Electoral Amendment Bill

I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The Electoral Amendment Bill responds to the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into the 2011 general election. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its diligent consideration of the bill, and those members of the public who made submissions. The committee received 14 written submissions and heard from three submitters. I was pleased to—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Courtesy is contagious. Give the member a fair go.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was pleased to see there was consensus amongst committee members on its report back on the bill. This follows on from a high degree of consensus during the committee’s inquiry. I particularly thank the committee for reporting back by the end of last year. It is important that the bill proceed in a timely fashion in order for the Electoral Commission to implement the changes for this year’s general election.

The Electoral Amendment Bill implements those recommendations of the inquiry into the 2011 election that require changes to the Electoral Act and that can be put in place in time for the 2014 general election. The changes introduced by the bill aim to improve services to voters and candidates, improve efficiency by allowing greater use of technology, and improve the integrity of elections through simplifying and clarifying existing provisions of the Electoral Act.

Another important change introduced by the bill is allowing for full online enrolment. The bill will allow new and existing electors to enrol or update their details using the RealMe service. This responds to New Zealanders’ expectations that they will be able to complete most of their transactions with the Government electronically. Paper-based methods of enrolment will continue to be available for those who prefer to enrol in this way. The bill also introduces a number of changes to improve the integrity of the electoral system. For example, clause 50 of the bill provides for new party loan disclosure rules that broadly reflect current rules for disclosing party donations. This will increase transparency around such loans.

I would now like to briefly touch on some of the changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended to the bill. The committee has recommended the removal of clauses 35 and 36, which relate to items that people can display on election day. Although the committee recognised the benefit of allowing people to vote without influence on polling day, it had some concerns about the workability and enforceability of the proposed changes. The committee suggested these changes would be more appropriately addressed in a specific review of election day rules.

The committee has also recommended removing clauses that would expand the use and purpose of EasyVote cards, in favour of retaining the existing law. I note that there is consensus amongst members on these two changes. I have said on a number of occasions that electoral reform should, if possible, be based on consensus, and in this spirit I am very happy to accept the committee’s recommendations.

The committee has also recommended a number of other relatively minor amendments to the bill. These largely clarify current provisions and correct inconsistencies in the current legislation. For example, the committee recommended amending clause 22 so that a voter who gives late notice of a change in his or her address would not be liable to be prosecuted for an earlier failure to do so. This change would give electors incentives to update their details.

I am happy to support the committee’s changes to the bill, which are all very well considered and practical. New Zealand’s electoral system has a high level of integrity. This is partly due to improvements arising from select committee reviews and bills such as this. The changes made by the Electoral Amendment Bill will have a positive impact on the administration of this year’s general election and future elections. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I want to note, and, I think, largely agree with, what the Minister of Justice said by way of principle when considering legislation covering our electoral laws. That is to note that not only, of course, are they vital to the operation of our democracy but as current MPs we are merely the custodians of those rules and of the law. Therefore, it is vital that when we are considering the electoral laws and the laws governing people’s right to vote and participate in our democracy, we proceed in a suitably sober and measured way, so that we do not see big lurches in our electoral law and so that significant changes are subject to widespread public debate, to referenda, and to other measures as necessary. We do that because this is a vital constitutional area. Any changes, as I said, should avoid unnecessary controversy—and it is true that there have been controversial changes made to our electoral laws in the past—but, above all, they should ensure that measures enhance and promote voting and participation in the democratic process.

So we come at these proposed changes with that in mind, as, indeed, the Justice and Electoral Committee did. As the Minister noted, by and large that is the consensus approach that the committee takes. So we welcome the bill and we will support it, with the exception of one very vital aspect, which I will come to. As the Minister said, these are mostly sensible changes. They follow the scheduled and usual review by the select committee of the most recent general election. The select committee did that and came up with its recommendations.

It is especially good to see the abandonment of the provision in the original bill that would have meant that the use of ribbons and rosettes everywhere but in voting booths would be banned. It means that those who are undertaking their party activities and interacting with voters will be able to wear the colour of their party so that voters know they are on official election business on that day, even though they are volunteers. That is a very important part of identifying that there are people who have duties to perform on election day to support their party. It is not overt—at least, it is not an over-the-top display of colours. It is a subtle reminder that there are people who are out there doing what comes naturally on election day, and that is aiding parties seeking to maximise their vote. The original attempt to ban that in the original bill was, of course, a very petty action, but it has not survived the select committee process, and that is a good thing.

It is also a good thing that the rules about the disclosure of contributions, particularly those contributions made by way of loans to political parties, have been clarified. That is an important measure and an uncontroversial measure. It makes no sense to allow political parties to take advantage of a loan, whether they are in an election year or at any other time, and for that to not be disclosed when, in fact, a significant benefit is obtained from that assistance, at least with cash flow at the time. Of course, it does raise a question about when we are going to pass a law that would mean there would be greater transparency for devices such as the Waitematā Trust, for example, which has a very significant role to play, albeit on the part of the National Party and no other political party. But maybe that will come in another day.

The aspect of this bill that is more disturbing, even though it has been through the select committee process and even though consensus has largely been achieved, is the removal from the original bill of those provisions that would have enhanced and expanded the use of the EasyVote card. I think that that change is a little more sinister. As I said before, one of the objectives of changes that we make to our electoral law every time we make them should be to enhance democracy. It should be to assist voters and to assist citizens to participate in their democracy, and never more so than in a general election, when the issue of who will be the Government is very much at stake. The EasyVote card did this. The EasyVote card has played a very good role in the last few elections. It has enabled people to get confirmation that they are enrolled, and to provide the details in an easy form that they can take into their voting booth and take to the returning officer there or the clerk, who can then very easily find their name on the roll, and the page and the line number, and their name can be struck out. They can be given their ballot papers. It was a very quick and efficient way of doing that.

The truth is that there are some voters for whom turning up to the voting booth—particularly if they have a difficult name, particularly if they have English as a second language, or particularly if they have a thick accent. Not every citizen is like Chris Auchinvole, who has managed to expunge his deep-seated Glaswegian accent so that he is more or less understandable most times that he speaks in the House. Many voters—people who are entitled to vote—are not able to change the accent with which they speak, and, often, turning up to a returning officer and having to say their name can cause confusion and can cause difficulty for both. For those who have speech impediments, the EasyVote card was a very easy way for them to cast their vote. The removal of it is a retrograde step.

But, of course, it is not just about the removal of the EasyVote card. If we compare the bill with the language of the existing Electoral Act, section 167(2) simply says: “The elector must give any particulars that are necessary for finding the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is a very broad provision, and it provided and allowed for the EasyVote card. The question then has to be asked why clause 24 of the bill, which amends section 167(2) of the Electoral Act, now says this: “An elector who applies to vote must (a) verbally give or verbally confirm his or her name; and (b) give or confirm any other particulars that may be necessary to find the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is against other provisions that have been deleted from the original bill that allowed the use of the EasyVote card. The fact is that the bill now expressly says that a voter must provide verbal confirmation of who they are, and that is a retrograde step.

We do this against a background of knowing that this is the 50th anniversary of the passage of the citizens’ rights legislation in the United States, where states are required to avoid measures that are an obstacle to casting a vote in their election processes. They are meant to avoid provisions that demand identification and various particular hoops that voters have to go through. This takes us very close to, or certainly down, that path that requires voters to go through various hoops—unnecessary hoops, I might add, in the light of the success of the EasyVote card in previous elections—when it comes to casting their votes.

I am foreshadowing that we will be proposing some amendments by way of Supplementary Order Papers to deal with that provision, because that seems to be an unnecessary part of this bill. It is a bill that provides many sensible changes and that otherwise has the support of this House and otherwise has achieved consensus. That is a retrograde measure and we look at it askance. We look at it very seriously, and I would hope that perhaps through some sober debate and mature debate, even at this stage in the House, we can achieve agreement on that so that we have—and we can demonstrate and we can boast to the rest of the world that we have—a model way of developing our electoral laws and citizens’ electoral rights so that they are not disadvantaged when it comes to participating in this great democracy.

It is a pleasure, as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to rise in support of the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins. Other speakers have already indicated that the Justice and Electoral Committee has worked diligently, carefully, and thoroughly through the select committee process and hearings on the bill, and that a very high level of consensus was achieved. In fact, unanimity was achieved in terms of the recommendations of the committee for this bill.

I am surprised to hear the Labour Party justice spokesperson, Andrew Little, indicate that Labour members are going to move some amendments, because even though he is the justice spokesman, he does not sit permanently on the committee and, as best as I can recall, he was not privy or party to most of the discussions, if any, that took place in the select committee. So it comes as a surprise to me to now find that the Labour Party is moving down a different pathway, after the very good work held in the committee in consideration of the bill.

There were 49 submissions. We heard 16 oral submissions, and there was a very good level of considered, intelligent, and articulate debate around the table. I particularly want to thank those who came to submit to us orally, because they made some very good points. A number of the changes that we made as a select committee were as a direct result of submissions made. I think that this is an example of how the select committee process works effectively to provide improvements to legislation and create good legislation on the way through.

There are just a couple of points that I particularly want to focus on. One was the decision of the committee to recommend the removal of clauses 35 and 36. Those were the clauses that related to streamers, ribbons, and rosettes, and the wearing thereof on election days. I think all around the committee we were of the opinion that the fine and long-held tradition in New Zealand has been that you do not campaign on election day. I suspect that what the committee was seeking to achieve, in recommending that a further review of election day activities be looked at in the future, was to preserve that sense of tradition about not campaigning on election day, but we want to also make sure that there is a practical ability to implement any changes that would protect that tradition and history of not campaigning on election day. The wearing of streamers and showing of ribbons and rosettes and what have you is actually quite a long-held convention in our election process, and we decided to recommend that the status quo exist for the meantime but pending a review of election day activities.

The previous speaker, Andrew Little, mentioned our decision to push back on the commission’s enthusiasm for extending the role of those EasyVote cards. We were very much of the view and heard submissions that, in fact, although administratively easy for the commission, there was actually a very real risk of lowering the threshold to voter fraud, or potential voter fraud, from extending the roll-out for the use of those cards—that it was possible for someone to just turn up, front up, hand over one of those cards, not identify themselves, and then be issued with a voting paper. We felt, as a committee, that that was one step too far, and we felt that very strongly. And I have to thank the member from New Zealand First Denis O’Rourke, who instigated a suggestion that, in fact, there be a requirement for verbal identification of voters. It probably comes as a surprise to most New Zealanders that that is not already the case. So we have recommended that there should be a verbal positive identification of voters before a voting paper is issued, and I think that is a very good step.

I want to counsel the Labour spokesman on justice against seeing shadows where there are none, because I suspect, listening to the tone and tenor of his speech, that that is, in fact, exactly what he is doing. This committee worked very hard, very long, and very diligently on coming to an agreed position on the recommendations for this bill, and it now strikes me as a shame that, as I say, shadows are being seen when there are none and when a good level of consensus has been achieved in the select committee process. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House in its second reading form as amended with suggestions from the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill. I wish to reflect on the contributions of the two previous speakers, Andrew Little and Scott Simpson. I am more than happy to pay another tribute to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Scott Simpson, who does operate as a very fair and effective chairman of the select committee. The account he gave in his speech just before he resumed his seat was absolutely accurate. There was a high degree of consensus around the proposals in this bill. In fact, the way was cleared for the progress of the bill by the agreement of the National Party to remove the provisions relating to streamers and rosettes on election day. That was a stumbling block and it did not need to be there. There was no persuasive factor ever in that permissive provision of the original legislation. In fact, if anything, identification of those who are approaching people on election day is a good thing. So the National Party wisely decided that discretion was the better part of valour in that instance. With the removal of those clauses, which the previous speaker, Mr Scott Simpson, has alluded to, we saw our way clear to agreeing to the provisions in this bill.

However, can I say to the chair of the select committee that it is also part of the process that in the course of parties considering and reconsidering final reports, some of the shadows to which he referred to emerge may not have been apparent in the first instance. So, for example, I participated as a Labour Party representative in the select committee debate around the application of the EasyVote card. We talked about whether or not there was the potential for fraudulent use of the EasyVote card. There is no doubt that we saw it as part of our duty as the select committee to ensure that the processes around voting remain absolutely clean and clear and retain the integrity for which our electoral system is famous internationally. That consideration is the one that really dominated the debate, if I remember the debate in the select committee accurately. That is the one that dominated the debate.

So the suggestion that people come and verbally identify themselves was seen to be a higher threshold of integrity, because it would be harder—as the argument went from the members of the committee—for a voter to come up into the polling booth, approach an electoral officer, and say that they were somebody whom they were not. That presumption underpinned this provision—that it is actually harder for human beings to get up and lie about who they are and then go down the road to another polling booth and lie again about who they are than it is to take an EasyVote card, present it, take it back again, and give it to somebody else in your family or somebody down the road to use, and the fraud would not be discovered until some time later.

So I accept that the intention and the application of the select committee were to preserve the integrity of the voting system. However, I must say this to members of the select committee opposite: sometimes things shift in further discussion and debate amongst colleagues. That is what has happened for us in the Labour Party. Closer scrutiny—even closer scrutiny—of this gave rise to concerns that I think are legitimate and could be addressed by a Supplementary Order Paper if we were able to work this through in a bipartisan or multipartisan way towards an improvement. The provision that is now being inserted into the bill—that is, to go up and verbally identify oneself—does actually present or potentially could present an additional barrier to a voter, by ethnicity, by not understanding an instruction in English, or by disability. That barrier could prevent people from exercising their citizenship and their right to vote. So it is a legitimate concern.

I acknowledge to the chair of the select committee that this is different from the result of the discussion as we arrived at it in the select committee. I acknowledge that. But that is part of the richness of being able to go back and have colleagues say “Hold on a minute—have you missed something here?”. If I have missed something here, then it is my fault and the fault of Labour members on that select committee. But I would urge Parliament to consider the strength of the argument that if we can agree to a Supplementary Order Paper that ensures that the EasyVote card and the treatment of it in this amended legislation is not abandoned and that the replacement of it is not used as a barrier to people voting, then perhaps we can still arrive at a consensus position on what the best form of protection is for the system of voting.

So the primary concern of the select committee was to preserve the integrity of the voting process and protect it from any fraud. Whether or not there has been any fraud is a moot point, and I am not sure that we as a select committee were ever presented with evidence that there was fraud. In that event, let us then look again as a Parliament to see whether the provisions that exist in the bill now make it harder for people to participate in a vote, rather than easier, or make it harder for citizens to exercise their right to vote, rather than easier. We should make it as easy as possible for all New Zealand citizens and those entitled to vote to do that—to vote. But we should also make sure that we preserve the integrity of the system and maintain that it is as impervious to fraud as possible. Although there might appear to be a contradiction here, I do not believe there is.

I think there have been some legitimate concerns raised by colleagues—in my caucus, in particular—that ought to be aired in this Parliament, and it is not beyond our collective wit to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion that delivers ease in the casting of a vote and the protection of the integrity of the process. I would ask members opposite, when we get to the Committee stage, to consider the Supplementary Order Paper that will come forward from Labour, and to apply themselves in the same spirit in which the select committee conducted itself to achieve the best resolution and the best improvements of our electoral system that are available to us.

I hope I have clarified some of that issue around the EasyVote card. We do not want to see it done away with. We do not want to see it replaced by something that makes it harder for people to vote. We absolutely support recommendations and provisions in legislation that prevent fraud, but we have to find that balance, and it is not beyond our competence to do so. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Electoral Amendment Bill. In a sense, this bill is a fine-tuning bill. It does not make any dramatic changes to our electoral systems, but it is still important that we continue to address the whole matter of how we conduct our elections. We are very privileged, I would have to say, to live in a country where we have regular, free, fair, and open elections. That is something we ought never to take for granted. We should continually strive to make that process as accessible, as reliable, and as secure as it can possibly be, and I think this bill is in the spirit of that. It does seek to make some improvements. We do not think it is the best it could have been. There are some things we would have liked to see in it that are not there, but for the most part—and the point has been made—we did achieve a reasonably high level of consensus at the Justice and Electoral Committee.

I will respond to just some of the points that have made by our Labour colleagues. I do recall the conversation that was had about the matter of the verbal confirmation—“Yes, this is I who is handing you this piece of paper with my name on it.” I supported it in the sense that I thought it was a good idea. Labour is clearly determined to reopen that particular conversation. So be it—that is the nature of the game. This bill is not yet signed off in its final place, so we would be very interested in perhaps seeing some documentation or an argument put forward to reopen that part of the select committee process. We are certainly persuadable—although having said that, we do wholeheartedly support the initiative from the New Zealand First member. It was a good select committee. I sat on it. Normally, my colleague Holly Walker would have done that, but she was rather busy seeing to the important business of delivering a young baby safely into the world. It was enjoyable, thoughtful, and occasionally humorous, and I think we got to a pretty good place with the bill.

I said that the bill is not all it could have been. I think it is unfortunate that there is still nothing in legislation anywhere that I am aware of that obliges us to deliver civics education in our schools. I think it is still the case that it is possible to get to the age where one can cast a vote with very little notion of exactly how the system works and what it all means. Reflecting on my experience as a lecturer in political studies, I know of first-year politics students, clearly with an interest in these things, who were not confident and could not articulate the difference between the head of Government and the head of State and their relative status and powers. I think that is very dangerous. I suspect that would still be the case today, so I would argue very strongly that we need to get serious about civics education.

I think there is another missing part of this bill. It is unfortunate that we did not implement the whole raft of recommendations from the MMP Review Committee. I say that knowing full well that the Greens did not actually love all of them. There were some that were not in line with what we would have preferred. I think the Minister of Justice in introducing the bill talked about the importance of consensus around electoral practice and so on. I think we had an independent review committee that came back with some very good recommendations—a good, broad range of recommendations—out of which all of us would have felt we had lost one and won a few, perhaps. I do think it is unfortunate we did not just accept those recommendations wholesale. I think this selective notion was a bit unfortunate. It certainly made this Government vulnerable to accusations of self-interest, and that is unfortunate.

I think some of the key provisions of the bill, which will make voting easier and more accessible, are important, not least of all because we have seen a significant decline in participation in voting over the last decade or more. That is most unfortunate, and we do not want to see that continue. We need to make voting accessible. We need people to be excited and engaged in the political process. I think that full online enrolment—making it possible for people to get on to the roll from scratch online—is a good step in that direction. Younger generations are accustomed to doing most things online. For a very long time it has been possible to amend one’s personal details, change one’s address—whatever it might be—online. There have been no apparent security breaches there, so I think that was a good move and a good provision of the bill to advance.

We certainly support the requirement in this new legislation that some light be shone on the business of loans becoming donations. I think people would be surprised to learn that a political party could accept a loan before an election and it would not need to be declared as a donation, but afterwards the lender could simply excuse the party from ever having to pay it back. That invites corruption in a way that we certainly do not want in this country. I think the provision to close that loophole and to ensure that is a good one and it does not constrain anybody from giving substantial donations to parties. But it is important that those are transparent and visible and that everybody knows who is paying what to whom. It is important that we all understand where the source of funding for election campaigns is coming from.

I think that the humour I mentioned in the select committee debate was very much focused on this rather unfortunate proposition about banning streamers and colours and so on. How far would you go? Would it make it an offence to walk your small child with a red ribbon in her hair, or for somebody to wear a green T-shirt or, dare I say it, blue stockings? Where would you actually draw the line? I think what we came to was that we just let things go on as they are for the moment. Obviously, scrutineers are identified and party workers can be identified. For a lot of it there was a lot of humour in it and I do think the outcome was the right one.

I think, as other speakers have mentioned, that it may be timely to have a little bit more of a hard think about the extent to which electioneering on election day is tolerated or not. The general rule is that we knock off at midnight the night before, and I think that is a good rule. There is no doubt that others have had the experience of pulling down billboards in the rain at 20 to 12 the night before, because somebody had rung up and said “Hey, do you remember that one on Boundary Road?”—that was my personal one.

More serious, I have done a very quick oversight of what other countries do in this regard. It is interesting to note that a lot of countries not dissimilar to ours—those with reasonably robust electoral systems—will often have a 24-hour election silence, as it is often called. So 24 hours before the booths open there will be no campaigning of any sort. I think that is something we could usefully consider. Other countries will have 2 or 3 days where there is no broadcasting allowed, so television and radio and newspaper advertising stops but on the ground the campaigning can advance apace. In the UK I believe there are some voluntary restrictions where parties collectively agree on certain practices that will or will not be allowed.

So I think we ought not simply rest easily and think “OK, we have a sort of a workable option in what we do.” I think we could interrogate that a bit more. I think we need to look very hard at the matter of polling, because we know that people’s votes are significantly influenced by polling results, which may be substantive and defensible or may be entirely bogus. Personally, I think we need to put some limits around polling and the announcing of the polling results, because they are not necessarily robust or reliable, and I do think they have an unreasonable and sometimes unfortunate influence on voter behaviour. That is one of the things that I think we need to have a good conversation about.

The final thing I will say is that this bill does deal around the margins with the Māori electoral option. It does make some minor changes to it. I think it is long overdue that we made it possible for people with whakapapa to be able to move on to, or off, the Māori roll—to switch between the general and the Māori rolls—more often than on a 5-yearly cycle. Effectively, that covers two election cycles. I believe that there is no reason that we could not do that once every 3 years. I look forward to making a further contribution at future readings of the bill. Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Electoral Amendment Bill in its second reading. What I would like to do is acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee in this regard, and also our previous chair. My discussion will be brief because there has been a real consensus around this.

There were 49 submissions, and 16 oral submissions were heard in 2012. What we heard was the importance of ensuring that there was participation and that there was access to this, because we do realise and agree that our participation rates were low. In our deliberations we also heard about youth participation, which is obviously important to us.

What we are particularly privileged to do as a whole committee with consensus is ensure that this bill, as it returns to the House, does three important key things. It does improve efficiency by allowing greater use of technology. It improves services to voters, candidates, and parties. And, thirdly, and most important, it improves the integrity of elections through simplifying and clarifying the law.

I do want to commend this bill to the House. We hope that as this bill goes into our election process this year it will ensure that there is greater participation and greater releasing of information, which is important in order to make conscious and clear decisions, as voters head to the ballot boxes. I commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand First initially supported this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, to the Justice and Electoral Committee, but we can do so no longer. It is not because of what the bill says but because of what the bill leaves out. It does do some good things. The Justice and Electoral Committee in its inquiry recommended several amendments to the Electoral Act, and this bill will implement some of them—but only some of them. There are three very good areas of change that are promoted by the bill. Firstly, it provides as an option full online enrolment using electronic identity verification. Secondly, it provides for the greater use of EasyVote cards, which will simplify and speed up the issuing of ballot papers and reduce special votes. Thirdly, the integrity of elections will be enhanced through amendments to rationalise and make transparent the provisions that regulate the disclosure of election donations and loans and the filing of election expenses.

But I do especially want to mention clauses 44, 46, and 47, which clarify the position to ensure the aggregation of contributions to donations for the $1,500 threshold, and the $15,000 threshold for contributions to donations in clause 48. That is good law and will be supported by New Zealand First. It is unfortunate that we will not be able to vote for the bill, for that reason. Concerning loans to political parties, we are especially glad also to see the provisions in new sections 213, 214A, and 214C inserted by clause 50. Those sections provide that a party may enter into a loan only with the authorisation of the party secretary, and that only the party secretary may enter into a loan on behalf of the party for election purposes. A person who enters into an agreement or an arrangement of some kind for the purpose of circumventing those sections will be guilty of an illegal practice. Section 214C imposes an obligation on a party secretary to file with the Electoral Commission each year a return of a loan entered into during the year for an amount exceeding $15,000, those entered into in any previous year with an unpaid balance exceeding $15,000, and those entered into for the year for an amount that when it is aggregated with other loans yields an amount in excess of $15,000. Those are very important provisions, and New Zealand First agrees with them. Again, it is a shame that we cannot vote for the bill for other reasons.

There are two areas of serious omissions with the bill. The first one, as the commission itself is aware, concerns election broadcasting rules, which did cause problems during the 2011 election. The Electoral Commission noted that the statutory tests of what constitutes an election programme in the Broadcasting Act and an election advertisement in the Electoral Act have significant differences, which causes difficulties when the commission is called upon to consider complaints about broadcasting. Both tests require an assessment of whether the programme or advertisement appears to encourage voters to vote or not to vote for a party or candidate, but they differ in the exemptions made. In the Broadcasting Act it is stated that nothing in the prohibition on paid election programmes “restricts the broadcasting, in relation to an election, of news or of comments or of current affairs programmes.”, although the exemption, similarly in the Electoral Act, is not restricted to news or current affairs but applies to “editorial content of—(i) a periodical: (ii) a radio or television programme: (iii) a publication on a news media Internet site:”. So there are two different exemptions altogether.

Submissions suggested removing the separate electoral broadcasting provisions from the Broadcasting Act and confining the provision to the one in the Electoral Act, and New Zealand First agrees with those submissions. The Justice and Electoral Committee actually recommended aligning the statutory tests of what is an election programme in the Broadcasting Act and what is an election advertisement in the Electoral Act, but nothing appears in this bill. It is an urgent matter and it should have been dealt with in the bill. In addition, the Broadcasting Act’s prohibitions regarding election programmes should not be limited to the election period and should apply consistently both to political parties and to broadcasters. The commission acknowledged that it would be more consistent to apply the same rules within and outside of an election period, and that is really just common sense.

The other glaring omission regarding this bill is concerning our MMP system. There needs to be an end to the coat-tailing provision in the Electoral Act, and that should have been attended to as well at this time. We have seen many reasons for that over recent times. It is something that recent polling shows that the vast majority of people in this country want to see an end of. It is time that simply winning an electorate seat should not result in coat-tailing for whatever low percentage of the party vote is currently enabling a party without 5 percent of the list vote to bring more members into Parliament. That is just silly. That is unacceptable. There should be only one threshold for list seats and that is 5 percent or more of the list vote, irrespective of whether a party gets an electorate seat. That is what people want. That should have been addressed. But we know, of course, why it is not being addressed, and that is because the National Party needs the likes of Banks and Dunne—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Mr Banks and Mr Dunne.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Thank you. —and any additional seats they may be able to bring in. National wants to try to get as many additional MPs through that particular gerrymander as it can. This Government is prepared to gerrymander the system and to do whatever else is necessary to get enough seats in this way. It is not good enough. It is a cynical manipulation of the system, and National obviously has no genuine respect for democracy in New Zealand by failing to make the changes in these ways, changes that the people of New Zealand now so clearly want and need.

I want to finish by making a reference to Supplementary Order Paper 412 in the name of Mojo Mathers. New Zealand First has some concerns about it. The Supplementary Order Paper seeks regulations for disabled votes to be able to vote by means of devices that enable them to vote without assistance. We are not sure why that is currently a problem and whether this provision would fix it. We expect that people will still want and need assistance. We think that, essentially, it is a management issue and not one that needs to be addressed in legislation. The commission, of course, should ensure privacy so that disabled people, with assistance if they require it, can vote privately and have adequate provisions in that way. But we do not really know what “vote by means of devices” means and we have concern about costs. If it means facilities are needed at all booths and for all forms of disability, then we are concerned that it will cost a very large amount of money and is not really required. We would like to hear the Green Party discuss that and tell us why it is required, but, as it is, we would find it difficult to support that Supplementary Order Paper.

It is a shame, as I have said, that New Zealand First is unable to support this bill any longer—not because of what it does do, because it does do some good things, but because of those two glaring problems. One is the failure to address the difficulty with the Broadcasting Act, as I have described, and the second is the disgraceful failure to ensure that the coat-tailing provision in the Electoral Act, under our MMP system, is not abolished, as it should be.

I am delighted to take a brief call to support the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I may be old-fashioned but I believe that electoral law needs to be enduring, and, if possible, it is preferable that it is enacted on a multipartisan approach, with some sort of consensus. Therefore, I find it somewhat disappointing—in fact, very disappointing—that New Zealand First has indicated that it will vote against this piece of legislation, especially coming just at the time that it seems to be embroiled in a Kim Dotcom quagmire.

Our electoral system has a very high level of integrity. It is important that that integrity is a reality, not just a perception, and it is the behaviour of some members of Parliament that runs the risk of impugning that integrity. Having just observed the international presidential elections in the Maldives, I think we can be really proud of our electoral system and the integrity that it has. It needs to be enduring. It should be a multipartisan approach. It needs to be updated.

I do not think that any party in this House probably got everything they wanted out of the reforms in this Electoral Amendment Bill, but most of us want an enduring piece of legislation that will give the public confidence that we are a country full of integrity and that our electoral system has corresponding integrity. I have pleasure in supporting this bill to the House.

Labour supports the Electoral Amendment Bill 2013, or 2014 as it will be now, even though we share some of the misgivings expressed by Denis O’Rourke, the member from New Zealand First. I will come back to that shortly. To just briefly touch on our views on what is in this bill, the bill primarily focuses on implementing the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election, which will help future elections run smoothly and adapt to changes in technology, such as online enrolment, which is something we think is a positive step.

We are very supportive of the adoption of rules around giving loans to fund political parties and of bringing those rules in line with the rules that cover donations. That means that parties will have to disclose the details of every loan exceeding $15,000 a year. It is a little odd, though, that that rule does not extend to loans that political parties may raise from a bank. It may seem like that is quite an innocuous thing to do, for a political party to take a loan from a bank. There is no suggestion at all that there is anything improper about a political party raising a loan from a bank. But what really is the difference between raising a loan from a corporate, as opposed to raising a loan from an individual, is that it seems strange to have rules requiring political parties to declare loans from individuals, but not to declare loans from corporates. I would compare this with what members have to do with our pecuniary interests. We are required to declare mortgages that we have with the bank. My mortgage with Westpac is on the public record. There is no suggestion at all that Westpac expects any kickbacks from me, as a member of Parliament, because it gave me—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: They raise a lot of interest.

It does raise a lot of interest off me, as it does with other members of the House, as well. There is no suggestion of improper practice. But for the sake of completion, for the sake of ensuring that everybody is treated fairly and with the same set of rules, members have to declare loans that they have with banks—money that they owe to banks. Equally, I think political parties should have to declare money that they owe to banks, as well. It just seems like the sensible thing to do.

We have talked about our concerns with the EasyVote card. I think what we have seen here today, in its own quiet way, is the parliamentary process in practice. The whole point of having a first reading, a select committee hearing, a second reading, a Committee stage, and a third reading is that we go through the issues over and over again, and sometimes we bring fresh eyes to an issue and become alert to concerns that may not have previously been raised. That is what has happened in this instance, where the Labour Party has taken another look at the issue of not widening the use of the EasyVote card, and the issue of requiring people to make a verbal statement when they present their EasyVote card. We see this as potentially being something that will present a barrier to people participating in elections.

In no way do we suggest that there is any great conspiracy here to stop people participating, but we think that could be an unintended consequence of that move. We so often hear of genuine conspiracies in the United States—in particular, from the political right changing the rules to put barriers up to people participating in the electoral process. It is often done in the name of reducing electoral fraud. There is no evidence of electoral fraud, widespread or narrowly focused, in New Zealand. I think it is a spurious argument to suggest that these measures will create a situation where electoral fraud can be entered into. So we do ask that Parliament look at this. We ask that we all work together to build a consensus, given the new information and the new perspective that the Labour Party is offering.

A number of members who have spoken before me have noted that there are aspects of electoral law that need changing that are not included in this legislation. The aspect that we would like to see included in this is a proper consideration of the recommendations of the Electoral Commission’s review of MMP. What we need to do is build a consensus. I agree with Judith Collins when she says that the best way to progress electoral law is by consensus. After the MMP review recommendations were published, Judith Collins wrote to all political party leaders seeking their views on those recommendations. The political party leaders wrote back expecting that she would use that information as a starting point to build a consensus around how we should take those recommendations forward. However, Judith Collins stopped at that point. She blocked any progress on introducing reforms that New Zealanders want to see—in particular, the abolishment of the one-seat threshold, the coat-tailing provision that allows political parties to do stitch-ups and to do dodgy deals in order to enhance the number of votes that their coalition can gain in Parliament. New Zealanders are sick of it and they want to see it end.

Labour responded to Judith Collins’ refusal to seek consensus by introducing our own legislation. Our legislation proposes to implement three of the recommendations of the MMP review. Today I wish to extend this offer to all political parties: should you vote in favour of Labour’s Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill at its first reading, we will seek that the select committee consider all recommendations of the MMP review—all 10 recommendations, seven of which require legislative change. That is our offer to all political parties in order to seek consensus around these issues.

There is very clear consensus out in the public. Seventy-one percent of New Zealanders want to see the end of the coat-tailing provisions. Just 13 percent support their retention. New Zealanders have spoken. The consensus is clear. Parliament risks appearing both arrogant and out of touch if its members do not listen to what New Zealanders want, so we must work together to reach a consensus. If we take our bill to the select committee and open it up so that all 10 recommendations of the Electoral Commission’s review can be considered, then all political parties can get around that select committee table, listen again to what the public has to say, and work together to reach a consensus that is in the interests of a robust electoral process that has integrity. The situation we have at the moment is not good enough. We have political parties blocking the will of the people in order to pursue their own self-interests. That is not the way to make electoral law. There is no consensus around the status quo. There is a consensus amongst the public that the one-seat threshold has to go.

Today Labour is offering a way forward. There are recommendations that have come out of that review that we do not agree with, but we want to put them on the table and we want to work with the other parties. That was the opportunity that Judith Collins did not give us and did not give New Zealanders. It is an opportunity that broke a promise, frankly. New Zealanders voted in the MMP referendum believing that if they voted to retain MMP, then the changes at the margins that they sought would be pursued. That is what the National Government told them was going to happen when it established the referendum, and that is what it told New Zealanders was going to happen when it held the review. It broke that promise when it blocked any progress on implementing those recommendations. There is a way forward. Labour wants to work with all political parties in the best interests of New Zealanders and in the interests of an electoral system that has integrity.

To bring this debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill back to what is in the bill rather than what is not in the bill, I would just like to say that the provisions contain within them an excellent move ahead. They are also—

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Why don’t you take the time to apologise for your disgraceful behaviour?

I say to the member Megan Woods that I will get to that in a moment. I would like to say that the provisions in this bill that allow greater efficiency through the use of technology through full online enrolment are positive. The use of EasyVote cards as an administrative measure has always been useful, but having them as the definitive way of identifying a voter does risk the integrity of our precious voting system in New Zealand. I have lived in a country where people have died bleeding on the street after being shot during elections. I have lived in a country where fraud, corruption, and misidentification are absolutely rife. So I think it is important that we protect this precious aspect of our system.

I think it is a bit rich to be lectured by parties opposite when we have a party over there that brought in the Electoral Finance Act, which was a measure that was highly undemocratic and that took away the rights and freedom of expression that are so precious for New Zealanders. So it is a little bit rich to take a lecture from them on that. It is also a bit rich to be lectured by a political party that in 1999—I am talking about the New Zealand First Party—relied on the coat-tailing provision to bring in its members after getting less than 5 percent of the vote and winning an electorate seat. So I do not think that we on this side of the House should take any lectures from parties opposite on those measures. I commend this bill unreservedly to the House.

I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation—an apology.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): What is the personal explanation about?

I behaved in a way that was not acceptable earlier and I wish to apologise for it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. You can make a personal statement.

I know that the matter was dealt with during question time by the Speaker, but I stood up and applauded another member. It was meant in humour but I can see now that offence was taken, so I wish to unreservedly apologise.

Well done, I say to Paul Foster-Bell. Before I start I would like to acknowledge those MPs, Government Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister who attended so many Chinese New Year celebrations over the last 4 weeks. The celebrations will culminate tomorrow when the Chinese Lantern Festival, hosted by the Asia New Zealand Foundation, will be opened officially at Albert Park in Auckland.

Now, back to the Electoral Amendment Bill. We can actually borrow some wisdom from these ethnic celebrations. For instance, there is a so-called gold trumpet rule, which is relevant to this bill, I believe. The ancient Chinese saying has it that the ruling party, ruler, or emperor, etc.—you name it—while exercising some sympathy, or democracy in modern language, asked those who wished to present opposing or dissenting views to blow their gold trumpet. But the problem was that the ruling party had made the gold trumpet available only to its supporters, so whenever the ruling party asked the opposition to give their dissenting views or opposing views by blowing their gold trumpet, there was total silence.

Applying that rule to this bill, the ruling party is obviously National, and those who do get hold of the gold trumpet are probably John Banks and Peter Dunne. The Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, has refused to abolish the coat-tail clauses and refused to stop deals being stitched up over cups of tea. I guess the only opinions or views she would have sought would be those from John Banks and Peter Dunne. For all others—the Opposition parties, the general public, the independent Electoral Commission—their views are simply ignored. ACT as a party gained only 3.65 percent of the vote in 2008 but won five seats on the back of the victory in Epsom, and Mr John Banks won the seat again but only with the help of a cup of tea. That was the single-biggest concern people have about the MMP system.

This bill seeks to introduce some small yet mostly sensible changes to the Electoral Act, but the bigger issue is what is not in this bill, and that is the much-needed changes to our MMP electoral system. Before the last election John Key did say that if people voted to keep MMP, the system would be reviewed by the independent Electoral Commission. New Zealanders did vote to keep the MMP system, it was reviewed by the independent Electoral Commission, recommendations have been presented to us and to the general public, and those recommendations include abolishing the coat-tails clause and reducing the party vote threshold to 4 percent. But the justice Minister, Judith Collins, has refused to introduce these amendments to MMP in time for this year’s general election. As my colleague Mr Lees-Galloway explained in his earlier contributions, Judith Collins did say that such kinds of changes would require cross-party consensus, and she did try to seek cross-party consensus but stopped. So, applying the gold trumpet rule, there was silence.

New Zealanders need to have confidence in the integrity of the electoral system, and Labour believes that these changes need to be made in time for this year’s general election. People are sick of deals being stitched up over cups of tea. That moment between John Key and John Banks in Epsom hurt Kiwis’ confidence in MMP, and it is time to restore that trust. Labour has already had a bill drawn to amend MMP, abolishing the coat-tails clause and reducing the party vote threshold to 4 percent, as explained by my colleague Mr Lees-Galloway in his earlier contributions. It is very important for the Government to keep faith with the people and to follow through on the democratic choices that they have made, because the people made the choice, they voted to keep the MMP system, the system was reviewed by the independent Electoral Commission, and recommendations have been presented to us, to the general public, but this Government has refused to restore that confidence.

Kia ora. I arise and feel privileged as a new member of Parliament to be speaking on this Electoral Amendment Bill. New Zealand is fortunate that its electoral system has a very high level of integrity. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins, for this piece of legislation. To the chair and the members of the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee I thank them for the common-sense, professional approach they have taken to this piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House.