Electronic Interactions Reform Bill

Thank you very much, Madam Chair Williams. I would like to talk about clause 81. What this is about is this is enabling electronic licences and electronic voting. This is what Part 4 is about. These are amendments to the Conservation Act 1987.

I can’t quite draw a bow between electronic licences and electronic voting and the repeal of these two sections in the Conservation Act, and let me tell you why. What section 26N in the Conservation Act is about is transitional councils. Section 26N in the Conservation Act says, “The Minister shall, by notice in the Gazette, establish—(a) a Transitional New Zealand Fish and Game Council; and (b) a Transitional Fish and Game Council for each region defined under section [of the Act].” It talks about the transitional council and what it’s there for and how it operates.

Section 26O outlines the functions and powers of transitional councils. The only thing in this that I find any reference to in “Enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting” actually is in section 26O(3), where it talks about “Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), each Transitional Fish and Game Council shall—(a) conduct a postal ballot for the first election of members of the Fish and Game Council for [the] region”.

Now, I get that. I mean, we’re moving forward, and a lot of what we’re talking about here is moving from postal to electronic voting, and this is what this whole thing was supposed to be about. But why are we, in this bill—unless I’m reading the wrong piece of legislation here; we are talking about the Conservation Act—moving transitional councils out of Fish & Game councils, or moving the ability for Fish & Game councils to actually appoint a transitional council? I have absolutely no idea. How does this fit into the bill?

I’ve been in this House long enough to know that often in these bills you sneak certain things in because it’s the right thing to do, or something’s outdated, or there’s no other Act that is in fact good enough or relevant enough. But this is totally outside the relevance of what the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill is about, and I don’t know how it has been stuck in there.

The other thing that concerns me—and I don’t know who was on the select committee, but I wasn’t—is that it talks about the fact that “Transitional Fish and Game Councils concerned shall engage the Department for a period of not less than 6 months, on terms and conditions [that must] be mutually agreed, to manage—(a) the area formerly known as the Rotorua Acclimatisation District (except those parts that constitute the Taupo Fishery in that District); and (b) the area formerly known as the Southern Lakes Acclimatisation District.”

Again, I’m not too sure if the area formerly known as the Southern Lakes Acclimatisation District still exists. It may well, but at some point in time in the conservation legislation, we believed that it was necessary, but it’s not even talked about. We’re just getting rid of this in this bill—in an electronic voting bill? Where is the relevance here? Minister, I’m hoping that you can answer this, and what I’m really hoping about—and I’ve seen enough of the former Government do this in my time. What happens is there’s something they want to sneak through under the cover of darkness, hoping—not you, Madam Chair, the former Government, the former National Government—that no one’s going to notice; hoping that no one’s going to notice, it’ll go through the select committee, and no one will submit on it because they’re just not expecting it.

So I have a couple of questions. The first question is: why are we getting rid of transitional councils from Fish & Game? Is there no longer a need for a transitional council? Is there never a time when a transitional council may be needed in the Fish and Game space? Again, if we go to clause 82(2), it repeals section 26Z(2). Section 26Z(2), again, talks about transitional councils—so we’re doing away with them. We’re doing away with transitional Fish & Game councils. What’s that about, and what is the relevance of that to this bill?

The other thing I’d like to talk about is the Wildlife Act. Now, a lot of Subpart 2 is amendments to the Wildlife Act 1953. Again, maybe I’m reading this legislation wrong, maybe it’s been so long, but one of them, for example—clause 86(2) talks about “In section 16(3)(c), before ‘licenses’, insert ‘game’.” I’m looking at 16(3), and what it actually says here is “repealed by section 5(2) of the Wildlife Amendment Act 1996”. There’s no 16(3)(c) here. Again, maybe I’m looking at it wrong—[Time expired]

Just before I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, I just need to put the question again. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve been waiting all night for this call. So Part 4, “Enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting”—I’m particularly interested in the electronic voting side of this, particularly given I wasn’t part of the select committee, so I’m wanting a little bit of detail around that.

Clause 82 of the bill would amend section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987 to enable elections to be conducted by electronic vote as well as by postal voting. I think my questions really are with respect to whether or not a precedent has been set for legislating for electronic voting in the past, or whether or not this is in fact the first. I think it would be really clear to the House why that would be of interest to me, given that there has been lots of discussion about the fact we are in 2017, in the modern age, where when it comes to voting, having to undertake a postal vote or, in the case of general elections, for instance, having to show up to a hall and cast a vote on paper does seem to many to be quite an archaic way of having to exercise, I guess, your democratic right—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I hate to interrupt the Minister, but I do want to remind the Minister that the voting is about the Fish & Game councils. Please ensure that your speech is about that clause in particular, rather than wide ranging.

Thanks, Madam Chair. It is about the Fish & Game councils, but I really want to know the detail behind what they are anticipating with the electronic voting—with respect to members of the Fish & Game councils, whether or not the process has been set up in advance of this or whether the legislation is pre-empting a move to go down the track of electronic voting. That’s where I’m going with that.

I would like to know this because it isn’t just about the Fish & Game councils; it is about other areas where we can anticipate there will be the desire to head towards electronic voting, given, as I said before, that we are in 2017 and so much more is being done online. I’d like to know from the Minister the safety procedures and precautions they have in place, because that’s always the criticism, and those are always the questions that are asked about online or electronic voting—whether or not there are the safety measures in place and what they are. I guess that’s the question that I have, and that’s where I’m heading in terms of the detail around what has already been put in place.

If the case is that, actually, they’re just pre-empting that this is where we’re moving to, then I’d like to know from the Minister what the next steps will be with regard to establishing that system of electronic voting with respect to the Fish & Game councils. I do think there will be other areas watching this space really carefully to see what develops, to see whether or not it works for the Fish & Game councils, and whether or not there is a major shift away from postal voting to the electronic voting that’s being proposed in Subpart 1 in Part 4 of this piece of legislation.

So those are some of the questions that I want to put to the Minister. It does seem to be quite innovative, and she might know whether or not there are other pieces of legislation where electronic voting has already been introduced. I think that would be of interest to the House in general, given that that will be an area that we’ll need to head more in the direction of. So perhaps the Fish & Game councils—and with regard to this bill, that this is actually just setting the scene for future changes that we can expect to happen. If that is the case, then I guess just more of an explanation from the Minister would be of interest to me, and I’m sure of general interest to the House. So it would be great if the Minister could answer those questions.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to respond to some of the questions from my honourable colleagues—the Hon Stuart Nash asked two questions. First of all, he wanted to know why, and if, we were just willy-nilly getting rid of transitional councils. Just to inform the member, around about a hundred years ago, we had acclimatation—climation, climatation? [Interruption] Acclimatisation councils—societies. We had acclimatisation societies, which then—around about 1990—were transitioning through to be the Forest & Game Council, which we’re talking about today. So those transitional councils were in place for less than three years. They no longer exist because now we have Forest & Game. So it’s really a tidy-up around a piece of legislation for something that is no longer required.

He also queried in regard to clause 86, and he went back to the 1953 Wildlife Act and said that he felt the section we were referring to had already been removed. The reality about the amendments inside this piece of legislation is that they are technical amendments. In the Act that we are amending, there were two meanings given to “licence”, so what is happening in this piece of legislation is a piece of clarity around the fact that we are talking about game licences. So it was a bit of an anomaly or a bit of a slip-up in the Act, which we are now amending, and this is to tighten it up. So that’s an answer to Mr Nash on that.

With regard to electronic voting and the discussions around—I take on board the honourable member’s suggestion. It’s a hot topic. It’s a hot topic at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, for example—will nations move to online electronic voting, and so on and so forth—and it is good to have little sections, I suppose, of New Zealand trialling electronic voting. I note that there’s a dual voting opportunity—so, some by post and some by electronic mail.

I will mention, however, to the member—and, quite rightly, it is something we need to watch and see about the restrictions and the opportunities for misuse or hacking. Will people issue themselves a number of fishing licences illegally by hacking into the system? I think it’s something—sorry, they won’t issue themselves licences, I suppose. This is about voting. So, will they elect themselves, through some sort of illegal hacking type of voting, to be on the Fish & Game Council? That’s something I think the council needs to be very wary of. So while that is not a country’s election—so, therefore, the outcome would not be as serious—it’s a way that we can test these mechanisms.

I pick up on the member from the Green Party’s previous contribution around this particular issue and what she suggested, which was hacking into the favourite bird of the year competition. I would have to point out the fact that if the ruru got 113 votes over the takahē at only 855—for a bird that can’t be seen to then get more votes than a bird that can definitely be seen and that is one of our iconic birds, then I think there are questions that do need to be asked around electronic voting, and it’s something we definitely need to keep our eye on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to speak to Part 4, “Enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting”, and, in particular, the Department of Conservation - related amendments, which would facilitate the online sale of game hunting licences and online voting for Fish & Game council elections.

Clause 82 amends section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987, and that’s the conduct of the elections. There were comments made about a view being expressed that the offering of electronic voting could improve participation in the democratic process for Fish & Game councils. The amendment here is a really important one because what it is doing is clarifying that the electronic voting option is available, and it is expressly authorising that there could be both electronic—i.e. online—and paper postal voting to facilitate choice for fish and game licence holders.

Also, while we are modernising these processes and the use of technology, we’re also noting that there is a modernising of the language. It was proposed in the replacement section 26Z(1)(a) that the words “ballot” and “vote” are both used, and that, while “ballot” is a synonym for “vote”, “ballot” is perhaps a less common term and may create some uncertainty as to what it encompasses. So it was considered that “vote” should be used in both places for consistency and to avoid uncertainty, and this entire section is about making it expressly clear that you can either have the postal vote or a combination of postal voting and electronic voting. I think it’s appropriate too that in the drafting of the legislation they have taken it from one sentence and put it into separate subparagraphs to make that absolutely clear.

A reference was made—and I was just going to make a note of caution around what happened in the controversial vote for Bird of the Year this year. I know that we’re talking about Fish & Game, and not Forest and Bird, but there was a lot of controversy about over 100 fraudulent votes that were cast in that, and I think it just highlights that there is the ability to create fake email accounts for purposes of voting, like in that recent Bird of the Year competition. While I was in favour of the white-faced heron receiving those votes, I do think that it does raise the serious point that we need to make sure that this is a safe system, particularly if it’s extended beyond the purposes outlined in this bill.

Of course, I must take every opportunity to also put in a plug there for my region and for Northland and the fact that we don’t have ultra-fast broadband in all of our communities and we would be disadvantaged in this process. So while we are moving towards the modernisation of the technology that we use to participate in these processes—I think that’s fantastic—you cannot forget about the regions and their ability to actually utilise this legislation. With that, I commend the bill.

It’s a privilege to be able to speak on Part 4 of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. But I might just add, Minister Martin, that, in terms of technology, we’re behind the eight ball again. I’ll get to that in a second.

Because it is 9.15 p.m., for the benefit of the committee, I want to talk about clause 82 of the bill, which would amend what the previous speaker, Willow-Jean Prime, spoke about—section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987. If we go to clause 82, in terms of “Section 26Z amended”, it goes to replacement subsection (1)(a) and it talks about “using either of the following methods … (i) postal voting; (ii) a combination of electronic voting and postal voting;”.

I wasn’t part of the Government Administration Committee, so what’s the discussion in terms of method of electronic voting? Is it taking a picture of your paper and texting it? I know from my children, if I send an email to them, I sometimes have to ring them to say, “Check your email.” In the discussions previously, before the break, there were mentions of the Millennials that no longer are using emails. So that’s where my comment about—that we are behind the eight ball, electronically. If it is to make our life easier and simpler, then maybe we should look at what it is, actually, when we say “a combination of electronic voting”. What is that? Honourable Minister, if you could answer that question: what does that look like?

As I sat here and I heard members talk about the bird—I know that this is not about that voting in terms of your favourite bird.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, it’s not about the bird.

I myself voted for pūkeko, and I made my kids vote for pūkeko, as well, because pūkeko are from Tonga, where I’m from—they’re also native there.

I know that this talks about that we can talk about Part 4, from clause 80 through to clause 93. I was going to ask a question but I actually answered my own question. But I thought I might ask the committee to share my learning as I sat here and listened through the discussions on the previous part, Part 3. I really want to talk about clause 84(3), where it actually says, “In section 2(1)”—of the Wildlife Act 1953—“insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: ‘game licence’ means a licence to hunt or kill game issued by the Department or a Fish and Game Council under regulations made under this Act”.

English is my second language, so I’m sharing with the House how I learned, just by sitting here and reading this, that later on it refers to that—in terms of clause 93, amending section 72, it talks about “(1) In section 72(2)(a),(b), and (c) and (3A)(a) and (b), replace ‘licences to hunt or kill game’ with ‘game licences’.” So that’s what I learnt: OK, that’s why there was a definition of what “game licence” is, and later on in parts of the clauses, from clause 80 through to clause 93, it actually has been changed throughout the clauses. So I just wanted to share with the committee my learning in terms of that.

I just want to ask the Minister: if you could please answer the question as to what is a “combination of electronic voting”—what does that look like? Is it a text photo of your voting paper, or is it an email? If you have some clarification on that, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much. I’m glad I took a call on that. Malo.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am a little bit nervous, following after that speaker, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, and the detail that she was able to provide on this piece of legislation, but let me have a crack.

I am excited about speaking about Part 4—I’ve been waiting all day to do this—and in particular, two particular parts. I want to talk about the proposal around the introduction of electronic voting, and I also want to talk about clause 84(1). But I’ll start with the first clause: clause 81, “Sections 26N and 26O and cross-heading repealed”. I do want to ask about this—and the point was made by my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash earlier today—and I just wanted to make the point that there might be some concern amongst particularly those in our rural communities around how we might be extending beyond that of allowing those to participate in electronic voting, and the impact that we might have on the transitional councils. I take the Minister’s point that they may no longer be relevant. However, I do urge the Minister that in the communications, once this bill—this marvellous bill—is passed, we just make some effort into reassuring those who have had a long history with the Fish & Game Council that we might not be exceeding the brief when we’re wanting to go about doing this.

In clause 82(1), we are replacing section 26Z(1) with the following: “(1) The election of members of Fish and Game Councils must be conducted—(a) using either of the following methods of voting: (i) postal voting: (ii) a combination of electronic voting and postal voting;”. I note that the original proposal was “by postal ballot or electronic vote;”, and I commend the Government Administration Committee and the Minister for allowing flexibility there, and not having that rigid structure of choosing that difficult decision: do we post, or do we text? Now you’ve got the option.

However, I do want to pose a question around the futureproofing of this piece of legislation and what is currently being proposed, because we are currently looking to amend a piece of legislation that was put forward in 1987, 30 years later. That suggests to us that we’re wanting to make sure that we’re proposing something here that will stand the test of time in 30 years’ time. If we leave it as is, under paragraph (a)(ii)—“a combination of electronic voting and postal voting;”—once this Government places the investment in rural and regional communities around connectivity through rural mobile and broadband, there may not need to be the need for postal voting. However, as it is currently written, you may have to tie them into a combination of electronic voting and postal voting, and I just think perhaps I would like to hear from the Minister around how that particular clause might be futureproofed so that we don’t get stuck with sort of what is technology that might become out of date.

Here’s to the exciting bit: clause 84, “Section 2 amended (Interpretation)”. This is in Subpart 2, “Amendments to Wildlife Act 1953”. I happen to have a copy of that Act in front of me here, because I wanted to know what the definition of “associated products” was, being proposed in clause 84(1). It says: “In section 2(1), definition of ‘associated products’, replacing ‘products made’ with ‘goods or services produced or supplied’.” Now, looking at this Act here, under “associated products”, it means “products made in association with game bird habitat stamps as part of the game bird habitat stamp programme”—clear as you like.

My concern is around the extension of the intention of the original Act, because here we’re talking about “products made”—production. We’re wanting to expand that to “goods or services produced or supplied”. There are two parts that I want to raise a question on there. “Products made”—a product that is produced. Here, we’re expanding “products” to “goods or services”. It is no longer just a product; it is also a service.

Then we’re looking to go beyond production in terms of “products made” to “produced or supplied”. So we’re moving from production to distribution, and I would like some clarification around that.

Before I call the honourable Minister, can I just suggest to members that we have possibly exhausted the debate on the election of Fish & Game councils, so I would ask members that, in the continuation of this particular part, we look at other clauses to debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to the questions that have been raised, particularly around postal voting and online voting: at the moment, only postal voting is allowed in elections. This bill will allow postal voting and electronic voting, alongside each other.

With regard to the honourable member Kieran McAnulty’s question about whether perhaps we’re not futureproofing the legislation effectively at this time, there is the word “and”, so that it becomes optional. But I have no doubt that that honourable member will be here in 30 years’ time, and he can have a look and possibly then switch it around later on.

This bill will allow elections to be conducted both ways. So it will not allow just one way, because if we did that, it would mean that people without internet access could not take part.

The definition of “game licence” is the new definition replacing the second definition of “licence” that is currently in the Act—just to be clear.

To go back to the reference with regard to the original Act and stamp, I’m pretty sure that was the production of a product. Previously, with regard to licences and being able to purchase licences online, which this bill will allow, you had to physically go to an outlet from which they were—I don’t know—allowed to do this and have a stamp put on a licence. So this is actually giving an alternative to that, hence the “services” part, which is what I believe we’re referring to.

Just with regard to online voting—back again—online voting will be in effect only once regulations are made. These regulations will set out safeguards in respect of how online voting will operate. Some organisations already do online voting, such as Fonterra. So there are some precedents already set here, and, obviously, because it’s Fonterra, there are members of the rural community who are already participating, I would suggest, in online voting.

As to what the electronic voting looks like to the honourable member, I am sorry, but I have not gone and ever voted in the Fish & Game council elections. But I have seen examples of online voting, which is where you have a registered email address—and it would be an email address that is proven to be currently in use—that receives a document with an attachment or a link across to a secure website where you click the name of the individual or a series of names of those you wish to be elected and then you submit that form. So I don’t believe it means you can take a photo with your phone of a physical form and then send it by messenger.

Madam Assistant Chair Williams, noting your directions prior, I don’t want to lament this particular point in respect of Fish & Game, and I won’t traverse whether or not the win of the Bird of the Year was meritorious or not, given that I was a strong supporter of the kākāpō—but that is by the by.

The point that I really did want to just briefly speak to was that I’m very pro opening of democracy and I am very supportive, particularly being of the cohort of the younger members of this House that has probably more of a natural fluidity with regard to engagement with electronic measures and so on and so forth, and also just recognising that there’s plenty of research that endorses and encourages, in fact, the opening of our democracy by way of digital voting.

But I guess what I just wanted to quickly touch on—and I promise my points will be brief—is that there’s been this big movement towards voting by electronic methods. I commend the work of the Department of Conservation, endorsed by yourself, as a Minister, and other members of this House. My question is whether or not we are digitising democracy by stealth, whether this in some way becomes a bit of a slippery slope. We’re opening up the Pandora’s box for other measures, other ministries, and so on and so forth as well, to, I guess, replicate the measures that have been taken here.

So, to the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin, perhaps just a couple of brief comments on whether we do think that we are opening the Pandora’s box beyond the scope that is intended. I know that Fish & Game are just a minor body, but it nevertheless does set a precedent, and I wonder if we have truly turned our minds to the impacts that this electronic voting measure may have. Thank you.

Part 4 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.