We have a lot of confidence in the Canadian system currently as it is.
Mr. Rogers, this question is for you. Has the length of time it's taking to come to an election result and the issue that happened in 2013 caused people to lose trust in the system? That's something we hold as very important, and I'm sure you do as well. We wouldn't want to come across those types of problems in the future.
9:10 p.m.
Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual
I think it would be fair to say, and I have said it publicly, that the issue in 2013 with 1,370 lost ballot papers in the state of Western Australia created great difficulty for us and did impact on our public reputation, but we still have a broad degree of public support. We're a trusted institution and we've worked hard to overcome that difficulty.
The longer the results take, though, and every time there's increased scrutiny, as there was following the incident in 2013—and I'm sure it's the same in Canada—the more some of the media commentary strays from the reasonable, nuanced, calm, and informed level of public debate we would like to have. We have to deal with that as well.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Keeping with the tradition of the committee, I'm going to take a question off Twitter from Julien Lamarche, who asked what I think is an interesting question. In the MMP system in New Zealand, the question is essentially what happens if a list MP decides to leave the party. Do they take the seat with them, or are they really just resigning from the legislature at that point, and the seat gets reassigned?
9:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission
The short answer to your question is that if a member chooses to leave the party after having been elected from the list—or from the electorate, for that matter—they remain a member of Parliament. There's no legal consequence, but, of course, there are political consequences. The New Zealand experience is that the electorate takes a very dim view of people leaving their party without good reason. Those members who do tend to be punished at the next election.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It's kind of reminiscent of a question we dealt with a little earlier with some other witnesses on the STV system. What happens in the event of the death or resignation of a member? How do you proceed with a by-election under the STV system if a member who was elected in the general election is no longer there?
9:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission
In relation to a list member, it's simply a case of electing the next person from the list. Obviously, if it's an electoral member, there's a by-election.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Right.
In the Australian upper house, where it's an STV system, how do by-elections work?
9:15 p.m.
Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual
There's an appointment by the state to the house.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Is it the state government, then, that determines who would fill that seat?
9:15 p.m.
Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual
Essentially, yes, and there are a whole range of conventions around that based on a very long history in Australia, as you can imagine. It has occurred over many years with various things that have occurred, but there is a convention, and the state nominates a member.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
In Australia, for the lower house that's elected by the alternative vote system, do you get the data on how the ultimate results, in terms of the percentage of seats, compare to people's first choice?
9:15 p.m.
Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual
Yes, we do.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
One of the themes we've been discussing a lot is false majorities. Some of our witnesses have suggested that an alternative vote system may not only not alleviate that but might actually exacerbate the problem of false majorities. Is that something you guys watch, and if so, what has tended to be the effect in the lower house in Australia?
9:15 p.m.
Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual
We do a full distribution of preferences, and all of that data, both current and historical, is available through our virtual tally room. Each state is different. There's an absolute majority in some, depending on where the seats are located, while in others there's a hugely complex preference flow to end up with the final result. We do that at every election, and it's very transparent, and everyone's able to see it.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
How often would you say parties tend to form a majority in the lower house without having a majority of the popular vote on the first-choice round?
9:15 p.m.
Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual
I would say that would be rare. I'd have to examine that.
There are two major parties. If the Conservative Party is in coalition with another partner.... It's very difficult for me to answer that question in any statistically meaningful way. I can take it on notice and maybe give some thought to it and provide you with an answer later on, if you like.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to get back to the very interesting conversation I had with Mr. Peden.
In our journey, we were just past the referenda. In New Zealand, we had three full years of political debate or more as political preparation to set the table for the first election. Why did it take you three years to prepare people for the new way of electing members?
9:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission
The decision to move to a new electoral system was made in 1993. The first MMP election was meant to be in 1996, and there was a great deal of work to be done between 1993 and 1996 to prepare for that election. Electoral boundaries had to be redrawn. There was a complete revision of the chief electoral officer's processes and procedures, and the systems necessary to deliver it had to be designed and developed. There was a comprehensive electoral information campaign that needed to be developed.
The public officials who supported the cabinet processes, the executive processes, and the parliamentary processes also needed to review what difference coalition governments and a greater number of parties would make to the way cabinets worked and the way parliamentary processes worked. For example, there were amendments to standing orders of Parliament to make allowances for the new system.
Political parties also needed to adjust. There was a new nomination process that political parties needed to get their heads around. A new campaigning style was required, because the party vote became a very important feature of election campaigns. It was a new thing for political parties to understand.
All of those things required time.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
We all recognize that you didn't lose time. You had a lot of aspects to face, to address, in order to achieve the confidence of the people before going to a new electoral voting system. Is that correct?
