Electoral Amendment Bill

This is debate on clauses 3 to 56 and the schedule.

As we have discussed before in relation to electoral bills and the laws governing the conduct of our elections, they are very important. This is an area that requires the utmost integrity, the utmost honesty and transparency. And it is very important that when this Committee considers the laws under which the citizens of this great country get to exercise their democratic rights, we also get it right—that we ensure our electoral laws promote and encourage maximum participation amongst our citizens. So we see in this Electoral Amendment Bill what we ordinarily see with electoral bills like this following a review of the last general election. There is sometimes a tidy-up, sometimes some corrections, and sometimes even a little modernisation. That is the passage that this bill took.

But more recently an issue has arisen that has become one of great sensitivity, and this Committee at this point has the opportunity to correct that. So I want to cut right to the chase and deal with that new part of clause 24 that touches on the actions of a voter when they turn up to the polling booth to cast their vote and have to show who they are. The law at the moment says that you must present yourself to the polling clerk in order to get your ballot paper and cast your vote.

Before the bill went through the Justice and Electoral Committee, the original bill had an extensive range of provisions reflecting what has been the modern practice, which has been to use the electoral confirmation card that electors in New Zealand are typically issued with—or had been typically issued with in the last few elections. The use of the electoral enrolment card, however, is not mandated by a statute. It has been introduced through an administrative feat. So there was, I think, on recommendation from the Law Commission, a provision in the previous version of this bill to provide for the electoral enrolment card in the statute so that it was very clear that it was there, that it could be used, and what its role was.

As the bill has come back and been revised, that has all been expunged. It has been replaced by a provision in clause 24 that amends the existing section 167(2) of the Electoral Act that causes some anxiety to members on this side of the Chamber and indeed to many others, because they have written to us about it. That provision is the requirement not only that electors confirm their particulars or their details but that they must verbally give or confirm their name. That has never been a requirement in our electoral law, and the EasyVote card plays a very useful role for those for whom that is a difficult exercise—when English is their second language, they have a name that is difficult to pronounce, or they otherwise have a speech impediment that makes it difficult for them to verbally confirm their identity. By presenting the electoral enrolment card, they can avoid any embarrassment or humiliation or difficulty that they might otherwise have.

No case has been given for why the polling clerk now must insist on verbal confirmation of identity. Certainly no case was made at the select committee, and no case, with all due respect, has been made since. I raised this publicly after this bill came back early this year and made the point about the electoral enrolment card. In fact, the last time I made that point was in the second reading of this bill. The next day the then Minister in the chair slammed down the comments that were made and said no, the electoral enrolment card was not going to be legislated away. But, of course, you cannot legislate away something that has not been legislated for. What you can do is legislate for things that were not previously in the legislation, such as the requirement to give verbal confirmation.

This issue is very important and there are ways to correct this that do not cut across the principles that are apparent on the face of the bill as it stands at the moment. There have been a number of Supplementary Order Papers put forward to deal with this issue. That shows the level of concern there is about this issue. But the overriding thing is this: we want to see, and I think it is desirable for New Zealand voters to know, that they are not required to go through extra hoops when they go to cast their vote—to pick up their ballot paper and go into the polling booth. If they bring their electoral enrolment card, that should suffice to show the polling clerk that that is who they are. They can get the page and line number from the roll, that can be crossed off, and it is then very difficult, if not impossible, for that card to be used again, at least not without causing the owner of it some considerable grief later on when the police come knocking on their door if they have attempted to use it again. So there is no requirement, as a matter of principle, for a verbal confirmation to be given.

The Committee might be interested to know that I wrote to the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, on this very issue 2 weeks ago, possibly longer. After a little spat broke out, I suggested that notwithstanding the views that we had both expressed publicly, we should nevertheless deal with the issue—that voters should not be required to confirm their identity verbally and that the presentation of a card should be enough. This ever-studious Minister has failed to reply to the letter from me and my colleague Maryan Street. That is surprising because I have spoken to other members of the House who say that they have written to the Minister and she has replied to their correspondence, if not in writing, at least, coincidentally, verbally. But we have not had the courtesy of such a reply.

But that is not surprising because, as I have told this Chamber many times before, we have, in my view, the laziest Minister of Justice that we have had in probably 40 years. A diligent Minister of Justice who was on top of her game would have noted this issue and thought “You know, as a matter of principle, we don’t have to require voters to confirm their identity verbally. We have a perfectly acceptable form of administration for this process in the issuance of the electoral enrolment card and that will suffice.” But that is not the Minister we have. That is not the Minister of Justice that we have today. She is quite happy to go off to Shanghai for cups of tea to promote her partner’s business, but she will not reply to correspondence raising important constitutional issues in this country, a country that she claims to be a Minister of.

So it is on that basis that we are saying that a very sensible, somewhat modest change could be made to this bill to accommodate that need and to ensure the electoral integrity that we have always enjoyed in this country. But most important is the fact that we have never required electors to go through unnecessary hoops and procedures to justify their right to vote. We can reinstate that in the bill and therefore come out of this exercise with electoral legislation that is of the same standing and status, and that will command the same respect, as our present Electoral Act. There is simply no need for anything other than the presentation of an electoral enrolment card. It is fine if people want to say who they are and fine if they want to do it verbally, but they should not have to go through extra hoops.

Supplementary Order Paper 417 in my name reinstates what was previously in the bill—that is to say, clauses 24 to 27. Supplementary Order Paper 420 in Holly Walker’s name is more extensive than that. But even if this Committee were minded to take a more modest change that would achieve the objectives both of the Government and, indeed, of the Opposition, then Maryan Street’s Supplementary Order Paper 416 would be a good one to support. It is a modest change. It clarifies and confirms the choice between verbal confirmation and presentation of the enrolment card. I would urge the Committee to support this sort of change in principle, and to support one of those Supplementary Order Papers that allows that to be achieved.

When it comes to people casting their vote in the ever-important exercise of our general elections, we do not want and we do not need them to go through unnecessary hoops—hoops that could be embarrassing, could be humiliating, or could just be plain difficult—just in order to exercise their democratic right to cast a vote. So I urge the Committee to support these changes, and then let us get on with this bill, which is, in all other respects, a good bill. It does the sort of tidy-up job that we expect of an Electoral Amendment Bill, but this change was snuck in at the last minute by a Minister who is not on top of her game and is more interested in going to Shanghai and having cups of tea on her way through.

What a lacklustre performance from that member who has resumed his seat, Andrew Little, the never-to-be MP for New Plymouth. I have not heard such rubbish talked in this Chamber since the last time he spoke. I have to say that he cannot even read what is in the very bill that his own party supported in the Justice and Electoral Committee. The select committee came back with a report to the House urging a change to, in fact, make the EasyVote card a little bit more robust in its application. The member who has resumed his seat has said that a poor elector might not be able to pronounce their own name. Like when? When? Or that they will have to do this verbally in case there is a problem and they cannot actually say it. OK, well, then all he has to do is look at new clause 24, new subsection (2A), where it says: “If an elector is unable to comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(a) because of an inability to understand English or because of a physical disability, the elector may comply with that requirement by—(a) gesture; or (b) any other means with the assistance of a person nominated by the elector who is present with the elector.”

I can well imagine what has happened in the Labour Party since this report came back. I can well imagine. What has happened is Matt McCarten. That is what has happened in the Labour Party. When the Labour Party was listening to Maryan Street, who took a principled view about what should happen in the voting booth and whether or not someone should actually be the person they say they are when they are voting, that was OK. The Labour Party then stood on principle along with all the other members, including, by the way, the Green members of the select committee. Then Matt McCarten came in and all of a sudden Andrew Little realised that Labour’s little scheme to go and get lots of EasyVote cards out of people’s letterboxes and give them to people to go, take, vote, and just get away with it was not going to work.

Just think about it this way. Here is an example. Which party has had someone convicted of electoral fraud ever? Oh, I do not know—it is the New Zealand Labour Party. And when did that happen? Oh, when did that happen? It was just a few months ago. In fact, I think it was even a few weeks ago. And who was it? Mr Daljit Singh JP of my electorate, actually, who went to the effort of taking 70 people apparently living in one home—

💬 Scott Simpson: How many?

Seventy—seven zero in case you thought I said 17. Seven zero people living in the home in Papatoetoe, and Mr Singh did this for the Labour Party.

💬 Scott Simpson: Really?

He did. And that would have meant, actually, that coming up to this next election, what would have happened would have been 70 EasyVote cards sent through the computer system through to—guess what—one address.

💬 Scott Simpson: How many?

Seventy cards to one address, and I am sure that not all of those 70 people lived in that home. The only party ever to be convicted of electoral fraud is the Labour Party. If I want to have a look at some photos, I have got some lovely photos of the Labour Party, Mr Phil Goff, and all sorts of people with Mr Daljit Singh campaigning for the New Zealand Labour Party. I would be very, very happy to share those if the members now want to forget. So when we look at this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, which, of course, came back from the select committee—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That’s just rubbish.

Mr Goff thinks it is rubbish. I am happy to give him a photocopy—no problem, no problem. I am advised that when Mr O’Rourke, at the select committee, came up with this excellent idea to make sure that they stamp down on fraud in the polling booth, he was supported by all the members of the select committee. I do not know whether Mr O’Rourke thinks it is such a good idea now that Matt McCarten is in charge of the left. But having said that—

💬 Tracey Martin: He’s not in charge of our left.

—that is exactly what has happened here. What is that, Mrs Martin?

💬 Tracey Martin: He’s not in charge of our left.

I cannot understand a word she says. Never mind—she can gesture, for all I care. Having said that, we will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 417, the amendment of Mr Andrew Little, who, having fired off the most abusive and stupid press release any of us has ever seen—and he is actually wrong on every account, as usual—then asked why I did not reply to him. It is because, frankly, I cannot be bothered with someone like him, because he actually never even reads the bill that he stands up here in the Chamber and speaks about. He is a useless MP—always has been and he never will be again.

Yes, it was a pleasure to work with the Justice and Electoral Committee on a number of very worthwhile amendments to the Electoral Act, and, yes, I did make a small contribution by suggesting some amendments. I thank the Minister of Justice for her comments earlier in the day about that. But she is right in that New Zealand First is nevertheless still going to vote against this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, and the reason for that is quite different. It is not because of what this bill proposes in it; it is because of what this bill leaves out that we are voting against it, because we have no other choice as a way of expressing our disapproval about what has been left out. So it is not a matter of what is in the bill; it is a matter of what is not in the bill.

There are two major concerns. One is the fact that the rules concerning broadcasting have not been dealt with as they should have been, according to recommendations made by the committee itself. They are totally left out of the bill altogether. Specifically, 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 does cause difficulties when the commission is called upon to consider complaints about broadcasting, as it was, in fact, required to do in the last election about some National Party broadcasting errors, if I can put it that way. In both Acts the tests require an assessment of whether the programme or advertisement appears to encourage voters to vote or not vote for a party or candidate, but these two provisions differ in the exemptions they make. 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.” The corresponding exemption 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 quite different exemptions.

There were some very good submissions made to the committee favouring the removal of the electoral broadcasting provisions from the Broadcasting Act and combining them only with those in the Electoral Act—very sensible and worthwhile submissions. I am flabbergasted that this bill does not do anything about solving that issue. As I have said, the Justice and Electoral Committee actually recommended aligning these two tests, but nothing has been done. And there is no explanation from the Government. I can assume only that it is not including the amendments required to address this problem because of its own particular internal interests.

The other glaring omission regarding this bill concerns the MMP system itself. The issue is the so-called coat-tailing provision by which one electorate seat creates a threshold itself for list seats. There needs to be an end to that provision. It should have been attended to at the same time in this particular amendment bill. We have seen why that is necessary many times over in the last two or three or more elections, because it runs against the interests of the MMP system itself with a reasonable threshold. It is something that recent polling shows 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 currently enables a party without 5 percent of the list vote to bring more members into Parliament when others without an electorate seat need 5 percent. It just does not make sense and it needs to be attended to.

There is one way of characterising this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, as it is reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee and that is that it contains the good—and I will come to that in a moment—it contains the bad, and it contains the ugly. The ugly is what is omitted from this bill, because this bill is a result of the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry. I have got that inquiry in front of me, and there are things that are recommended by the inquiry that the Minister of Justice has taken out. There are things that the Minister said in her introductory speech in praise of the new clauses on the EasyVote card that she has taken out, and there are things that were not put in there at all despite the fact that the independent Electoral Commission said they should be there.

That relates to the question of coat-tailing, which has been used by the National Party to rort the system to maintain itself in power. That is all there is to it. The majority of New Zealanders said in their submissions—the majority of New Zealanders say in every poll that has ever been taken on the issue—that they want the coat-tailing provision taken out. It is the coat-tailing provision that keeps Peter Dunne and John Banks in the House and keeps the majority for the National Party. That was not what the electoral law was ever intended to do and the National Party has rorted this system to keep itself in power. I want to come back to that in a moment.

Let me say what was good about the bill. What was good about the bill was the stupid clause that was originally in the bill, which said that there should be no wearing of ribbons or rosettes—Scott Simpson said it would terrify the voters if they saw somebody wearing a ribbon or a rosette—has been taken out by the select committee, and the select committee is wise in doing that. For 150 years party members have been able to wear a ribbon on election day, and why should they not? There was no evidence that that would do any harm and I hope that Scott Simpson will get to his feet and apologise for the nonsense that he spoke in the first reading of this bill, because the good thing that the select committee did was remove the nonsense about not wearing a ribbon. You know, the funny thing about the new electoral legislation is that you can actually vote 17 days before election day. Far from being intimidated by ribbons or unduly influenced by them, voters see all the hoardings up. The campaign can be seen in the full swing of it during the 17 days when 17 percent of New Zealanders go down to vote. So it is just nonsense to say “Take away the ribbons. Take away the rosettes.” The select committee has made a wise decision.

Unfortunately, in making that wise decision, its members have done what they have been told to do by the Minister and that is to remove the material relating to the EasyVote card. The EasyVote card is really important for people in my electorate— which is multicultural—who have problems with English. They know that they can take their card along and show it to the polling clerk. The polling clerk looks at it and in a very simple and efficient way can issue the vote to the voter.

The National Party has learnt something from the Tea Party in the United States. In the United States the Tea Party went out of its way to stop people from participating. It wanted all sorts of identification to make it as hard as you can to get people to participate on the basis of the fact that those who are disadvantaged are less likely to vote. I argue that that is exactly what this Minister is doing in this clause. She is saying: “Make it harder for them.”

It is not what she said when she introduced the bill. What did she say when she introduced the bill? She said: “Another important change enabled by this bill is the greater use of the EasyVote cards during the electoral process.” She was in favour of them. She said: “This bill will enable EasyVote cards to be used as a record that an ordinary vote has been cast. It will also allow the cards to be used instead of a declaration form for special voters. [It] will simplify and speed up the issuing of ordinary and special votes. It will also make the scrutinising of the rolls that occurs during the election counting process more accurate and efficient.” What changed, Minister, between the speech that you gave on the introduction of this bill and now, when you do not want the EasyVote card registered at all as a statutory right for people to use to increase participation to make the democratic process work better?

All of the arguments about the EasyVote cards were dealt with by the Justice and Electoral Committee when its members did their inquiry. Every argument that the Minister and the National members have raised against putting the EasyVote card in this bill—they are taking it out—was contradicted by what the Justice and Electoral Committee said in its report. It is important that we refer back to that, because when the Justice and Electoral Committee did an inquiry on the EasyVote card, it said it was really important because it simplified voting procedures. That is what we are trying to do in this legislation, surely. Is electoral legislation not about making the process more efficient, easier to understand, and simpler, and getting more people to vote?

What I allege that the Minister is doing is exactly the opposite. Too late she realised her mistake after her first reading speech. “Oh my God, this will make it easier for those people to vote who perhaps don’t understand the system that well and might make the terrible mistake of voting Labour!” So, Minister, you have taken these clauses out of the bill without any argument and without any justification in contradiction of what the Justice and Electoral Committee argued in its inquiry, and in contradiction to what you yourself said in the first reading debate.

We had plenty of abuse, including the argument that I had been seen with some electoral fraudster. Yes, I was there, standing alongside Kanwaljit Bakshi from the National Party. I did not hear any comments from the Minister about that. If we are going to get into dirty politics, we will talk about endorsing businesses overseas that your family has a connection with. That is what we can do if we really want to get down to that level of argument, Minister—[Interruption] You brought it in and that is why I am replying to it.

This bill is a dirty effort to actually distort the electoral process rather than enhance it. I want to come back to coat-tailing. New Zealanders time and again have said it is wrong that John Banks or the ACT Party got elected with, I think, three, four, or five members of Parliament in 2008 when the New Zealand First Party got a higher vote but did not get an electoral seat because it was not gifted one by the National Party. The party that got a higher percentage of the vote was not represented at all and the ACT Party was represented simply because there was a cup of tea and the then Leader of the Opposition, John Key, said to the National voters: “You’ll help us. You’ll help us rort the system. You’ll help us get elected if you vote for the ACT candidate”—who was then Rodney Hide—“in Epsom.” They did it again with John Banks and the tea party last time. New Zealanders have seen that and they are disgusted by that. The Electoral Commission, which is independent—independent; and we need independent people to determine how this electoral law should work properly—said “Get rid of it.”

My question to the Minister, if she wants to get to her hind legs again and take a call, or to any National Party person, is why that is not in the bill. Why was it just the National Party that stood in the way of getting rid of rorting the system, which is what the coat-tail provision allows? I challenge National members to stand up and explain why that is not in the bill. It is a rort. New Zealanders are against it. The independent Electoral Commission is against it. The National Government sees self-interest, because it cannot hold on to coalition partners, in rorting the system so it can have an ACT member or members and a United Future member or members. That is not the way to make electoral law in this country.

Democracy is too important to rort the process by making it about the self-interest of the governing party instead of the honesty, the integrity, and the efficiency of the law. That is what it is meant to be about. It is meant to be about honesty, efficiency, and integrity. In two ways, Minister, you have undermined this bill. You have undermined it by not putting the provision in to get rid of coat-tailing, when that is what New Zealanders expected of you. They voted for MMP with the promise from the Prime Minister that if that happened, there would be a review. There was a review. The review clearly said to get rid of coat-tailing, and you have ignored it. Why? Not a hint of an explanation, because the explanation is clear to everybody. It is not in the self-interest of National maintaining power to take that clause out. That is about as simple and about as appalling as the explanation is for not taking the coat-tailing provisions out. Why take the EasyVote provisions out? You do not want those other people to vote—no, Mr Chairman, not you, but the Minister. She does not want that provision in the bill because it will facilitate more people to vote.

What a vibrant speech by that member, the Hon Phil Goff. I especially liked the part about needing good, independent people.

I take a first call on Part 1 of the Electoral Amendment Bill. In this brief call I would like to focus on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in my name. It is a technical, non-controversial amendment, and I thank the parties that have indicated they will support it. This bill cancels the registration of logos of unregistered parties, and there is broad support for that. Supplementary Order Paper 415 changes the date on which that will happen, and it provides for a period of 4 months for parties with a registered logo to complete the registration of the party.

There are several parties for which this is an issue. I declare an interest here, because the New Zealand Independent Coalition is one of those. Our logo was registered by the Electoral Commission on 28 February 2014 and we are currently in the process of signing up members. It is amazing, the number of former New Zealand First members who are flocking to it. Another such party is the Internet Party, and there are other unregistered parties that may be about to apply for registration. Thrive New Zealand may be one of those, as it registered a logo last August.

This is a technical Supplementary Order Paper around timing. It will have no impact on the conduct of the election.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: He’s a comedian.

💬 Tracey Martin: Should be on the telly.

It is nice to hear those New Zealand First MPs finally speak up. They could not speak up too much when people were being sacked in their office. It will have no impact on the outcome of the election, no matter what is said by anyone is this place. That will be determined by New Zealanders who vote. I commend this Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee.

This is just a short call on behalf of Holly Walker, who is managing this Electoral Amendment Bill for the Greens. I just want to advise the Committee and the public that the Green Party generally supports this bill. We were active and constructive contributors to the select committee inquiry in 2011 that provided the recommendations for the basis of this bill, and we certainly commit to working for consensus to modernise and improve the electoral arrangements.

We have two concerns about this bill that has come back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. One of them is that it has come back without the clauses to modernise the use of the EasyVote card and with a new rule requiring voters to verbally identify themselves when they vote. My colleague Holly Walker has a Supplementary Order Paper 420 to reinstate the clauses around the EasyVote card, and I do ask that members carefully consider that change.

It is worth outlining some of the history here. Members will be familiar with the EasyVote card that was used at the last election. It is not an ID card; it is a tool designed to make voting easier. It includes the name and address of the voter and the page and the line number on which the voter’s name appears on the electoral roll. That makes it easier for the voting place staff to issue the ballot papers. Voters take the little card to the polling booth. They hand it to the staff member, who is able to more quickly find them on the electoral roll and issue their voting papers. Those cards are then collected and destroyed. If a voter turns up without such a card, the staff can still manually find them on the electoral roll. They do not need ID to vote. They do not need the EasyVote card to vote, but it does help the process.

The Electoral Commission has said that it would like to use the EasyVote card as a record that someone has cast their vote. It would like to add a scannable code to the EasyVote card so that voters’ names can be electronically crossed off the master roll, instead of being manually collated and then crossed off later. This, the Electoral Commission has said, would improve the speed and accuracy of electoral administration and make things considerably easier for the Electoral Commission and its staff on election day.

This matter was raised in 2011 and the Electoral Commission has recommended changes to Part 6 of the Electoral Act to allow for scannable EasyVote cards. The committee agreed, I understand, to these recommendations and the changes and they were originally included in the bill, but they have been removed by that same select committee that originally agreed to them.

Holly Walker was not present for the select committee discussions, but she understands that members may have become concerned that somehow the provisions would make it easier to use the EasyVote card and therefore easier to commit electoral fraud. It is very unclear as to what the basis for that was, or the evidence for it.

💬 Andrew Little: It was never justified.

That is right. The committee’s report says that “We consider that the proposed provision for a new process known operationally as EasyVote Express would … lower the threshold for casting a vote, increasing the potential for fraud”, but there was no real evidence provided to the select committee as to how that would work.

Electoral fraud is serious. We need to be concerned about that, but there is nothing about the proposals from the Electoral Commission that would increase the risk of electoral fraud, so it is hard to understand why these provisions have been taken out. We have been very concerned that the clauses have been removed on the basis of a misapprehension about increased risk—one not borne out by reality—and that deleting these clauses has meant a missed opportunity to streamline the election day process and it will disrupt the Electoral Commission’s own planning for the 2014 election. We think that is a shame, and, therefore, we have Supplementary Order Paper 420 to reinstate those clauses.

We also would then ask members of the Committee to reconsider the provision, new clause 24, that requires voters to verbally confirm their identity in the polling booth. We know, from some years’ experience now, how easy it is to dismiss or misunderstand the needs of voters who have disabilities and how difficult it is for voters with disabilities to access the electoral system. This provision requiring verbal confirmation of their identity will, for many New Zealanders with significant disabilities, mean it could exclude them from voting and could make it impossible for them to vote. For many, many voters with speech impairments or with hearing impairments, it will be difficult, nigh impossible, to comply with this legal requirement.

There was a flippant comment made that people in this situation—with a disability like this, who are unable to verbally confirm their identity—would somehow be able to use some kind of gesture to make it clear that it is them. What kind of gesture might be considered to be both adequate and respectful in those circumstances, one wonders? But, most important, there is a significant number of New Zealanders with serious disabilities for whom it would make it impossible for them to comply with the law, whether verbally or by some gesture, and, therefore, those New Zealanders will be excluded from voting under this law. They physically will not be able to vote.

It cannot be the intention of the select committee or the Minister or the Government to deliberately and knowingly exclude a significant number of New Zealanders with disabilities from being able to vote in the polling booths. For these reasons, the Greens are supporting Maryan Street’s Supplementary Order Paper 416 to amend the provision and to fix the situation, I understand, because it simply cannot be the will of this Parliament to deliberately exclude members of the public who have disabilities.

My colleague Mojo Mathers also has Supplementary Order Paper 412 on this bill, which would extend the regulation-making power of the Electoral Act in section 170(6) to “make provision for electors who are wholly or partially blind” to also apply to electors who are unable to read or write, or who have severe difficulty reading or writing, to be able to vote without assistance. Currently, the wording of the Act makes provisions only for electors who are wholly or partially blind. It does not extend these provisions to other voters who are unable to vote without assistance. This issue was drawn to the attention of the select committee, I understand, by the Human Rights Commission, if I have got that right, which was very concerned about the inconsistency here.

The right to vote without assistance, to vote in elections independently, and to have access to the secret ballot that every other voter has access to is considered to be one of the most fundamental of all human rights in an open democracy such as ours, where the secret ballot is at the core of our voting system. It is protected by article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Section 170 of the Electoral Act does allow voters with disabilities to vote with assistance if needed, but this requires the disabled voter to disclose their voting preference to someone else, which is a breach of their right to a secret vote. That is a right that every other New Zealander has. So this Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Mojo Mathers would make provision for electors to vote without assistance and therefore allow them the right to a secret vote, like everyone else. This is a fundamental right that everyone deserves, whether they do or do not have a disability.

I urge Parliament, members of this Committee, and the Government in particular to support these Supplementary Order Papers to make these changes. It has been important for this Parliament and for the public to note, with the election of Mojo Mathers as the first New Zealand deaf parliamentarian and one with a serious disability, the extent to which people with disabilities are excluded from our democracy, our Parliament, and our electoral system, simply by oversight—by not understanding the realities of those who live with disabilities every day. We do not want to be in a situation where, in a progressive, 21st century Parliament, we are in the situation of making it difficult, or, indeed, impossible for people with disabilities to engage in our democratic process—quite the opposite. We should be opening our process to be as inclusive as possible. We have access to all the information we need to understand the needs of voters with disabilities. We should be responding to those needs as a Parliament. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

It has been interesting listening to the debate so far this evening on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I think there are a number of interesting democratic principles at stake here. The first is actually to do with our own democratic processes in the House, not really electoral processes, which is that we need to have a robust and thorough process for making legislation. I have heard—I think the Minister of Justice implied it and also the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee implied it—that because certain conversations were had at the select committee, that should be the end of the discussion, and that MPs who were on the select committee should be the only ones who have the privilege of discussing this legislation, and that any agreements that were reached at that committee should be the end of it.

Well, if that was the case, then we would not bother with the second reading or the Committee stage or the third reading of a bill; we would just finish at the select committee and that would be it, done and dusted. But that is not the way we do it, and the reason is that sometimes fresh eyes can alert us to issues that perhaps were not picked up on at an earlier stage. That is why we have the ability to make amendments at the Committee stage—we want to be able to continually consider the legislation that is in front of us. That is what has happened in this case.

At the first reading we had a bill that was going to put into legislation the enrolment confirmation card. That was something that we thought was a positive move because it meant there was certainty around the enrolment confirmation card. That is something that has been available for the last few elections, but there is nothing in legislation that says it is a requirement to have the enrolment confirmation card. So from the outside perspective of someone who was not on the committee, that requirement seemed like a positive step. For whatever reason, the select committee decided to remove it.

With the removal of the legislative requirement for the enrolment confirmation card, combined with this new idea of requiring verbal confirmation, there is the possibility that the card not being available and someone having to make a verbal confirmation of their name could mean that you get a situation that will inevitably block some people from our democratic process. One group of people that has been briefly mentioned in the debate this evening is new migrants for whom English is a second language.

We know that new migrants are vastly overrepresented in the group of people who do not participate at election time. One of the reasons for that is a simple language barrier. They do not feel confident enough in their ability to speak English and be able to go to the polling booth and successfully complete all the processes there. If you add to that the fact that they have to make a verbal confirmation, that is just one more barrier. It is not—as the Minister implied in a rather silly fashion, I thought—that a person may not be able to pronounce their own name. Of course they are going to be able to pronounce their own name, but the person whom they are having to say their name to may not understand the pronunciation. They may not understand how that name is spelt in the mother language of that person. They may not be able to find it easily on the electoral roll and may then deny them the opportunity to vote in that election.

That is the kind of circumstance that we are concerned about. I do not think it is intentional by this Government. I do not think it is intentional, but it is one of those unintended consequences that put barriers up to people voting. We have seen this in other countries in the world, where perhaps it has been a little bit more intentional that changes made to electoral law in the name of reducing voter fraud have, in fact, been a device for denying people, particularly people at the margins of society, the ability to participate in electoral processes.

I am not making the case that the National Government has done this on purpose; I just think this is an unintended consequence. We have an opportunity with the Supplementary Order Papers. We have got a range of options, any one of which we could pick up. Some are certainly better than others, but we could pick up any of the options that members have provided and improve this law. We would be making electoral law that makes it easier to vote.

At the last election we had the lowest voter turnout in something like a century. That should be concerning to all of us, but for some reason it seems to be more concerning to members on this side of the House than it is to members on that side of the House. Maybe that is because they assume that the people who are least likely to participate in our elections are the people who are also least likely to vote for them. That is probably why there is more concern about it on this side of the House than there is on the other.

But I think there is another reason why people did not participate in the last election, and that is a certain level of cynicism about the way Parliament goes about creating electoral law. If they were cynical before the last election, they will be even more cynical after it, because, as members have mentioned earlier in the debate, there is something enormous missing from this legislation, and that is the abolishment of the one-seat threshold, better known out there in the public as the coat-tailing provisions.

💬 Scott Simpson: Abolition.

Abolition? Fair enough. What they know is that they want to get rid of it, Mr Simpson. They do not care how we say it in Parliament, at 10 to 10 in the evening. They want us to get rid of it. The public have been absolutely clear and, in fact, the Government was absolutely clear. It said that we were going to have a referendum on MMP, and if the public chooses to keep MMP we will then have a review and we will look at some of those peripheral issues.

Although there was a range of issues that we could be looking at, and the review of the Electoral Commission came back with 10 recommendations, the one that the public has been absolutely clear on is the getting rid of the coat-tailing. The Minister, fair enough, wrote to all the political parties and asked us for our views. We responded, and at that point the Minister said that there was no consensus. How could there have been a consensus? There was absolutely no opportunity for political parties to get around the table and talk about what we were prepared to negotiate on.

There are things in those 10 recommendations that we in the Labour Party do not like, but we are prepared to sit down and talk about them and see whether we can come to a consensus. I know that there are things that the Labour Party supports that New Zealand First does not like. I know there are aspects of it that the Greens do not like. But everybody on this side of the House wants the opportunity to sit around the table and see whether we can reach a consensus. Why has that not happened? Quite simply, because National and their mates in United Future and in the ACT Party, who are so reliant on the coat-tailing provisions, have put their own interests ahead of what the New Zealand public want. That is one of the reasons why New Zealanders are becoming so cynical about our political processes.

Those on the right might be happy that they are turning people off voting. They might be happy. They might think that that serves their own self-interests. But over on this side of the House we believe in democracy. We believe in the right of people to have their say, and the people have overwhelmingly had their say on this issue—get rid of the coat-tailing. There was no reason to have it in the first place. It resembles a mechanism in Germany for parties that have strong regional representation to find their way into Parliament. We do not have regional diversity of party representation in this country. We are a small nation. We do not have little enclaves where particular parties are strong.

What has happened, of course, is that something that was brought in for worthy purposes has been absolutely abused by the parties of the right. There is no reason for it. We would lose nothing by getting rid of it, but what we have, by having it in our electoral law, is an opportunity for parties to rort the system. It is time for it to go, and luckily, although it is not included in this legislation, we will soon have an opportunity. I have written to all members.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been waiting for a turn to speak. I have a Supplementary Order Paper that I have not had an opportunity to speak to yet, and I would like that opportunity.

That is not a point of order, because someone has just moved a closure motion and I did not get a chance to accept it or reject it before the point of order came.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Maryan Street.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this legislation, the Electoral Amendment Bill. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the Chamber about where this bill has got to. I would like to just go back, in a calm and measured way, to the Supplementary Order Papers that are in front of us. It is true that the report from the Justice and Electoral Committee returned the bill to the House with certain clauses struck out—clauses that the Minister of Justice had included in the draft of the bill and to which she spoke in her introductory speech on the bill. I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider supporting, and having National support, those Supplementary Order Papers that reinstate her original intentions. Her original intention, as far as I understand it, was that the enrolment—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.