Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill, Electoral Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in Committee for the consideration of the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill. I call Tim Macindoe.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Oh, sorry, no. No, I am standing up to leave. I beg your pardon.

It is hard to beat that last contribution! I have got two questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, in respect of the Electoral Amendment Bill. Firstly, I would like the Minister to describe for the House the trend in enrolment over recent elections and to confirm for the House that at the time of the last election there were approximately 10 percent of New Zealanders of voting age who were not enrolled and, therefore, could not vote. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just not clear on who I am meant to be addressing—given that we did not have a Minister in the chair, but we do now, the Hon Mark Mitchell.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Momentarily.

Thank you. Given that approximately 10 percent of New Zealanders were not enrolled at the last election despite being of voting age, I want to know whether that trend, as I understand it, is increasing a little, and whether the Minister accepts that this is partly a consequence of lower rates of homeownership in New Zealand. There are more people moving from house to house, more people in transient accommodation—putting aside the people who are in no accommodation. Is this one of the reasons why those people are not enrolled, and if that is the case—and I believe it is the case—why is it that we are not devising other ways to maintain the rolls more fulsomely so that we can maintain rates of democratic participation in New Zealand, which are on the slide, particularly amongst the young?

In particular, I want the Minister’s response as to why it is that we cannot have on-the-day enrolment. I cannot see why, in this day and age, people should not be able to turn up—they have all got a driver’s licence or a credit card or some other form of identification—and enrol. I would have thought that if it is good enough to use a driver’s licence as a form of identification for so many other things, a driver’s licence should be enough to enrol on the day to vote. So that is my first question. Why is it that we are not doing that?

Secondly, I still do not understand why we are not saving money by using the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) records as the basis for our electoral roll. Virtually everyone in New Zealand has an IRD number. Everyone who is in work has one—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Not all of them can vote.

Not all of them are entitled to vote—no, of course. That is obvious. But overseas, Mr Woodhouse, the IRD record number is the record number that is the basis of the electoral roll, because you have got everyone captured within it, and you then just have to exclude those people who have IRD numbers and are not eligible to vote, which is a much smaller task than actually forming a separate roll of everyone who is already listed in the IRD system. You know, at the moment everyone who is in work has an IRD number, everyone who is a superannuitant has an IRD number, and anyone who is on any class of benefit has an IRD number. In truth, virtually every New Zealander has an IRD number. What they do overseas, Minister, is they use their equivalent of the IRD number. They sometimes put a year of birth in it to minimise voter fraud, and that is the basis for their electoral system.

💬 Hon Annette King: That might let people vote.

Well, that is right. As Annette King said, it might enable people to vote, which is actually meant to be the purpose of the system that we have for electoral rolls. So why is it that the Electoral Amendment Bill is going to persist with this antiquated system where 10 percent of New Zealanders are not enrolled on the day, and where we know that because of lower rates of homeownership and the increased transience of the population, the people who maintain the rolls are having more and more difficulty keeping up with the people who are on the move?

💬 Hon Annette King: Keen to get their tax, aren’t they, but not to let them vote.

Well, that is right. Yes, they are keen to get their tax, and the Inland Revenue Department seems to be a lot more effective at keeping up to date with people than the electoral system seems to be able to be. So I cannot understand why we waste money, I think, on having these two parallel systems when, in actual fact, we should have one system through the IRD number that actually has an add-on to make sure that the people who are not entitled to vote—

💬 Hon Annette King: What a great idea. What’s wrong with that?

I think it is such a simple idea. I know it is used overseas. It is not a novel idea but it is an idea that we in the Labour Party have been talking about for a while.

Ah—

💬 Clare Curran: Clare Curran.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): —Clare Curran. Oh, sorry.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, my goodness! She’s only been here nearly 9 years.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, before we get too disparaging about the Chair, we should remember that I have the ability to get my own back later on, if the member is to seek a call. [Interruption] The House will understand that I am expecting some honourable member to seek leave for all these matters to be heard together. However, we are waiting for a certain party of a certain hue to make up its mind—ah, there we go.

I seek leave for all parts of the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill to be debated as one question but voted on separately.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to clarify—these are two separate bills and the member is seeking leave for both of the bills to be debated in one debate, is that correct?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): For both bills, in all parts.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Yes, there is objection. I seek leave for the provisions in each of the bills to be considered as one debate. So there will be two debates: one on all of the provisions in the first bill and one on all of the provisions in the second bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I now seek clarification that the bill that we are now considering is the Electoral Amendment Bill?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No. It is the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill. Well, just to clarify for the House, the point is that the honourable member David Parker, who has just spoken was addressing both bills and so that was the understanding he had. We did not quite have our protocols down correctly, obviously because there was some issue.

💬 Hon Annette King: Give him another go.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): He can seek another call, and he has got up to four.

💬 Hon Annette King: A free call. A free call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are not going to bargain this out. We will just see how well your whip behaves.

💬 Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I just clarify which bill we are actually speaking on at the moment?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are speaking on the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill and, actually, I had already given you the call. But now you will know what you are speaking about. So I need to state the question first. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.