Referendums a tribute to two battlers

By Bernard Orsman

Voters will not only elect a Government on November 27 - they will have a say on reducing the number of MPs and imposing tougher penalties for violent crime.

Laborious efforts by a retired Wellington woman and a Christchurch shopkeeper have gained enough signatures from eligible voters to trigger separate citizens-initiated referendums in conjunction with the election.

Margaret Robertson was fed up with the behaviour of members of Parliament, particularly list MPs, and all the party-hopping that has gone on.

Norm Withers set out on his campaign after his 72-year-old mother, Nan, was bashed with an iron bar while minding his shop in 1997.

As a result of their hard work, voters will be asked these questions:

1. Should the size of the House of Representatives be reduced from 120 members to 99 members?

2. Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?

Political observers agree that both referendums will be passed overwhelmingly, even though they will be submerged by the general election and the fact that interest groups are limited to spending $50,000 arguing the issues.

The law prevents taxpayers' money from being spent on citizens-initiated referendums.

An exception to this is money from the Electoral Commission, which has a duty to provide information on electoral matters. It has produced a question-and-answer brochure for anyone who inquires about the Robertson referendum on cutting the size of Parliament.

Citizens-initiated referendums are indicative only, and do not bind the politicians.

But political scientist Nigel Roberts says the quickest way for the new government to alienate people would to be ignore the results on either of these two issues.

"It would just leave voters even more cynical and disillusioned ... A wise government would make very serious and transparent attempts to deal with both issues."

Mr Withers is calling for reform of the electoral system so that greater emphasis is put on the rights of victims, bail laws are tightened, jail terms mean what they say and concurrent sentences are replaced with cumulative ones.

"MPs are trying to make progress but it is tokenism ... If some politicians can't cope with these issues, then they should step aside to allow people who can," he says.

Margaret Robertson does not think the people have spoken on reducing the number of MPs to 99 - they have shouted, she claims.

Nothing short of reducing Parliament to 99 MPs at the first election after November will satisfy her.

"I am seeking to get a bit of respect back into Parliament."

Most parties go along with the sentiment of the two referendums.

One notable exception is the Alliance. Its justice spokesman, Matt Robson, says the party disagrees with reducing the number of MPs to 99 and believes the Electoral Commission, not a public vote, should determine the issue.

On the Withers referendum, he says there are harsh penalties already in place and discretionary sentencing is the better path to take against criminals.

Labour justice spokesman Phil Goff says the party supports the restorative justice aspects of the Withers petition but has problems with the concept of minimum sentences.

"You need flexibility and should use the full range of your sentences, taking into account factors that might mitigate the offence or aggravate the offence."

National, Act and New Zealand First are committed to getting tough on crime.

Act leader Richard Prebble has a bill before Parliament that would force prisoners to serve at least 80 per cent of their time, and National's Brian Neeson still has his Degrees of Murder Bill waiting in the wings. The pledge card Labour has produced for its election campaign includes a commitment to crack down on burglary and youth crime.

Of the two referendums, the Robertson one is causing the biggest stir, albeit at a political and academic level.

A group of more than 70 political scientists and specialists in constitutional and public law are campaigning to urge voters to reject the case for reducing the size of Parliament.

"Those who favour a reduction in the number of MPs are no doubt sincere in their belief that this will improve the quality of democracy in New Zealand, but they are gravely mistaken," says Dr Jonathan Boston, professor of public policy at Victoria University and a group spokesman.

The group concedes that cutting 21 members would save $7 million, but says this has to be put in context of total public spending of $36 billion, and fewer people in Parliament to ensure taxpayers receive value for money.

The academics' strongest argument is that if the number of list MPs is cut by 21 (there would still be 61 general seats and six Maori seats), it is highly likely that there would be fewer women MPs and the ethnic diversity of Parliament would be undermined.

Other arguments against cutting the number of MPs are that it would:

* Increase the relative power of the cabinet.

* Mean less scrutiny of Government policies.

* Reduce the effectiveness of select committees.

* Reduce the talent pool from which the cabinet is selected.

* Reduce the quality of constituency representation.

But the NZ First leader, Winston Peters, whose party wants the number of members pared back to 80, says the ratio could be 50 constituency MPs and 30 list MPs.

A lot of New Zealanders have been laid off in recent years, he argues. Why not MPs?

The referendum is also tied to constitutional matters. By law, a parliamentary committee must begin reviewing the electoral system next year and report by June 2002.

Labour leader Helen Clark says the results of the referendum should not be tackled in isolation but referred to the parliamentary committee. If the review finds a strong public mood for change, a Labour government would be bound to hold more referendums.

Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has pledged to give New Zealanders a chance to dump MMP through two referendums.

Mrs Shipley argues that the issue is too big to leave to a handful of MPs, but she faces resistance to any referendums from coalition partners, particularly Act. It would be one of the small parties for whom the axing of MMP could be the death knell.