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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tom Rogers  Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual
Robert Peden  Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission

9:20 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission

Robert Peden

That is correct, yes.

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

I have a quick question for Mr. Rogers from Australia. You said that you spent a lot of money and a lot of time on education to educate people before the election. Why?

9:20 p.m.

Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual

Tom Rogers

It's one of our three roles. We need to have an educated electorate, so before every election, we have a campaign that we run in a number of different phases to make sure people are informed about where to vote and how to vote. Those are two very important things.

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you so much, Mr. Rogers.

Thank you for much, Mr. Peden.

Mr. Chair, what we just heard is extremely insightful, but it most importantly benefits our own work.

The New Zealand representative told us that they needed 11 years to make the required electoral reform: 18 months for the royal commission, four years of political debates, two years for the referendums and three years to prepare and inform the population. From 1985 to 1996, 11 years went into painstaking work, political debates and informing the public before an electoral reform was made.

Mr. Chair, I think that the current government should learn from New Zealand's experience before it makes any changes whatsoever.

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay, it's duly noted.

Are you done, Mr. Deltell?

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

I think so.

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

You actually had another 45 seconds left.

This was a long day filled with very insightful testimony.

We will close our meeting with Mr. Aldag.

Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Peden, I'll start with you.

You might have touched on this. In the referendums done in New Zealand, what threshold was used? Were the thresholds all the same, or did they change?

Today we've heard that if we're doing a referendum, we should look at a 60% threshold, yet I don't think I've seen that. Did you use 50%, 50% plus one?

9:20 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission

Robert Peden

Our threshold is 50%, the same basis for the elections of members of Parliament. That's our democratic tradition. A simple majority is sufficient to carry a referendum result. No special majority is required.

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

I also had a note that any changes going forward, such as the introduction of online voting, would also require a majority support and referendum. Would that again be 50%, a simple majority?

9:20 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission

Robert Peden

No, I'm sorry. That wouldn't be right. Referenda are required for fundamental changes. When I say they are required, if it's an entrenched provision, one of those provisions contained in section 268—for example, the method of voting—that would require either a 75% majority of members in the House or a referendum to confirm. Any other amendment to the Electoral Act can be made by way of a simple majority, but the tradition in New Zealand is that if it is a fundamental change either to the overall electoral system or to some feature of it, such as a term of Parliament, then that needs to be confirmed by a referendum of voters.

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Okay.

Thank you to both of you for all of the information you've shared with us today.

I'm going to conclude with a chance for you to reinvent your systems. The scenario is simply this: if you could change your electoral system, what would be the one element you would keep, and what would be the one element you would part with? Perhaps you could give a quick reason as well.

That may help us look at the elements to keep and lose as we move forward. Maybe you could finish with those thoughts.

9:20 p.m.

Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission, As an Individual

Tom Rogers

I'll focus on administration rather than anything else.

For us, the big issue that kills the Australian voting system is the vast number of envelopes that we have to deal with at election time without the access for people voting everywhere. If there were a better system for us to deal with that, it would lead to much swifter results, much greater certainty of results, and a better system overall.

I'm focusing purely on the administration of the act rather than a more philosophical approach to elections.

9:25 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission

Robert Peden

As far as the New Zealand Electoral Commission is concerned, our role is as administrator of the system that has been adopted by the New Zealand Parliament in consultation with the people of New Zealand. The commission is not an advocate of any particular system. We are here to explain the system that we have.

However, to provide the kind of guidance that you're seeking, again I would simply commend to you the report of the 1985 royal commission, as well as the report that we did on the review of MMP in 2012. We made a number of recommendations in relation to the particular system of MMP that we have and how we saw that it might be improved.

9:25 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

If the 1985 report comes through the committee, I guess we would deal with translation. With regard to entering it into evidence to be able to draw from, how can we do that?

To both of you, if you have material that you would like us to draw from, you can submit written material. This report is one that's been mentioned a few times, and it seems that it might be useful for us to look at it.

I will throw it out to the chair and the clerk: how can we legitimately have a look at that document without taking years of translation time?

9:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

The best approach would be to receive it first. We'll look at it and make some kind of determination.

Are you able to send the 1985 report to us? There is a link, obviously.

9:25 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, New Zealand Electoral Commission

Robert Peden

We can send you a link to that, sir.

9:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, that would be wonderful.

Are you finished with your line of questioning?

9:25 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Yes.

9:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you so much, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Peden.

I think I speak for all members of the committee when I say that I've learned so much, not only about your electoral system but about your political culture, and obviously that means about your country as a whole. It's been very informative. You've made a very significant contribution to our study, and, as I said, it's been a pleasure to learn about your systems and your countries.

Thank you for joining us.

We will meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. We will be hearing from three witnesses: Henry Milner, Alex Himelfarb and Professor André Blais.

I want to point out to the committee members that the green shuttle bus that services the Hill will be available tonight from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. So you don't have to worry about transportation.

The meeting is adjourned.