Electoral Reform Committee on July 26th, 2016

[Robert Peden]

List MPs often attach themselves to particular areas or particular constituencies, but in terms of public perceptions, I think it's fair to say that there is evidence that the New Zealand public regards electorate MPs, the people they can go to, as having a higher status than list MPs. However, this is an evolving situation.

The other thing that's been found in research is that when people are asked about particular MPs, whether they're list or whether they're electorate, if they know them and they deal with them, questions of whether they're a list MP or electorate MP are less important.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

What sort of evidence do you have on how complete or partial ballots are filled out under the MMP system? What percentage of voters check both sides, check one side, check the other side, or spoil the whole thing?

[Robert Peden]

We have very comprehensive data on that because we report on the level of informal votes.

Somebody can cast a party vote and not mark a candidate, so that's a valid party vote and an informal candidate vote. They can also—although this happens less—mark their candidate vote but not the party vote.

On average, about 0.45% of party votes are informal and just over 1% of candidate votes are informal, so the level of informal voting is very low. The level of candidate informal voting is higher because often people will find a party they want to vote for but don't have a candidate standing in the electorate for the party that they want to vote for. As a result, often you will find that the party vote side of the ballot has been marked but the candidate vote side has not.

At the 2014 election, 31% of New Zealanders voted strategically; in other words, in the party vote they voted for a certain party and in the candidate vote they voted for someone from a different party.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Is there any perception of a difference in legitimacy of candidates who appear on a list but don't run in an electorate, versus those who appear on a list and do run in an electorate, whether they win or lose the electorate and are then given a seat on the list?

[Robert Peden]

There have been very high-profile politicians who were list only—for example, the current Deputy Prime Minister is list only, and a previous Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General was a list MP—so I don't think so. Often if a member of Parliament has aspirations of being a Speaker, they will seek a list-only role.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Okay. Thanks very much.

Perhaps I'll turn to Mr. Rogers in the brief time I have left and I can follow up again later.

What level of exercise do voters provide for preference one through four, one through five, one through six, or whatever it might be, in the alternative vote for the lower house?

[Tom Rogers]

If you're talking about the overall level of informality, I think it's about 5% nationally. We, like the New Zealanders, do a very comprehensive survey after each election to work out whether those votes were deliberately informal or accidental. Our research shows that the vast majority are accidental. It's very clear when people deliberately leave all the boxes blank or write special messages for either the Electoral Commission or members of Parliament on the ballot paper, but that's a different thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Kenney.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thanks to both of our expert witnesses from the Antipodes. Thanks for your time.

The first question I have, for Mr. Peden, is with respect to the development of the current system in New Zealand. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in 1992 there was a referendum on the general question about whether or not to pursue a different electoral system, and then options were given in a subsequent referendum in 1993, after which the current system was adopted, which was then further tested by a subsequent referendum in 2011. Is that correct?

[Robert Peden]

Not quite.

The referendum in 1992 was a two-part question. The first question that was posed in 1992 was whether they wanted to retain the current system of first past the post or change it. The second part of that 1992 referendum asked them to indicate which of four options they would prefer if there were to be a change.

Then, at the next general election in 1993, because the majority of people who participated in the 1992 referendum voted for change, there was a binding referendum in the 1993 general election.

The 2011 referendum was an opportunity for New Zealanders to, in the words of the Prime Minister—“check the tires” and decide whether or not, after six MMP elections, they continued to be happy with MMP or they wanted to consider a change. That was also an indicative referendum.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Is the New Zealand electoral system entrenched in statutory or in constitutional law?

[Robert Peden]

There is a provision in the Electoral Act 1993 that provides, for some parts of the Electoral Act, a requirement that for amendment to be made, it requires either a 75% majority of Parliament or a majority of voters in a referendum. You can find that at section 268 of the New Zealand Electoral Act.

The things that are covered are the term of Parliament, the makeup of the Representation Commission, the process for determining boundaries, the voting age, and the method of voting. Those are some of the things that are prescribed as requiring a special majority before they can be amended.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

So it's statutory, but insofar as amending these provisions requires a super-majority, they might be referred to as quasi-constitutional.

[Robert Peden]

Well, I think we would regard the Electoral Act as a constitutional document. Unlike Canada, what we have in New Zealand is a Bill of Rights Act, but it is not a supreme law in the way that your Constitution is.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Right; it forms part of the unwritten constitution.

[Robert Peden]

Yes, it does.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Rogers, could you answer the same sort of question about whether electoral law in Australia is of a constitutional or an ordinary statutory status?

[Tom Rogers]

Essentially, it's an ordinary statutory process. In fact, the recent major change to the Senate legislation was passed with a majority from both houses of Parliament.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I understand from a witness we had earlier today that in recent years the ACT, the Australian Capital Territory, held a referendum on a change to its electoral system. Is that correct?

[Tom Rogers]

I'm sorry. States and territories have their own electoral commissions and we love each other like brothers and sisters, but I am not particularly aware of what they may or may not have done in the ACT.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

The commonwealth system was effectively adopted nearly a hundred years ago. Is that right?

[Tom Rogers]

That's correct. It was upon federation.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Right.

While I gather there's no law requiring a referendum for amendments to the electoral system, would it be fair to say that there would be a widespread public and political expectation that any significant change to the electoral system would require approval through a referendum or perhaps through something like a super-majority, as is the case in New Zealand?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Give a brief answer, please.

[Tom Rogers]

Again I'm not trying to be unhelpful, but I think that's more of a political question. I relate back to the recent changes to the legislation that occurred only some three months ago. That was a simple majority in Parliament and a major change to the legislation.