GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour--Wairarapa): I rise to speak in support of the motion. It is a privilege to be able to speak on this motion. It is even more of a privilege for myself to be included as a nominee to sit on this committee.

One of the controversial natures of the last Parliament was the fact that MMP was somewhat undermined as a political system for this country, because of some of the shenanigans that occurred. As some previous speakers have already mentioned, perhaps some faith has been restored in that particular form of representation.

This cuts at the core of the very democratic nature of our electoral system. That is probably stating the obvious, but it does need to be stated. It is my desire, and I would expect members of the committee and this House would desire, that hopefully we have an avalanche of submissions to the committee to talk, to convince, and to enlighten us with the feeling of the nation in so far as what the representative nature of our Parliament should consist of. I hope also that the wide-ranging debate that will no doubt ensue amongst members of the committee will be enhanced by what I consider to be the reasonably robust terms of reference that are included in the proposals before us.

The establishment of the select committee to review MMP is in accordance with our obligations under the Electoral Act. The select committee will deal with issues at the heart of our democracy. The Government takes these issues very seriously and considers that those issues should be beyond the reach of party politics. This is something that I am hoping to achieve in my own representation on this committee, on behalf of the Labour caucus.

I refer members to an ethical statement that is made each day in this House through the prayer that is said by the Speaker at the beginning of the day's sitting: "Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for thy guidance in all things and laying aside all private and personal interests..." etc. That should be a benchmark that all of us who are proposed for this committee should take into account as we deliberate over the many submissions that I am sure we will receive.

The select committee will be constituted in a way that is as representative as possible. All parties were invited to participate, and all but New Zealand First accepted. However, that may be subject to change because of an amendment that has been moved.

MMP was the electoral system that the majority of New Zealanders chose in 1993. However, its exact design involved some guesswork. It is time to review MMP to date, and to see how it has met its desired goals of democracy and representation. I venture to say, slightly contrary to Mr Franks' comments earlier, that diversity has certainly been a feature of this particular Parliament that we must welcome. Hopefully, the country feels the same. Like it or not, we are far more representative of New Zealanders than we ever have been before. I think that diversity is something to embrace and to enjoy.

Hon. Trevor Mallard: Why does the member say that?

GEORGINA BEYER: Simply because I think that probably in this one person I think we may find a diversity that I guess nobody else in this Parliament would be able to claim. I am Māori---others in this Parliament can make that claim---and I also hold a general seat. As a representative who happens to be Māori and holding a general seat, it is not altogether inconsistent to say that this gives an example of the great opportunity that lies within a system of proportional representation, currently MMP as we have it, for all New Zealanders to participate in the democracy of this country, should they feel so inclined to put themselves forward to hold high office in this land. It is possible, and that is what makes the current system something worth considering.

Obviously, there are those who will have contrary opinions. No doubt we will hear from them, and give them equal consideration. But at the end of the day it will be in the interests of members, democratically elected by the people, who will help us determine the issue in a very common-sense way, and with a common-sense approach that I hope we will all take.

To ensure the greatest possible degree of fairness, political neutrality, and wisdom with regard to the chairmanship of this committee and experience in the review process, the committee will be chaired by the Rt Hon. Jonathan Hunt. He will bring to the committee his many years of experience in the House. He has shown his ability to be fair to members from different parties, enabling them to express their views in the House. He was a good chair of the Regulations Review Committee, which is required to be a politically neutral constitutional check on Cabinet's regulation-making powers. The committee will report back to the House before 1 June 2002 and will report on any changes to the electoral system that it considers might or should be made.

The Government wishes the review to be as inclusive and as representative as possible. All parties in the House have been invited to provide membership, as I have mentioned earlier. The Government's belief is that the review must be conducted in a manner that ensures a high degree of independence from party political considerations---a comment endorsed by previous speakers---that fosters due consideration of the issues, that maintains public credibility, and that recognises the significance of Māori electoral representation.

As a person on this committee who is Māori, I know that Māori will have a keen interest in matters that are constitutionally important to them and that have a direct relevance to the Treaty of Waitangi, and they will come forward to this committee with their submissions. I hope that I will be able to contribute to the debate and discussion with my colleagues anything extra that I may be able to offer them as a Māori tangata whenua of this land that may assist them to understand the cultural ramifications of the electoral system that we are reviewing. I give an undertaking that I shall be fair and balanced in my approach toward this.

The committee will reach its conclusions based on unanimity, or if that is not possible, near unanimity, having regard to the numbers in the House represented by each of the members of the committee. Near unanimity means that agreement has been reached on behalf of the overwhelming majority of members of Parliament. The chair will be the judge of whether unanimity is possible and, if not, whether a sufficient degree of near unanimity has been achieved for the committee to reach its conclusion. The chair will not have a vote on the committee.

In conclusion, I say that this is a huge opportunity for the people of our nation to give strong consideration themselves, and then to bring forward their views and opinions on how they have seen the system of proportional representation we have been elected under, specifically mixed-member proportional representation. They must come forward with their views. Those views have been expressed strongly in the recent past and need to be reiterated again during the course of this review. Also welcome would be a positive contribution to broaden the debate amongst the members sitting on this committee that may help us to tidy up the system, if indeed that is the conclusion that is reached, or to make some serious change if that is seen as necessary. But that will be determined at the end of the day by the conduct of this review. I look forward to spending time doing this work.