Electoral Amendment Bill

In the prayer that starts every sitting day, the words are “laying aside all private and personal interest”—laying aside all private and personal interest. The Minister in charge of the Electoral Amendment Bill is Judith Collins. Judith Collins has already been proven not to understand the meaning of the words “laying aside all private and personal interest”. The issue with this bill to which Labour takes such exception is the behaviour in the bill now that is required in order for people to turn up to a polling booth and vote. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Members leaving the Chamber should show some respect to the member addressing the House, and all contributions will be made with respect shown to the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is why I am standing—because I represent those Standing Orders. I crave your respect for them and your understanding when a member is trying to address the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was talking about putting aside all private and personal interest. Judith Collins, the Minister in charge of this bill—which has come back to the House with provisions deleted that would have cemented in place the EasyVote card practice—is the one who also does not seem to understand the significance of the words “laying aside all private and personal interest”. Judith Collins had the opportunity to reinstate those words by agreeing to, first, an amendment put up by Holly Walker of the Green Party; second, an amendment put up by Andrew Little of the Labour Party; and, third, an amendment put up by me. She turned down the opportunity each time to make it easy for people to vote. And why is that? All I can say about that is it must have occurred to National members that it is in their private and personal interest to make sure this piece of legislation does not make it easier for people to vote. In fact, it puts obstacles in the way.

This should have been a piece of legislation that was agreed on by the whole House. It could have been that. But now, with the way it has transpired, and with the Minister’s unwillingness to reinstate clauses that were deleted, simply by agreeing to amendments by other parties, we see a bill on electoral procedure that will advance the interests only of those for whom it is already easy to cast a vote. Those for whom it is not easy—those of different ethnicities, those who are disabled, who are unable to speak, for example, like the man I referred to when I was last speaking on this issue—now have to say their name and provide additional information to show that they are on the roll. It says that they must do both of those things. If they have a disability that prevents them from doing that, then they must rely on another person. People want to get up and make their own votes. It is incumbent on this House to make it possible for them to do that and to make it as easy as possible. This bill does not do that.

I would say that in another country behaviour of the Minister both the in her other portfolios and while in charge of this bill in particular might be called corruption. That is not too far from the truth. So this needs to be addressed. It should have been addressed by the Minister in charge of the bill, and it is a shame that it has not been.

It is a great pleasure to stand in the third reading debate of, the Electoral Amendment Bill, which is in the name of the very good and capable Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins. What a fine Minister she is to bring this piece of legislation to the House following the good, hard, long, and deliberative work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The select committee worked long and hard on this bill. We heard lots of submissions and representations from members of the public and interest groups. But listening to members of the Opposition, one could easily be drawn to the conclusion that some huge, awful attack on the basis of our democracy is being perpetrated here, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Justice and Electoral Committee reported back unanimously on this bill, without dissension, and without a minority report. Something has happened in the time between reporting back and now, when the Labour Party members have decided to change their minds. I wonder what could have caused a change of mind such that the Hon Maryan Street, who was supportive and agreeable in the select committee, could now be so vehement in her opposition to what is a very simple proposition put forward by the select committee. Really, the only thing that one can draw from that change of heart is that there has been a change in management within the chief of staff’s office within the Labour Party. It is a hard move to the left, and it is a move that is not doing the Opposition any good at all.

So what does the Electoral Amendment Bill do? Well, it does not extend the use of EasyVote cards. Listening to members of the Opposition, one could be forgiven for thinking that EasyVote cards were somehow going to be removed, or cease to be operative at all, when in fact the situation will be simply this—the status quo for EasyVote cards will continue and will be maintained. What this legislation does not do is extend the role and use of EasyVote cards. The select committee came to a very good view—a consensus view, a unanimous view—that to extend the use of EasyVote cards would have lowered the threshold for potential fraud. That is something that is very important, because ours is a unique, wonderful, and precious little democracy, and I for one think that we should be doing everything that we can to maintain and enhance the preciousness of our democracy.

One does not have to look very far before we can find situations where there has been electoral fraud in our democracy, and one Daljit Singh springs to mind. Daljit Singh was a Labour Party candidate in a local body election, recently convicted of electoral fraud. What did he do? He enrolled 70 people at his one address—70 people.

💬 Louise Upston: Seventy.

Seventy—that is right. The senior whip is telling me it is 70. It is absolutely right; 70 is the number. Seventy people were enrolled at that house. So you can imagine what might have happened—70 EasyVote cards could have arrived at that house. No one in their right mind would think that that is anything other than a lowering of the potential for fraud. This bill is a good one.

Another point that is worth making is that verbal identification will be required. It came as a complete surprise to the select committee that verbal identification was not already required. The vast majority of voters actually do state their name when they go up to the deputy returning officer to get their voting papers in preparation to cast their vote. There has been an argument that somehow this puts people for whom English is a second language, or who are disabled in some way, at a disadvantage. There is already very comprehensive and existing legislation that protects them and ensures that adequate steps can be taken for people in that situation. So this comes as nothing of a surprise—other than that it was not there already.

This bill is a very good bill. It is a well-considered bill. If we pass it today, we will be ready for the election on 20 September. On this side of the House we are ready for that election. We are ready, we are looking forward to it, we have a range of policies that will be fit to take to the country in a very positive and good way, and we have an excellent story to take to the nation. I commend this bill to the House, I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House, and I urge all members to support it.

I rise, like my Labour colleagues, to oppose this Electoral Amendment Bill. I oppose it regrettably, because we simply do not need to be in this position. Electoral law should not be the subject of widespread divergence and disagreement between the parties. The convention generally is that the parties agree on what the electoral law is, because the voting public expect there to be a consensus on our voting law and on the way people participate in our democracy. But we are opposing it because of the obstinacy and arrogance of the Minister of Justice.

You see, we have a deliberative process when we pass legislation in this House. The last member who spoke, Scott Simpson, may not have realised that the reason we have a first reading, a select committee consideration, a second reading, and a third reading is that at every step of the way there is scrutiny and consideration of the legislation. At any one of those steps any member can point out that the bill does not meet the public interest test or does not meet some other important consideration or requirement—political or otherwise. The Labour Opposition and other parties in the Opposition have drawn the conclusion, having considered and studied the bill as it emerged from the Justice and Electoral Committee, that it now has a provision that, far from being the status quo, is now directly contrary to the status quo, is positively harmful to many voters in this country, and will be an impediment to their properly exercising their democratic rights. This is the provision that says that there must now be verbal confirmation of a voter’s details.

The only out to that, the only exception, as the Minister of Justice patronisingly said in the Committee stage, is that voters can flap their arms around and make a gesture. Apparently that is the way you can avoid the statutory and mandatory requirement to provide verbal confirmation. It is an ugly provision in a piece of legislation that should have the support of all voters and, indeed, all members of this House. That is what is wrong with this provision. Members in the Government, in their typically arrogant sort of way, may think that that is fine, that the vast majority of voters are not affected by it, as Mr Simpson just said—the vast majority are not affected by it. Well, that is true. The vast majority do not speak English as a second language. The vast majority do not have a speech impediment. The vast majority do not have other aspects to them that make it difficult for them to fluently and fluidly provide verbal confirmation. This is an unnecessary provision in a very important exercise that we undergo every 3 years. That is why we are so opposed to it. It is totally unnecessary.

Let us just recall how the original bill came about. It was through the typical and conventional processes of the Electoral Commission reviewing the election and the Justice and Electoral Committee reviewing the election to come up with those improvements and those changes that are needed to ensure that the conduct of the next election is good, and to help things run more smoothly, or, at least, to modernise the election process. That was the genesis of the bill—indeed, of most electoral amendment bills.

The bill that was introduced to the House and that went to the select committee had a comprehensive provision relating to the use of the EasyVote card, or the enrolment confirmation card, because prior to that there was no statutory recognition of the EasyVote card. It had come about through administrative provision, and that is fine. That is all right. It was there, but the reality is that the EasyVote card had demonstrated that it was as its name suggested. It had made voting easier for a lot of people who hitherto had found it more difficult, who had hitherto found it difficult to confirm their details and go through the administrative process of collecting their ballot papers before casting their votes. That was why even the Electoral Commission said that it was time to have statutory recognition of the EasyVote card. It was a good mechanism.

So the select committee looked at it. It was the Government members who ummed and ahhed and wrung their hands because they were concerned about electoral fraud, but the reality is that the EasyVote card makes electoral fraud impossible because once you have used it and had the page number and the line number ruled off, if you try to use it again you are going to be caught out straight away. You will be caught out. And all this hocus - pocus from Government members about fraud is just that. It is nonsense—it is nonsense.

💬 Scott Simpson: Daljit Singh.

They talk about Daljit Singh, but the reality about Daljit Singh is the system was so robust that he got picked up before anybody cast a vote. He got picked up when the EasyVote cards were being delivered to the address. It was never going to work. It was a dumb thing to do and he is now being called to account. He has been called to account and he is doing his chips, as he should do. Anybody who rips off our electoral system should face the consequences, should face the music, and he has done, and that is the right thing. It has nothing to do with the EasyVote card. The EasyVote card is an anti-fraud measure.

This Government does not care about the fact that the card has other useful aspects to it as well, which are that it makes it easier for that small proportion of voters who feel intimidated by having to go through the palaver of having to provide verbal confirmation of their details. For some people that is a difficult thing to do. For some people that is a difficult thing to do, and that is why we are so opposed to the bill. Our job in this House when we are considering electoral law should be to consider every conceivable way we can to make casting your vote easier. We should be looking at means of electronic voting, but we sort of kicked that for touch as well. Well, this Government, its members, have now created an impediment in our electoral law. That is the disappointing thing about it. This Parliament, under the control of this Government, this National Government, will go down in history as the first to take our electoral law backwards by making it harder for people to vote.

I want to conclude by making one other point, and that is this: this legislation was a lost opportunity, when there has been so much public consensus for there to be changes in the removal of the thresholds—the one-seat dog-wagging threshold—and reducing the 5 percent party vote threshold to 4 percent. This was the opportunity to do that. This is the same Minister of Justice who cannot remember who paid for dinner and who cannot remember where the place was where she had dinner. Thirty kilometres or 80 kilometres away from the Shanghai airport—she could not remember that. She could not remember, actually, that it was her job to go to other parties and find out whether there was a consensus to do this. She did not talk to a single other party, and then she declared that there was no consensus, when the only party disagreeing with it was her party—the National Party.

As we now have come to see, it is on the record that it is the National Party that stands in the way of progressive developments and changes to our electoral law. It is the National Party that does not want to make it easier for people to vote. It is the National Party that does not want to make it easy for people to choose between the parties and the individuals they want elected to Parliament. National maintains the fiction in order to look after its political mates—the one-party machines that jack up this Government to give it the numbers it has to conduct itself in the way that it does. It is a shabby, grubby little Government now, smeared and tainted with improper conduct by yet one more senior Minister. Never mind that it has got other Ministers in its one-man-band parties who themselves have fallen into disgrace.

This a shabby, grubby little Government, propped up now by a continued electoral law that this House could have changed, had we had a Government that was actually interested in real leadership. We do not have that. We do not have a Government that is interested in leadership. We do not have a Government that cares about good-quality democracy. We have a shabby little Government, desperate to do whatever it can to hold on to the reins of power and not give the public of this great country the right to have the people it wants in this House, or the right for voters in this country to vote in a civilised and sensible sort of way.

I call the honourable member Holly Walker, but could I just advise you to speak into the microphone. It is very difficult to hear.

I do not believe that the microphone was turned on, Mr Assistant Speaker, but thank you. The Green Party takes electoral reform very seriously. The fate of the MPs and the parties that are currently represented in Parliament may wax and wane, but if the system for electing them is robust, democratic, and fair, then we can all have confidence in our Parliament.

In the Green Party, we have always engaged constructively with any moves to alter this electoral system, such as the review of MMP that followed the referendum and such as the inquiry into the 2011 general election, which gave rise to this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill. We share the view that, where possible, changes to the electoral system should be made with a high degree of political consensus so that the public can have confidence that the electoral system and the changes to it have not been politicised. Unfortunately, in the case of both the MMP review and now this bill, that consensus has broken down.

I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which conducted the inquiry into the 2011 general election. It was my first experience of a select committee inquiry. Although we got bogged down at times and it took probably longer than it should have, I was very proud of the report that the committee produced. There was genuine cross-party consensus for the recommendations in that report, and they were good recommendations. This bill before the House today, as it was originally drafted, was based on those recommendations, and that is why we in the Green Party supported it. In particular, we strongly support the move to full online enrolment, which removes the considerable barrier for people to get on to the electoral roll and vote. Under the status quo, although it is possible to update your enrolment details online, you still have to sign and send back a form to complete that enrolment process. For many people, the envelope gets lost in the pile on the kitchen table, gets lost in the mail or the car, or somehow falls through the cracks, and it does not happen. So allowing full online enrolment using the RealMe electronic identification system would allow the full process to happen online. It is a really positive step towards maximising enrolment and voter turnout. We continue to strongly support it.

We also strongly support the provisions in this bill to tighten rules around the disclosure of donations—specifically, the new rule that loans to a political party or candidate will be treated as donations and disclosed accordingly. This removes the loophole that allowed donors to call their donation a loan, in order to avoid disclosure, but then to forgive that loan after the election, meaning that it never got declared. Removing that loophole is a really important step towards transparency and open government.

There are a number of other smaller changes in the bill that we also strongly support. But although we consider that much of this bill is positive, we are unable to support it at its third reading today. There are two reasons for this. The first is the deletion of the clauses that would have modernised the use of the EasyVote card to streamline processes on election day. Secondly, and more important, is the inclusion of a requirement that a voter must make a verbal confirmation of their identity before they can vote. Both of these changes were made by the select committee, despite the fact that the very same select committee, albeit with slightly different membership, had already agreed to the recommendations of the 2011 election inquiry. So, effectively, the committee reversed some of its own recommendations. I was not present for the committee’s deliberations as I was on parental leave during the last part of last year, but my understanding is that these changes were made out of an apparent concern that the use of the EasyVote card on election day could contribute to an increased risk of electoral fraud. We have heard a little bit about that in this debate so far. This assumption is simply wrong. The EasyVote card, as members know, is a card listing the voter’s name, address, and the line and page number where their name appears on the electoral roll. It makes it easier and faster for polling booth staff to find them on the roll and to issue their voting papers on election day. For voters for whom English is a second language or who have speech, hearing, or other impairments, it makes the process of voting much easier and less intimidating, because all they need to do is hand over a card and their voting paper can be issued, with minimal opportunity for stress or confusion.

It is not an ID card. Yes, it is theoretically possible that somebody could take an EasyVote card belonging to another voter along to a polling booth and use it to cast a vote in their name. It is equally possible that someone intent on doing this could go along to a polling booth and give someone else’s name and address. The risk is neither increased nor decreased by the use of the EasyVote card. The one example of electoral fraud that has been raised by Scott Simpson in this debate is not relevant to this debate for two reasons. First of all, it applied to local elections, not a general election, and, second of all, and more important, it was picked up by the processes in place to check these things, and subsequently that person was prosecuted. In the minute number of cases when this happens, it gets picked up by the Electoral Commission. If, for example, somebody took someone else’s EasyVote card along to a booth and tried to cast a vote in that person’s name, it gets picked up when the genuine voter goes later on and casts their own vote and it is found that someone else has already voted in their name. There are systems in place. It hardly ever happens, but when it does, the Electoral Commission has robust processes in place to act and to deal with it.

The proposal in this bill as it was originally drafted was to make the EasyVote card scannable so that the Electoral Commission could use it as a record of a vote cast and electronically cross the voter off the roll more quickly and easily—in fact, making it more easy to pick up instances of fraud. That was a sensible change that would not have changed the use of the EasyVote card, from the voter’s perspective, at all. Therefore, the fear that this bill would lead to the greater use of the EasyVote card and that this, in turn, could lead to greater electoral fraud is simply wrong. At best, this was an erroneous fear that should have been corrected and people reassured at the select committee. At worst, it is a deliberate red herring. Either way, I and a number of our Labour colleagues realised this mistake and offered Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage to reinstate the clauses related to the EasyVote card and allow the Electoral Commission to proceed with its plans to improve its back-end processes on election day. These Supplementary Order Papers were rejected, with no rationale provided by the Government, and that is a real shame.

Furthermore, seemingly in response to the same fear about fraud, a new requirement has been introduced that voters must verbally confirm their identity to polling booth staff when they hand over their EasyVote card. This is unnecessary. Again, it neither increases nor decreases the risk of fraud, because somebody set on committing electoral fraud could simply say that they were the person in whose name they were seeking to vote. But for those voters whom I mentioned earlier—those with impairments or those for whom English is a second language, or those for whom simply getting out to vote and engaging with the polling booth staff is a scary prospect for whatever reason—this adds a barrier to voting. It is a completely unnecessary and useless barrier, but it is a barrier none the less.

For some voters, the outcome of having to give that verbal confirmation could be that they choose not to engage with the system and that they choose not to vote. Some members of this House will roll their eyes and say that it is hardly a major barrier. This bill, indeed, provides for voters to use a gesture—a poorly conceived inclusion—to cover voters with impairments if they are unable to verbally confirm, but I put it to those members that we, as largely able, politically engaged, high-status individuals in this House, are in no position to judge what barriers those marginalised citizens might experience when it comes to voting. It should be our role to ensure that our electoral law makes it as easy as possible for anyone and everyone who is eligible to vote to cast their vote, and that means not adding a useless and, frankly, quite insulting requirement to verbally or by gesture confirm one’s identity at the polling booth. If even a handful of voters choose not to exercise their right to vote because of this additional barrier that we are putting in place today, then that will reflect very badly indeed on this House.

It is chiefly for this reason that the Green Party has withdrawn our support for this bill at its third reading. We continue to support many of its provisions, especially for online enrolment and for the disclosure of loans as donations, but we cannot support any legislation in this House that adds for some of our most marginalised citizens a barrier to voting, and we are disappointed that this House did not see fit to work together constructively to remove that barrier before we reached the third reading today.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take great pleasure in taking a brief call on the third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill, put forward by our excellent, diligent, and incredibly hard-working Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to serve on the Justice and Electoral Committee, chaired by the member for Coromandel, Scott Simpson, as we have gone through this legislation, which is crucial to our precious democracy in New Zealand. I have served overseas, working for the New Zealand Government, in countries that do not have a stable and well-managed system of voting where you have integrity and measures to prevent fraud. I have seen people fighting on the streets in countries where elections are not free and democratic. It is very important that we protect the integrity of our voting system and take reasonable steps to make sure that fraud is not a feature of our country’s democracy, so I fully support the position that the Government has taken.

I should also point out that at the select committee there was unanimous support for retaining EasyVote cards as an administrative measure for the convenience of the electoral officials—to make sure it is quick and efficient to count a vote—but I absolutely oppose any idea that an EasyVote card can be, should be, or is capable of being used as a means of verifying someone’s identity or their entitlement to be able to vote. So it was a little bit rich to be lectured by previous speakers on this measure, given that not only did all parties in the select committee unanimously support that recommendation—there was an absolute consensus on the committee—but also this legislation does not remove EasyVote cards, which was the implication in some of the previous speakers’ speeches.

In specific terms, there are other measures that this bill implements that will be hugely positive, such as party donations and the treatment of those. Interest-free loans that have some form of non-commercial terms being included as a donation is very positive, because in the last few weeks we have seen how donations for electoral purposes, be it at general elections or, indeed, campaign donations received by the Leader of the Opposition, can be seen to be difficult, non-transparent, or problematic. Mr Cunliffe has yet to tell us who his two secret donors were who donated to his slightly tricky trust that he maintained. We would be very interested to learn, Mr Cunliffe, who those two donors were, but this Electoral Amendment Bill makes sure that for donations to parties in a general election, those transparency provisions are in place.

I have one final point. I do take exception to the implication from Holly Walker, the previous speaker, in respect of the Supplementary Order Paper that Mojo Mathers put forward regarding assistance to people with a disability or who perhaps have English as a second language, that those people are not being properly catered for. Once again, there was unanimous support at the select committee for clause 24 of the bill, which not only provides for people with a disability being able to use gestures to indicate their name on the roll but also provides for people who have a disability or English as a second language to take a support person to assist them when they are casting their vote. I have a mother who is hearing impaired and needs, in some cases, some assistance when it comes to interacting with people verbally. I absolutely support this bill as it stands. It will not interfere with her democratic right to cast her vote. Those provisions are in place and I hope the New Zealand public has not been misled by the incorrect statements of the Opposition.

What is the most important part of this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill? It does a lot of good things, and I supported most of them at the Justice and Electoral Committee, but the most important part is, in fact, the part that is not there at all. We in New Zealand First are now opposing this bill, not because of what it says and not because of what is in it but because of what it leaves out. The bill omits the need to end the coat-tailing provisions in the Electoral Act. It is high time that simply winning an electorate seat should not result in coat-tailing for whatever low percentage of the party vote currently enables a tiny and inconsequential party, such as ACT or United Future, to bring additional members into Parliament. This is a back-door method of getting around the 5 percent threshold for list seat representation. Polling shows that the great majority of people find this to be unacceptable and they want it changed. 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 or not.

We know, of course, why this is not being addressed, and that is because the National Party desperately needs the likes of the one-seat wonders such as ACT and United Future, each with an electorate seat plus any additional seats they may be able to bring in through coat-tailing. It is the only way that National will have any hope of keeping the Treasury benches in September. The Government knows that neither ACT nor United Future has any hope at all of achieving 5 percent of the list vote, so Mr Key and his party will ensure that the several additional seats that National will need at the election in September will be achieved by National gifting an electorate seat to these tiny and otherwise irrelevant parties, and then hoping for as many coat-tailing seats as possible.

This Government is prepared to gerrymander the system and to do whatever is necessary to get enough seats in this way. So National obviously has no genuine respect for democracy in New Zealand—by failing to make the changes needed in this bill to bring an end to the hugely unpopular coat-tailing provisions. These provisions are making a mockery of the MMP system, which has otherwise worked well in New Zealand. The Government’s claims that there was no consensus for the changes needed are utterly vacuous because it knows and we all know that no genuine attempt was made to achieve any consensus.

Now John Key is further attempting to compromise the MMP system by claiming as an excuse for an early election that a period of up to 6 or 8 weeks is needed for negotiations to form a new MMP Government. He attempts to blame Winston Peters for this, but the truth is that the last time Winston Peters was involved in such negotiations, the actual period was less than 2 weeks, in which New Zealand First was involved for just 3 days. So the Prime Minister is simply not telling the truth about this, or, alternatively, he just does not know, which seems a more likely explanation.

Another thing that he and his Government are not telling the truth about on electoral-related matters is the constitutional review. This was a deal done after the last election to get the Māori Party into a coalition. The review then actually happened over the last 2 years, but despite lip service being paid to consultation, very few people actually knew that it was happening. But the most interesting thing is that the review panel has made absolutely no substantive recommendations. All it seems to say is that the conversation should continue—a conversation with practically nobody because the vast majority of the public did not even know that it was happening. Why is it that the report says only that the conversation should continue? It is clearly because the real decisions about the New Zealand constitution will be left until after this year’s election. What will happen then will depend on National getting the minor party seats it needs, especially those, of course, of the Māori Party. Its price will be to push through the constitutional changes then, which few people want, including the incorporation of the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, aimed at giving privileges to some that the rest of us will not have.

So there is a secret agenda here, and it is the gerrymandering of the electoral provisions concerning coat-tailing—which are not changed, as they should be, by the amendments in this bill—that makes all that possible and indeed likely. I see this bill as just the beginning of National’s gerrymandering. National will do whatever it takes to keep the Treasury benches, and it takes the compromising of the electoral system to do it in the ways that I have described. For those reasons, this bill cannot be supported, not because of what is in it—there is nothing too much wrong with that—but especially because of what is not in it.

The select committee’s and the officials’ recommendations about the changes needed to the broadcasting rules, which I addressed in detail in previous speeches, are not addressed at all in the bill as it has finally emerged. But, most important, the question of the coat-tailing provisions allowing list seats to arise from a party getting as few as only one electorate seat is also not addressed at all. It is bizarre that in an MMP system the winning of an electorate seat should result in the coat-tailing of list seats. The two things are not connected. The concept in our electoral system is to have either electorate seats or list seats. These two things should not be connected. One should not give rise to the acquiring of the other. That is fundamentally wrong. It has got to be changed. The people of New Zealand want it changed. This Government has seen to it that it will not change, for only its own narrow political interests. If the people of this country see through it, they will see to it that this Government does not get re-elected at the next election, and they should particularly make sure that seats like Ōhāriu and Epsom are not used for the gerrymandering machinations of the National Party. That also is fundamentally wrong, and it is time the people of those electorates put it right.

The omissions in this bill totally compromise the integrity of the Electoral Act. The bill does not meet public expectations and it does not meet the demands of the public interest. This bill should not pass.

I rise to take a short call in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I want to refer, firstly, to what the Hon Maryan Street said. In this regard, I actually have to agree wholeheartedly. What she said last week was that this is electoral law reform, this is the modernisation of our electoral legislation, and it should enjoy the support of the House. Well, actually, she is absolutely right, but we have a select committee process in this country that I think is one to be admired and respected. In that select committee process we had the Justice and Electoral Committee, comprising all the parties—the Green Party, the New Zealand First Party, and Labour—and we had what is called a unanimous report back. We have this copy here that says: “As reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee”, “text inserted unanimously”, and “text deleted unanimously”.

We have had a bit of criticism about the EasyVote card. The bill says: “We consider that the proposed provision for a new process known operationally as EasyVote Express would in effect lower the threshold for casting a vote, increasing the potential for fraud …”. The “we” that is referred to in the select committee report, which was agreed to, was the Hon Maryan Street, the honourable Denis O’Rourke, and the honourable Holly Walker—well, it was David Clendon on her behalf. That is why we have a select committee process. Something obviously happened between the report back and later where they changed their minds. Maybe it is because it is election year and silly things get said and silly things get done. I am really disappointed that other parties are playing politics with our election law, because I do not think that is acceptable.

The other thing that I am disappointed about is the Hon Maryan Street. Do you know what she said? She said that the convention that all parties—or at least the vast majority of parties—would support changes to legislation was one that had not been broken until now. We all remember the Electoral Finance Act. It was broken then and it was a disgrace then. At least now we have a select committee process where all the parties are represented. They worked together collaboratively for some law that is actually an improvement, and now they change their minds. There is a word for that. Unfortunately, they are a disgrace to our select committee process, but election year does actually throw up funny things. However, this is good law. It is modernising the electoral law and I support it.

I listened in amazement to the speaker Kate Wilkinson—who could not go 3 minutes on this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, out of the 10 minutes allocated—when she said that this was a case of the Opposition playing politics. I will tell you who is playing politics. The party that is playing politics is the party that has removed the EasyVote provisions. That has made it harder for ordinary people to participate in the political system. That is playing politics. The party that fails to follow the Electoral Commission’s advice on removing the coat-tailing provisions that allow that National Party to rort our electoral system for its own self-interest—that is playing politics.

The third thing about playing politics is that this bill, in the midst of the scandals enveloping Judith Collins over Oravida, and John Banks over Kim Dotcom, does not do one thing to improve the transparency of money for favours or trying to make our system open, transparent, and honest. That party is the party that is playing politics with this system.

Normally with electoral legislation we try to deal with it in a different way. We deal with it in a different way because it is fundamental to the operation of democracy, and we deal with it in a different way because this is an instance where legislators are passing laws in which they have vested interests. That cannot be avoided, but what you can do is two things. First, you can endeavour to get bipartisanship, which this Government has failed to do, because every party on this side of the House is opposed to that party rorting legislation. The second thing you can do is you can try to get independent and objective advice on the laws you are passing. That is why we have got the independent Electoral Commission. So one—just one—National speaker should get to their hind legs and say why National ignored comprehensively the advice of the independent Electoral Commission when it comes to the rorting of our system through coat-tailing.

I want to deal with each of those three areas now—first of all, the EasyVote card. The EasyVote card was recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is chaired by whom? It is chaired by Scott Simpson, who just spoke as an apologist for the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, and her ripping out and stripping out the EasyVote provisions. Scott Simpson actually chaired the committee that recommended in the first instance that the EasyVote system was good and should be extended. But it is not all Scott Simpson’s fault. He is just a pawn. He does what his Minister tells him.

The Minister of Justice, in her first reading speech on this very bill, said that putting in the EasyVote provisions was an important change in this legislation. That is what Judith Collins said in the first reading debate. Now she has stripped them out, and National members have not given a single rational justification for why they are making it harder for people to cast a vote. Scott Simpson talked about fraud, but in his committee’s report he said that electoral fraud is dealt with efficiently and is very rare, at 0.01 percent. He said that we find the people, they lose their vote, and if they are compos mentis, they are prosecuted for doing it. No excuse at all. Do you know the real excuse?

The real reason why National has stripped out the EasyVote provisions is that the National Party has close, close connections with the right wing of the Republican Party. It is called the Tea Party. National and the Tea Party are just like this. The Tea Party learnt one thing—the more people who participate in the vote, the worse the result is for right-wing conservative organisations.

💬 Scott Simpson: Must’ve been an awful caucus.

Listen to that again, Scott Simpson. The more people who participate, the worse the result for the National Party, and that is why it has stripped out those provisions. National members are not interested in widespread participation in the electoral system; they are interested in stopping people from voting and allowing only the wealthy and the powerful, and those they influence, to vote. That is why National has stripped out the EasyVote provisions that were originally put in to this legislation. That, frankly, is a disgrace.

The second thing is National’s failure to adopt the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on coat-tailing. Coat-tailing is what happens when a party does not reach the 5 percent threshold but gets one MP elected in an electoral seat. That allows the party to bring in more members as MPs, proportionate to its vote. That is all very well but for one thing. The National Party discovered how it could rort this system. The seat of Epsom is a safe Tory seat. It does not come any safer. And in each of the last three elections, the National Party has gifted that seat to the right-wing extreme party in this Parliament, the ACT Party, so that it can coat-tail other MPs in.

I will tell you something. It is not just the Electoral Commission that said that that was a disgrace and that it should not happen. The public, in every single public opinion poll, has rejected coat-tailing comprehensively, yet National persists in allowing it to happen because it legalises the rort in the political system that enables it to cling on to power. That is why it ignored the independent Electoral Commission, and, frankly, that also is a disgrace.

The third thing is the lack of transparency over donations. In any political system, you have to worry when political parties and politicians get donations, particularly big donations, from wealthy vested interests. That then distorts the system, and the party reflects the interests of the few rather than the interests of the many. We have seen that happen.

The National Party operates something called the Waitematā Trust. The Waitematā Trust money-launders millions of dollars into the National Party’s coffers in a way that you cannot tell where that money came from. Do you know what percentage of donations to the National Party are identified by the donor? It is 7 percent. Ninety-three percent of the donors to the National Party are hidden. The National Party knows who they are and that they will return the favour, but the public do not know and they cannot scrutinise what the National Party is doing, why, and for whom. That is a disgrace.

There was one occasion on which the National Party was transparent. It did not mean to be. It was the Don Brash email leaks. The whole of the correspondence of the then leader of the National Party was leaked to the media —I think by Bill English, actually, whom he had deposed—and we saw for the first time what was happening in the National Party.

Let me read one tiny extract from a book called The Hollow Men, which is authenticated by the emails that were leaked. Listen to this—talking about the National Party—“The party was not only secretive and deceptive about its election finances; some of its activities appear to have breached both the electoral laws and the parliamentary spending rules and it seems to have been party to others’ breaches in election legislation.”

The National Party, time and again, rorts the public, because it pretends to represent the average New Zealander but is funded by the most wealthy people in this country, and it returns the favour. That is what Oravida is about. That is why the Minister of Justice is in trouble right now in the House today. That is why John Banks from the ACT Party is being prosecuted under the electoral law provisions of this country. There is a lack of transparency—it knows where it got the money from, but it does not want the public to know. That is an absolute disgrace.

So, in summary, what we see in this bill is a lack of transparency and no ability to scrutinise what the wealthy and the powerful get in return for their donations. We have a lack of integrity with the removal of the EasyVote card, which is designed to increase public participation and make democracy stronger. We see also a failure to adopt a provision that would stop the rorting of our democratic system.

We expected so much from this bill. We were prepared to work with the National Party to get good electoral legislation to strengthen democracy. But there is no way that this Labour Party can support what the National Government is doing in this legislation, which is not about the good operation of democracy but about rorting the system so that National can increase its grip on power. That is a disgrace.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is interesting that the Hon Phil Goff talks about democracy and the right of democracy, and yet he will not talk about the Electoral Finance Act. That was not a right of democracy. That was not democracy in action. That is why he bows his head in shame; it is because he knows that when he talks about pointing fingers over here, he has got four fingers pointing back at him.

💬 Scott Simpson: That’s right.

That is right. But, anyway, he knows that he lives with that shame. The reality is we have an electoral process that has democracy. It is called a select committee. The Electoral Amendment Bill has gone through the Justice and Electoral Committee. As one of the longest-serving members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I can say that at one stage there was very robust debate. This is where it got to. It got to the point where even the Hon Lianne Dalziel drew a line in the sand. It was around the issues of closing the electoral roll 2 weeks out—2 weeks out—from the election. I can tell you this: there was wailing and the gnashing of teeth, there was sackcloth, and there were ashes. There was a lot of robust debate. We got to the point where we said: “Look, let’s keep the status quo.”

There was another point about the rosettes and the ribbons and the balloons. Again, that was another difficult issue; robust debate was had there. People were drawing the line around those issues as well. We got to the point where we became unanimous, to the point where we agreed with all things. I also want to acknowledge the honourable member over there, Denis O’Rourke. The confirmation of identity, the insertion of new clause 24 amending section 167, came from Denis. What a great and a brilliant idea. At one time in the select committee, he introduced this and said: “Look, we should do this”. Denis does not talk about this, but, Denis, this is your proud work over here.

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

I want to acknowledge that, Mr O’Rourke. Thank you. But this is the thing I want to finally say on this: this has been a robust debate and process over a long period of time. We got to the point where we unanimously agreed with all the provisions that were included in this bill, even around the confirmation of identity. Can I say this: with all due respect, we know the importance of constituents, of New Zealand voters, making a vote. There is no issue where there is a barrier here from either the use of EasyVote cards or even the confirmation of identity, introduced by Mr Denis O’Rourke, where you will simply go up to the polling booth and be asked this: “Is this your name? Are you Denis O’Rourke?”. All he needs to say is “Yes” or nod his head. That is all there is. There is nothing there that is included to be a barrier in this regard for the voting of democracy for all New Zealanders.

Can I finally say that this is a bill that has got to the point where we on the committee believed that it was unanimous right across the board—even New Zealand First, even the Greens, and even the Labour Party. There is only one conclusion that one can come to, that is that they fell asleep at the wheel. People out there need to know this. Confirmation needs—for deliberation on each of these bills—to go back to each and every caucus. So the Labour caucus, the New Zealand First caucus, and even the Greens caucus would have had to have given confirmation and would have said to the members of the select committee: “We’ve seen the bill. You’ve reported back to us. We are good to go. We give it the green light, thumbs up; go to the select committee and vote unanimously.”

So where did democracy go wrong? Why are the speeches from all of these parties disagreeing with where we are now? This is a bill that has reached democracy. Unfortunately, it is now in the realm of politics with the Opposition. I commend this bill to the House.

I recognise the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway.

It is like looking in the mirror, Mr Assistant Speaker! Look, the people of New Zealand are used to the National Party putting its own vested interests and its own self-serving interests ahead of the best interests of the New Zealand public. They are used to the National Party putting its own interests ahead of the interests of the people of New Zealand. They have seen it before. They saw it with the Exclusive Brethren, with its shady back-room dealings with the National Party and not wanting to be transparent about its funding of its own crusade against the Labour Government, and with the fact that that was an agreed strategy both with Don Brash and with John Key at the time. People remember that happening when the National Party put its interests—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: And Joyce.

And Steven Joyce. That is right. Mr Goff is right. Steven Joyce was involved when the Exclusive Brethren cosied up to the National Party. So people remember that happening. They remember the Skycity deal, where people who had good relationships with people in Cabinet were able to organise a deal that was in the interests of that Australian-owned gambling company Skycity. They remember the Warner Bros deal, where people who work in the film industry no longer have the same working rights as people who work in other industries in New Zealand, because of a cosy relationship between Warner Bros and people in Cabinet.

They remember all the other deals, and they will remember the day that the National Party passed legislation that does two things. It makes it harder for people to cast their vote, particularly people at the margins of society, and it fails to address the electoral rort that the National Party benefits from, which is the coat-tailing provision that allows it to do deals with other political parties, which are now essentially controlled by the National Party, in order to stitch up additional seats for the coalition that the National Party wants to put together. That is the way this party operates. It does not operate in an open, transparent, and democratic fashion; it operates in a fashion that is behind closed doors, that is made up of dodgy deals, and that is done in the interests of the National Party and its mates. That is always its first priority, put far, far ahead of the interests of New Zealand. [Interruption]

Scott Simpson has repeatedly said to me and to other speakers from this side of the House: “Tell us about the Electoral Finance Act.” Labour supported the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act. It was not the best piece of legislation. But—

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: You brought it in too!

Listen—no, no, just be quiet for a second and listen. The values behind the Electoral Finance Act were the values of transparency and democracy and open government, and they came from the deal that the National Party did with the Exclusive Brethren, with people putting promoter statements on their material with the addresses of empty lots where nobody lived and where nobody had their offices. It was done to hide that money that was funding the National Party, just like the Waitematā Trust is used to hide the money that funds the National Party. There is no belief in transparency from that party. There is no belief in democracy from that party.

If it believed in democracy, it would follow the recommendations of the Review of the MMP Voting System. The MMP review came out of the promise that the National Party made to New Zealanders that if they voted for MMP, there would be a review and there would be changes made to our MMP system at the margins, particularly things like the coat-tailing provision and where the party vote threshold is. New Zealanders spoke out. New Zealanders made it absolutely clear: 71 percent of New Zealanders want to get rid of the coat-tailing provisions. The MMP review—an apolitical review; it had no political persuasion whatsoever—recommended to Parliament that we get rid of the coat-tailing provisions.

But that is not in the National Party’s interests. That is not what serves the National Party and the wealthy people who fund the National Party behind secret trusts. That is not in their best interests, so they will not do it. Judith Collins, now famous for being just another National Minister who does things for her mates and in her best interests, not the public’s best interests, blocked the advancing of the recommendations of the MMP review, and that is what this National Party will be remembered for and what it is doing with this bill.

It is with a real sense of disappointment that I rise to speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill. I am particularly disappointed that National has reviewed and rejected the clause in the original bill with regard to having an EasyVote card. An EasyVote card would have brought voting into the 21st century. It would have modernised it, streamlined it, and made the process so much more efficient and user-friendly for everyone. It was the recommendation of the independent Electoral Commission, and it seems incredible that the Justice and Electoral Committee rejected that.

Not only did it reject the EasyVote card as a way of confirming your identity, it has established an extra barrier, making it harder for people to vote. This barrier basically says that “An elector who applies to vote must—(a) verbally … confirm his or her name; and (b) give … any other particulars [required] to find the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is a barrier to many people. It is barrier for people with a hearing impairment, it is a barrier to those who use New Zealand Sign Language, and it is a barrier to those with speech impediments. It is very, very disappointing that the National Government has refused to adopt Supplementary Order Paper 416 put forward by Maryan Street, which would have reinstated the EasyVote card as a way of confirming your identity. That is one that we supported strongly.

This clause that requires verbal confirmation of identity, or any clause in any legislation that requires someone to give verbal confirmation of their identity, needs to be ringing alarm bells in any select committee process. We have over 6,000 people in New Zealand who use sign language as their primary mode of communication, and that needs to be recognised explicitly and considered in every piece of legislation that goes through the select committee process.

There is an assumption that everyone in New Zealand communicates verbally, but that is not the case. Some of us use sign language, and some of us have to type on to iPads and use other ways of communicating. There is a provision in the bill, though, that says that the elector may confirm their identity by a “gesture”. That language is incredibly disrespectful. What does a “gesture” mean? If someone signs their name in New Zealand Sign Language, is that a “gesture”? Will the returning officer actually understand what they are doing? Are we going to have sign language interpreters at every polling booth? And requiring someone who needs support to bring along a support person goes against the very spirit of being able to cast an independent vote. They should be able to engage in the political process independently. That is what the Government signed up to when it signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which it supported, moving towards greater independence for people with disabilities. This bill moves us backwards by saying that it is OK to just require people to bring along a support person.

It is not easy for lots of people to engage in the political process or to get to the polling booth, and this is yet another barrier for some of the most disenfranchised and marginalised people in our society. I am very disappointed that that has not been rectified, as it should have been at the Committee of the whole House, when the Government was given the opportunity to rectify this error by the select committee.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take a short call on this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill. What I do not get is whatever happened to people standing by their word? From reading everything that I have read on this bill, and hearing the discussions and deliberations that have gone on, the 11 recommendations were unanimously agreed to by all of the Justice and Electoral Committee members. So where are the Opposition members standing by their word on this bill and supporting it? We are not taking out the EasyVote card; it is OK as it is. I can tell you now that it disappoints me that Opposition members have gone against their word of support for this bill.

This bill is an excellent bill, and it has been delivered by an outstanding Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. I commend this bill to the House.