Electoral Amendment Bill

I move that the electoral amendment bill (No 2) be now read a second time. There are a lot of twos in this legislation. This bill amends the Electoral Act—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, could I just clarify with the member. It might be just Electoral Amendment Bill.

It is, sorry. You’re absolutely correct.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No more twos.

No. I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Electoral Act 1993 and the Electoral Regulations 1996. This bill will improve New Zealand’s voting experience by making it as easy as possible for New Zealanders to vote. And isn’t that a good thing in a democracy? I want to thank the Justice Committee for its diligent consideration of the bill, and those members of the public who made submissions. The committee received 131 submissions from interested groups and individuals. The committee also heard oral evidence from 11 submitters. Most of those submitters strongly supported the bill, which provides greater accessibility for voters and helps increase voter engagement.

I was interested to note that many of the submitters took the time to raise other concerns and offer other suggestions for electoral reform. This includes 23 submitters in support of removing the blanket ban on prisoner voting. Now, although that issue could not be addressed in this bill, as I announced late last year this Government will be bringing forward a further bill shortly which will restore voting rights to people sentenced to less than three years in prison. As with the changes in this bill, we are committed to helping people engage with the democratic process as easily as possible.

I’m pleased to see that the Justice Committee has adopted some of the suggestions made by submitters and has recommended some helpful changes to this current bill. That includes making it clear that ballot boxes should be accompanied at all times by polling place officials, adding terrorism as a particular example of unforeseen or unavoidable disruption that may warrant the Electoral Commission using emergency measures to protect the integrity of the electoral process, and requiring the Electoral Commission to inform both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition if there is an adjournment of polling because of an unforeseen or unavoidable disruption.

I’d like to briefly reiterate a number of specific changes that the bill makes. As I’ve already mentioned, the most significant change the bill makes is to enfranchise more people by enabling electors to enrol on election day. This bill will enable New Zealand - based electors to enrol or to update their enrolment details on election day, just as they already can during the advance voting period. The obvious question is why would you distinguish between the two, and that’s the question the National Party has to answer. Why do they want to discriminate? Why do they want to disadvantage some voters—19,000, indeed, at the last election? Why would a party in this Parliament want to do that to voters? Well, let them speak for themselves, as I know they will, in the most constitutionally outraged way they possibly can.

At the last election, as I said, 19,000 people were disenfranchised because, although they voted on election day, they were not enrolled. Thousands more had their constituency vote discounted because they hadn’t updated their address details to their new constituency.

💬 Simeon Brown: They should enrol early.

It’s interesting hearing the member interject, because that does define the National Party: they love punishing people. They love punishing innocent people going about their busy lives, stressful lives. When they come to exercise their democratic right, the National Party loves to punish them, and that’s the difference between parties on this side of the House and the National Party. We want to help people and facilitate people exercising their democratic right, and we should do that.

Now, the position that, of course, the National Party’s adopting is, in my view, totally unacceptable. No elector should be disenfranchised when they’ve demonstrated their commitment to the democratic process by going to a voting place to cast a vote.

The bill extends the period for the return of the writ from 50 to 60 days. Dr Nick Smith has claimed, in the minority view from the National Party, that somehow I misled the nation by not making this explicit. It has been pretty clear in the bill from the outset, and, if you want to facilitate more people voting, you’ve got to give more time for the counters to count the vote. That just makes sense.

This is the first extension in the period for the return of the writ since it was increased from 40 days to the current 50 days in 1953. And we know who was in Government then: it was Sid Holland—Sid Holland was the Prime Minister—and it was the National Party. They were quite happy to extend it by 10 days under their Government, but apparently not good for this one. Well, I ask you: how could that possibly be consistent?

This extension supports the introduction of election day enrolment by ensuring that the Electoral Commission has additional time both before and after the election to prepare, check, and verify the increased number of post - writ day enrolments and to process the expected increase in special votes.

The bill also makes it easier to designate venues such as malls and supermarkets to be voting places. These are familiar places used daily by the public and so will help make voting more accessible for voters. Currently, venues cannot be used as polling places if they are a licensed premise. This applies even if no alcohol is consumed in the part of the venue being used as a voting place. Other venues—for example, shopping malls—may be used for advance voting but are not able to be used as voting places on election day because all voting places need to have sufficient room for the preliminary counting of votes to be conducted on site. This bill removes the prohibition on designating a licensed premise, such as a supermarket, as a voting place, and it also allows the Electoral Commission to designate a different place for the preliminary count of the votes cast in a polling place if this is necessary to enable votes to be counted in a more appropriate space.

The bill also updates the provisions for managing elections in the event of an emergency. The Electoral Act’s current provisions for managing elections in the event of an emergency are very limited and inflexible and are not well suited to the MMP system, which involves both electorate and party votes. The changes made in this bill will ensure a more flexible and pragmatic response to a wider range of potential polling disruptions, maintain the integrity and conduct of electoral processes, and ensure those affected by polling disruptions are still able to vote in the election.

I’d also like to mention two other changes this bill makes that cannot be implemented for the 2020 election but are being made now to help the Electoral Commission prepare for future elections. The first of these is to enable any voter whose application to enrol has been accepted and who can be electronically marked off the electoral roll to be issued an ordinary ballot paper rather than a special voting paper. The second change is to enable the Electoral Commission to permit the special vote declaration to be treated as an application to enrol or update enrolment details. These changes will improve vote issuing and counting processes at the 2023 general election and beyond. Changing the law now will give the Electoral Commission sufficient time and certainty to make the necessary operational changes. The bill will be followed by changes to the electoral regulations to improve the efficiency and timeliness of overseas postal and dictation vote issuing processing.

In the time available, I’d just like to make some concluding remarks just about what the issues of contention are here. It is disappointing that the National Party so vehemently opposes same-day enrolment and, therefore, voting. It’s interesting hearing the cry of Dr Nick Smith when he says it’s screwing the scrum or it’s giving an unfair advantage. He doesn’t stop for a moment to reflect that perhaps the current system is unfair if it denies—as of 2017—19,000 people who turned up to a ballot booth their rights to have their vote counted and the many thousands more who, because they hadn’t changed their address details, could not have their vote properly counted as well. That’s what’s unfair.

It is time for this Parliament and long-serving members like the Hon Dr Nick Smith to accept that life has moved on. People lead busy lives, and the way people organise their lives means they don’t always get around to making sure they’re on the roll. They change addresses, and sometimes the post doesn’t get where it should go and they’re not alerted to the fact they are not on the roll or should be on the roll or they should have changed their address details.

Let’s just accept the humanity of the situation. We should have a system flexible and sensible enough to accommodate these very human incidences where people turn up and find out they’re not enrolled, cast a special vote, and then find that the vote isn’t counted. That is wrong, and this House should be doing everything it can to extend the franchise to those who by current definitions already have it, and should remove the obstructions and the obstacles that prevent some people, if not from voting, at least from having their vote counted.

This is very important, and it is very important equally to have flexibility in the allocation of places where people can vote. The truth is people do go to malls on election day as well as during the advance voting period. If that is a place where people gather—which is what the original voting booths 100-odd years ago were set up for: churches, schools, places where people went—then we should put polling booths in places where people go on election day. This bill does that. It’ll be good for democracy, good for New Zealand, good for this House, and good for everyone. I commend the bill to the House.

This bill is another example of the Government playing fast and loose with New Zealand’s electoral laws. The only good thing that can be said about this bill is that it is the least offensive of the other three electoral bills that this Government and this Minister have rammed through our Parliament.

New Zealand is unique in that we don’t have a constitution and we do not have a second Chamber. We’ve had a long convention that electoral law is developed on a cross-party basis. This matters because New Zealand should not be one of those countries where the Government of the day screws the rules of the scrum to make it easier to be able to win the next election. That’s not the Kiwi way.

National has consistently adopted that practice in Government. Take the nine years in the 1990s when we completely rewrote the electoral law for MMP. Every single one of those 468 provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 were agreed on a cross-party basis. Equally so, from 2008 to 2017, under the Prime Ministers John Key and Bill English—nine bills—every Government electoral bill was developed in consultation and compromise with the Labour Opposition of the time.

Yet this is the fourth bill of which Labour has ridden roughshod over that convention. The first bill we had wasn’t even supported by a majority of this Parliament. It gives Draconian powers to party leaders to be able to fire members of Parliament that don’t do what they’re told. Little wonder New Zealand First MPs are silent on the skulduggery going on with the New Zealand First Foundation, when any one of them knows that if they call out the truth—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith, back to the bill, please.

—they could be fired by New Zealand First. We also have—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Back to the bill, please.

Well, this is the fourth bill, Madam Speaker, and it’s important to give context.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): And this is the one that I’d like you to address, please.

And we had the Government riding roughshod with its changes around referendum, taking away the power of Parliament to determine the questions at referendum and that now being determined by Cabinet. We’ve also had the other appalling practice—never seen in my 30 years—of an electoral bill being announced, introduced, and passed all on the same day.

Now, the context of this bill is that the electoral laws are reviewed after every single election, and that’s occurred since 1946—every Parliament. When that inquiry concludes, then there is a bill. Every one of the issues in this bill was part of that inquiry. This Minister—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Why did it take two years?

—and Government ride roughshod over that process by absolutely overriding it. Now, the Minister asks, “Why did it take two years?” I’ll tell you why. Firstly, they did not start it until nine months, the latest inquiry was started, and that was something controlled completely by Labour.

Secondly—and here’s another good one. I’d love Mr Little to explain this. The biggest concern from the 2017 election was the shenanigans of the New Zealand First Foundation. I would love Mr Little to explain why Labour members blocked the former president and treasurer of New Zealand First’s writing to the select committee and wanting to give evidence on the inquiry. Is there a single member of the Government that will say why they blocked that? Is there an answer? Where’s Mr Little now? Does Mr Little support the former president of New Zealand First, and treasurer, who has been—

💬 Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

—terrified by lawsuits—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member will resume his seat. I’d just like to remind members that the microphones are live, so they do amplify your voice.

💬 Darroch Ball: For the last four minutes of the last five that member has not been addressing the bill; he has been speaking about everything else other than that. He needs to get back to the bill or needs to be told to sit down.

Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m not sure that I need much help. Let me have a go, and I’ll take your assistance if you’re not satisfied with where I go to on this. Mr Ball, the member was speaking—could the member please resume his seat. Thank you. The member was referring to the inquiry, which generally leads to the electoral bill, and he made that point. The point he was making was that this bill was introduced prior to the inquiry reporting back. So in my view, he was referring to the bill.

My point of order was going to be—in fact, Mr Little asked why there were delays—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): We’ve dealt with that.

—and one of the delays was because Labour members refused to allow the inquiry to look at the most significant issue of the 2017 election, where the New Zealand First Party determined the final outcome of that election but is now being shown to have hidden, against the electoral law, hundreds of thousands of donations from some of the richest people in New Zealand. We on this side of the House say that’s wrong. Members on that side of the House are prepared to be apologists for electoral law breaches, and we will not have—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith, please return to the bill.

—a bar of that. The shenanigans on this bill began with the Minister’s announcement of its content. Here’s my question for the Minister: when he issued the press release—when the Minister announced this bill—why was he silent over the provision that delays the election outcome being announced by 10 days?

💬 Hon Andrew Little: The member’s wrong. It doesn’t delay the election outcome at all.

The press release—the Minister says I’m wrong. I seek leave of the House to table the Minister’s press release that made no mention of that sneaky, dirty little provision in this bill. I seek the leave.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith, I think you’ve been here even longer than me—which feels like quite a long time on a Thursday afternoon, I’ll tell you. You know that you can’t seek leave to table something that’s already public. You have three minutes 47 left. If you don’t start addressing the bill directly, your time will be terminated.

The Government’s pretty sensitive about it, eh? They don’t like a bit of criticism—shut down the Opposition! Typical of your approach around electoral law when you test this Government on its dodgy carryings-on, whether it be the New Zealand First Foundation or whether it be the provisions of this bill.

Here’s the issue: the Electoral Commission recommended against same-day enrolment for the 2020 election. The Electoral Commission recommended against the 2020 election providing for same-day enrolment and voting because—

💬 Hon Member: Why are we doing it?

We’re doing it—my colleague asks—for one reason: Labour wants to cheat the rules to make it easier to get elected later this year. That is why it is going against the advice of the Electoral Commission. That is why it does not understand the principle that just as candidates are entitled to have to disclose who they are before election day, so too should voters. The Electoral Commission rightly expressed concern to the committee that if we allow same-day enrolment, why would we bother having people enrol at all? That is a legitimate concern, and that is a flaw in the bill.

I do want to make note of a very important statement that was made by the Deputy Prime Minister during the first reading of this bill. Mr Peters said that on the issues and allegations that surround the foundation, the proper authority for determining whether the law was broken was the Electoral Commission. That’s pretty interesting. This week, the Electoral Commission has concluded he did breach the law. What does Mr Peters say now? Well, now he attacks the Electoral Commission and says that their judgments are wrong and not based on evidence and fact.

What is most telling about this bill is what’s not in this bill, because the real issues and the laws that have been rorted by this Government around hiding hundreds of thousands of donations through the New Zealand First Foundation are not being touched in this bill. They are not being touched, and Mr Little has become an apologist for New Zealand First and their illegal dealings. I say to members of this House, and I particularly say to New Zealand First, this is déjà vu. This is what happened in 2008. Every member of this House will recall—Ron Mark will recall—the famous “No” sign about the $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn that Winston Peters swore never occurred. It’s happening all over again, and the saddest part is that New Zealand First is not accepting any responsibility and Labour has learnt nothing from that experience.

If there’s anything that New Zealanders out there love about this country, it’s that we are the most transparent and least corrupt country in the world. National is proud that in 2017 we ranked number one in the world. Members opposite will pay a very dear price for being an apologist for the shenanigans and goings on within New Zealand First, and the sooner we tie up the electoral law and prevent those things, the better for this country.

Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I runga i te tau hou, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. To the members of this House, greetings to all. Because it is the new year, I pass on my greetings to you all.]

I’m pleased to rise to talk to the Electoral Amendment Bill. For those members that may not know, we are a split committee—the Justice Committee. But I am pleased that despite the committee agreeing on this bill, some constructive discussion was had and some amendments were recommended. I want to acknowledge the Minister in both highlighting those recommendations, those amendments, that the committee worked on.

The purpose of the bill is to enable people to enrol and vote and uphold the integrity of the electoral system and to conduct elections efficiently and securely and to ensure that future elections are upheld. In summary, in terms of those submitters that came before the select committee—131 we received in the select committee—34 focused on the changes in the current bill, and 11 submitters chose to present to the committee orally. I want to thank those submitters that took the time to submit on this particular bill.

There are three areas I want to canvass, in the amendments that the select committee made, to the Minister. One was on the election day enrolments. Can I just reference, for the House’s benefit, the election day enrolment in terms of this particular bill refers to clauses 4, 6 to 12, 19, and 22. Twenty-two of the submitters who commented on the bill discussed election day enrolments.

I want to particularly acknowledge some submitters who made comment around election day enrolments. I want to talk about Gafatasi Endemann, who believed the election day enrolment would increase youth voter turnout. There probably isn’t a member in this House that doesn’t want to see more of our young people participating in our electoral system. Of course, Professor Andrew Geddis also submitted under election day enrolment, supporting that, obviously, if we’re going to have advance voting, it makes absolute sense that we also have election day advance enrolments on the same day. And there is, of course, the New Zealand Law Society, who also supported the election day enrolment.

Of course, there were some submitters that didn’t agree with election day enrolment, and that’s Daniel Church, who also talked about the deadline for the return of the writ, considering it may undermine public confidence—and even Alec van Helsdingen, who also believed the extension may be unfortunate. What he did draw to the committee’s attention, which I thought was very useful, is that in the future we may repeal the early day, when digital rolls are introduced. So in terms of the election day enrolment amendment, the submitters were well canvassed and the committee’s amendments were made.

In terms of the voting places—clause 13, 14, and 16—I want to acknowledge the submitters that submitted on that particular area; 11 submitters commented on that. The Minister touched on the ability to open up places where we traditionally don’t have polling booths—of course, supermarkets, malls, and some hotels. There were discussions around the consumption of alcohol—but we’ve made that clear that this has to be a place that doesn’t inhibit electors on that particular day—and, of course, within that gambit of the voting places, the right for scrutineers to accompany the ballot boxes should they be transferred from the malls to other places in which they are accompanied. So that was a very useful and constructive piece of recommendation.

Finally, managing polling disruptions—the Minister has well canvassed those, particularly as it relates to clause 17, and, of course, making sure that we are very clear when a poll can be disrupted, the period in which it can be disrupted, and then also the triggering of informing both the Prime Minister and the deputy of the Opposition party. So I’m proud of the work that the Justice Committee did in making these practical amendments despite us not agreeing on the bill. Having said that, I think it’s a piece of legislation that does protect the democracy and grows our commitment to democracy in this country by allowing voters, the 19,000 that were disallowed in 2007—to enable them to have their vote, to have their say, and to increase participation in our voters across this nation. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the Electoral Amendment Bill. I’m not going to relitigate the issues that the Hon Nick Smith raised—they were pertinent to our decision in not being able to support the bill to the House.

I want to acknowledge the other committee members. The one thing about parliamentary select committees is that they should run independently and they should stand on that independence and that’s what makes our democracy strong, and it gives the public confidence, when they come before the committee to make submissions, that the committee will deal with that with a high level of independence. We felt very strongly that the committee came under the control of the Minister, and especially in relation to the fact that we had a critical opportunity to actually hear from two submitters—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very serious allegation to make that members of a select committee were under the pressure of a Minister, and, conversely, that a Minister in this House put undue pressure on a select committee. I invite Mr Speaker to reflect on that statement. I take offence at that statement, and I do not think that statement should be made in this House.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to take some advice on this before I rule.

The member should actually refer to the topic of the bill. My issue is actually around relevance rather than members taking offence, but he is on the edge of that cliff. So be careful, Mr Mitchell, not to fall off it. I’d ask him to come back to both the content of the bill and the process of the select committee.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I’ve ruled.

So the reality of it is the select committee was presented with an opportunity to hear from submissions from the most recent member present of the New Zealand First Party, who had resigned his position because he was—and he publicly said this—very concerned at the way donations were held and dealt with inside the party. It was a natural process and course that the select committee, tasked by this Parliament to review the way donations were held—and I’d remind the Minister that Labour gave up their slot to have Jami-Lee Ross come and sit on the committee. So I’d remind them of that. I don’t know how that’s working out for them at the moment. We felt that it was very important that we heard from them; that we understood. There is no good reason—and I’ll ask one of the Government members to stand and explain to us very carefully, lay it out, why they would not agree to hearing evidence from those people who had left high political office and had signalled that there was a massive issue and breach in terms of the way donations were being held.

I have to acknowledge the Minister of Defence, who’s in the House: the future leader of New Zealand First, I think, we’re looking at here—it’s the defence Minister. He’s on manoeuvres—he’s on manoeuvres. I can see it in his face, he’s on manoeuvres. He’s deciding; what’s he going to use? A HALO jump? High altitude, low opening, or is he going to go full infantry, with a full frontal attack? He used to be a very good deputy leader; he’s on manoeuvres without doubt.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And now back to the bill, Mr Mitchell.

Sorry, Mr Speaker. So anyway, getting back to the point that I was making on a simple fact like that. The committee had been working very well together. We were cooperating because we realised the importance and the significance for this in terms of a Parliament that doesn’t operate under a constitution and that there should be bipartisan work done on it. But when something as simple as asking two critically important witnesses to come and make a submission to the committee was shut down—and I know the Minister is very sensitive about this—

💬 Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the member has been speaking about for the last four minutes has got nothing to do with the bill at all. He keeps talking about two witnesses. I know they’ve got a sick obsession with New Zealand First over there, because the last two speakers of National have just spoken about New Zealand First. They need to just start talking about the bill.

Tim van de Molen: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t need any help.

There’s another leadership speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no. Order! I’ve already spoken about relevance.

💬 Hon David Bennett: It was very relevant.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He knows that when the Speaker’s on their feet, they do not interject.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you. I’ve already spoken about relevance. I was hoping that the member might get to a point about what he was talking about relevant to the bill. So far that hasn’t happened. Now the member will speak to the bill. If he does not speak to the bill, I will terminate his speech.

I’m happy to finish my speech there, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

That says it all, really—it sums it all up. That member Mark Mitchell has got nothing to say about the bill itself. I know it might be a little bit disturbing to hear this, but I’ve learnt to grow to admire Dr Nick Smith a little bit, actually. The fact that he can stand up with a straight face and start attacking this side of the House about what’s not in the bill, about the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), right—and he knows all the while he’s saying one thing, but at the back of his mind he knows that that’s the only party that’s been charged by the SFO—charged by the SFO. Not even investigated but they’ve been charged, four people—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t need any help. I’m going to deal with this, and if he still has a point of order, I will give it to him. The member, before taking his call, made a point of order about another matter, and he is doing exactly the same thing. Mr Ball must come to the bill and speak to its content or his contribution will be ended.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. One thing that Nick Smith said in his contribution—and he said it in the first reading too, and I don’t know why he’s repeating it—he said New Zealand shouldn’t be one of the countries that screws the scrum. We shouldn’t be one of those, out of principle, right? Screws the scrum. He’s saying that we’re cheating over this side because, why? Because we are getting more people to vote. We are enfranchising more people to vote. Nick Smith said—

💬 Hon David Bennett: No you’re not; you’re corrupt.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member said an unparliamentary word and he needs to withdraw and apologise, and if he does it again he needs to be kicked out.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon David Bennett fully knows the rules of this House. If he uses that word again—he knows which one—he’ll be leaving the Chamber, but he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party speakers so far, but particularly Nick Smith, have said that it’s a matter of principle that they’re not supporting this bill. What I don’t understand is why—if it’s a matter of principle that anything that goes through this House in regards to electoral laws should be bipartisan and have cross-party consultation—did that member and the rest of the select committee vote for the changes in the bill through the select committee process? Why?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because we’re a constructive Opposition.

Well, I thought it was a matter of principle, Mr Smith. I thought it was a matter of principle, Mr Smith. It seems amazing to me that that National Party speak with forked tongues when they stand up and they say that it’s a matter of principle that they are not supporting this bill. They wax lyrical about the fact that they’re not supporting this bill because it’s a matter of principle, but then, what’s amazing is that they have already supported the changes in the bill. They voted for it. It amazes me.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: And now they’re going to vote against their vote.

And then they’ll vote—that’s right Minister Mark. In this reading—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

—they’re going to vote against the proposals that they—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): When a member seeks a point of order, the member speaking should sit down.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: The member appears to be ignoring your earlier ruling and his comments are completely irrelevant. They’ve got nothing to do with the bill at all.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And that’s entirely my discretion as to when, but I will take the opportunity to again remind Darroch Ball to speak to the bill. And if we don’t hear anything about the bill, I’ve probably only got one avenue to address that.

With the greatest of respect, Mr Speaker, I have been literally talking about—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, I’m not going to argue with you. You either speak to the bill now or your speech will be over.

So I want to go through—and I want to make it quite clear for the people that are watching this—why, in the National Party’s minority view, they’re voting against this bill. Let me say, first of all, it’s like three pages long. The whole first page, they get nothing to the substance of the bill apart from the third line from the bottom.

The first thing they talk about—they whinge about; because that’s what it comes across as: whinging—is lack of consultation. They’re voting against 19,000 people, and it’s going to be more than that, because 19,000 was last election. They’re going to vote against tens of thousands of people from getting the vote—when it’s in the bill of rights, quite frankly, that they have that right to vote. They’re going to stop 20,000-plus people from voting because they weren’t consulted—because they weren’t consulted. That’s the number one reason why they’re not voting for this bill.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Stay on the bill.

You’re not listening, Mr Mitchell. I’m literally reading out your minority view. Did you know you had a minority view?

The second reason, before they get to any substance of it, was the late timetable of the inquiry. This hasn’t got to do with the bill. None of their reasons why they’re voting against it have got anything to do with the bill, it’s because they’re whinging about a lack of consultation and some late timetable in the committee.

Then they get it. Then they get to their main reason, on the second page, mind you—on the second page, mind you. “National does not support allowing same-day enrolment [of] voting.” As Mr Smith has said, one of his reasons was—and I’ll read it here: of the 2.6 million voters who were responsible enough to enrol, 19,000—or less than 1 percent, right—they’ll cause a 10-day delay—10-day delay. So they’re going to stop someone’s right to get in there and vote because of a 10-day delay—because of a 10-day delay.

Not only that, but they say 2.6 million votes. Here’s the contradiction—here’s the contradiction of what they’re saying. A fortnight before election day, everyone can go into an election booth and enrol on the same day that they vote—enrol on the same day that they vote. The percentage who did that before election day was 47 percent. Of all voters last election, 47 percent did it before election day, and they had the ability and the right to enrol on the same day. What the National Party want to do is take that away from the tens of thousands of people who want to do it on the same day.

Now, if they want to talk about fairness—because that’s what they talk about here: fairness—then they need to have a look at their minority view and get it right, Mr Mitchell—get it right, instead of making stupid faces over the other side of the House. What they don’t get is that it’s not election day any more; it’s election fortnight. You can’t have 13 days with one rule and then election day with another, because that ain’t fair and it’s taking away people’s reason to vote.

The funny thing is that the rest of the bill they support—the rest of the bill they support. Ten-day delay and they’re whinging about not being consulted—that’s why they want to take away people’s right to vote and ability to vote in one of the best democracies in the country.

We are supporting this bill because it is the right thing to do, Mr Mitchell—and you should be too, if you hadn’t been so contradictory in your minority view.

E Te Mana Whakawā. Well, that was a compelling and coherent contribution from Mr Ball, wasn’t it! Absolutely not. It’ll be worth pointing out to members of the public who might be listening at this moment that Mr Ball is not a member of that committee, therefore he was speaking then without any knowledge of what the Justice Committee has been deliberating on for a very, very long time. One of the points I would like to make to him—because it was very hard, actually, to discern exactly where he was going with much of that rant, quite frankly—is that the National Party did not submit a minority view, because we are not in the minority on that committee. It is a split committee, Mr Ball, and when you try to lecture Mr Mitchell on getting it right, I suggest pot, kettle, black.

💬 Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table the National Party’s minority view, which is in the report from the select committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, the member ought to know the rules by now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That report, of course, has been tabled in the House and is now a matter of public record. Mr Ball seems to be going from bad to worse in this debate.

I want to go back to the opening contributions from the Minister of Justice, because the Hon Andrew Little was telling us how good this bill is, and I say to Mr Little and to members of the Government parties who are supporting him that if this bill was half as good as he claims it to be, they would have followed many, many decades of established and important constitutional convention and ensured that they had consulted with all the parties in this Parliament before they introduced it.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: You’ve got to have smart people on the other side, Mr Macindoe, and Nick Smith isn’t that person.

Also—Mr Little is now interjecting—they would have waited until the Justice Committee had concluded—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Two years—two years.

—its report into the general election, because that’s a triennial exercise that we have after every general election. I’m happy for Mr Little to point out that it’s two years, because the reason it was two years was that his own Government took so long to initiate the inquiry in the first place. I’ve been a member of this House for longer than Mr Little, and I can tell him that never in my 12 years here has a Government taken anywhere near as long to initiate the inquiry or to consult upon the terms of reference that underpin its deliberations. So when the Minister of Justice has the audacity to try to tell the country that he had to introduce this bill because the Justice Committee had taken so long to report, he is fundamentally ignoring the reason for that delay.

As Dr Smith noted in his opening contribution, it was also because the Government parties refused to allow the committee to inquire into the scandal that is now becoming a matter of considerable public interest, and that is the Serious Fraud Office’s declaration that they will be looking into the New Zealand First donations, because that is a very serious matter. I reiterate the call that members of the National Party have been making in recent days, that it is absolutely essential that that inquiry should be concluded and its findings be made public well before this year’s general election. The Electoral Commission says that the New Zealand First Party broke the law, and yet the Labour Party, with the Minister of Justice sitting here, and presumably the Greens—although I acknowledge that they’re not members of that committee—agreed that the inquiry shouldn’t look into those serious matters. Well, this Government is defying, as I say, longstanding constitutional convention that electoral law changes are made on a cross-party basis following that triennial Justice Committee inquiry.

Mr Little argues that the changes are non-controversial. Well, I think anybody listening to this debate will have been able to hear, in the last half an hour or more, that that is clearly not the case. He could have avoided it, this controversy, simply by following the longstanding constitutional conventions. If that were true, surely he would’ve consulted us before introducing this bill. It is outrageous that he has done so without consulting the parties of the Opposition. That’s the sort of conduct that you expect from a banana republic. That’s the sort of conduct that you expect from South Korea or another country that tramples on human rights and has no respect whatsoever for democracy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s the wrong Korea, Tim. It’s North Korea; it’s not South Korea.

Did I say South Korea? I apologise humbly to South Korea, a country for which I have great respect, and I do actually appreciate Chlöe Swarbrick correcting me on that, because I would hate that to go uncorrected. I am, of course, referring to North Korea.

I point out that the National Party respected all of those conventions right through our history, from the beginning under Sid Holland, the first National Party Prime Minister, through to more recent times, the Bolger-Shipley Government and the Key-English Government, of which I had a great privilege to be a member. We always respected that convention, and I believe that when we are next given the privilege of forming a Government, we will respect that convention again, because not to do so is appalling.

There is much more that I would like to say on this bill, but I’m supposed to have sat down after five minutes, so I better do what the whip has told me. But I do want to finish by—

💬 Greg O’Connor: Well, you do what Nick Smith tells you.

Mr O’Connor, what a bizarre suggestion that is. I do just want to make the point that we will return to the issue of same-day enrolments during the committee stage, in the hope that the Government will look at the very serious complications that arise. It’s not just about the delay in the return of the writ. There is much more to it, including the necessity, if you are part of a democratic exercise such as a general election, of having the ability as a candidate to reach out to all the voters to convey your messages to them. This particular measure will take that away from candidates of all stripes in a way that is fundamentally undemocratic. I’m sure that’s why Britain doesn’t do it, Australia doesn’t do it, and much of the United States doesn’t do it. So it’s not as if we are currently out of step with comparable jurisdictions, but we will be under this bill. It’s a very flawed measure, and I’m very disappointed to see the Government charging ahead with it in such an undemocratic and unconstitutional fashion.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Tēnā koe as well to Tim Macindoe, who’s just taken his seat. I’m very happy to have assisted in avoiding what could’ve been an international incident. Very proud—stoked—on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to be standing today in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. There’s nothing quite like a piece of legislation like this, which talks about the rights and freedoms in this country, to really elevate the blood pressure and get both sides yelling at each other, so here’s hoping I can bring some profound earnestness to this debate.

I want to just really clarify or actually dig into and fact-check the statement that’s been made by a number of National Party MPs on this legislation, or pertaining to this legislation, because it goes broader; it’s about enfranchisement of voters in this country. They’ve spoken about how, in every single piece of legislation which impacts the ability of New Zealanders to vote, they have utilised the constitutional precedent of extending the, kind of, olive wreath across the political aisle and seeking to build consensus. They, however, didn’t do that when they disenfranchised prisoners and revoked their right to vote while they were in Government, and did so on a slim governmental majority. So I just want to fact-check that, because in that moment where they disenfranchised New Zealanders, they didn’t seek parliamentary consensus. What we’re seeking to do here with the Electoral Amendment Bill is enfranchise more New Zealanders, and they are disagreeing to that—so, interesting contrast there.

Just to clarify for those who may be attempting to follow the debate at home—it’s probably been a bit difficult given all of the yelling back and forth, but there are three key things that this legislation does. I really want to commend Minister Andrew Little for the work that he’s done to get this moving, because it is really exciting. It also notes, on the point that I just raised earlier around prisoner voting rights—reading through the select committee report from the Justice Committee, it’s been highlighted by Government members that a number of submitters spoke about the need to re-enfranchise prisoners, and it was Minister Little, in working with our colleague in the Greens Golriz Ghahraman and New Zealand First who worked to reinstate prisoner voting rights for those who are serving a term of less than three years, which I’d note actually went explicitly in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and the National Party knew that—on the advice of the Attorney-General when they decided to move to revoke it.

Moving now to the content of the Electoral Amendment Bill, there are three core things that this legislation does, which you might not have derived from the screeching across the House. They are quite simple measures that I think will profoundly make a difference to people’s ability to participate in our democracy. The first is to enable election day enrolment, and that is to also require the extension of the period for return of the writ. That was the kind of back and forth that you heard from my colleague Darroch Ball, who was making the point that it is quite an interesting, if not bizarre, position for the National Party to take that they don’t quite agree with the trade-off that to empower approximately 19,000 more New Zealanders the ability to vote—they’re not quite happy to trade off another 10 days of certainty in the returning of those writs.

So, too, there is the ability inherent in this legislation to enable supermarkets and malls to be used as voting places. That’s a really exciting development and, I’d note, based on my read of the National Party view from the Justice Committee, something that they actually agree with. So I think that, thankfully, there is some consensus on that point at least, and that bodes well for our democracy, that we want more places where people can engage.

Then, finally, the third and final thing in this legislation—it’s another thing which the National Party agree with, based on their report—is to make provision for what is to occur in the advent of an emergency and what happens to the election and the voting and everything contained around those circumstances. That’s something which the Nats agree with, too.

So the real argy-bargy is on the ability for people to enrol to vote on the same day. I just want to touch on what has been raised by the National Party in their view—not their minority view, given that it is a split committee, but in their view from the Justice Committee—because I wasn’t quite able to discern what they were saying in their numerous contributions, because, indeed, it seemed to spill over into other political issues of the day. There are three reasons that they have given in this Justice Committee report to opposing that ability for same-day enrolment, and the first is—and I quote—“[the] balancing of the objective of maximising participation with concluding the election efficiently.” Fast-forwarding through that point (1), they say, “We do not believe that 99 percent of voters who did enrol should face the cost and uncertainty of delay for less than 1 percent who did not bother to enrol.” I think that’s kind of lacking in empathy. There are a number of reasons that people face in their day-to-day lives. For both sides of this House, who regularly talk about the day-to-day struggles that people are facing and how, you know, we should give people a little bit of slack to make decisions about their own lives and how we need to streamline processes, I would’ve thought that the party that talks about being the one of consumer choice and freedoms would be on board with this move. So I find that a perverse or interesting rationale.

The second is, they’re saying, “There will be no incentive or need to enrol if people know … anyone can vote without enrolment.” Again, an interesting kind of tautology there, but I think it doesn’t quite fit the muster in terms of the trade-off that we’re thinking about here. It’s that 10-days extension for the 19,000 extra New Zealanders having the ability to vote.

The third point that they raise is also quite confusing. They say—and I quote—“(3) Candidates are required to register well in advance of the election so that voters have time to get to know them.” That makes sense; I think that’s something all of us can agree on. But then they go on to say—and I quote—“It is reasonable that candidates know who the enrolled voters are so they can communicate with them on their ideas, values, and policies.” Interesting. I think that it’s really critical that all of us, in seeking to be elected into this place in Parliament and representing the people of this country, go out there and talk to everybody, not just those who are over the age of 18 but also to children, which I know a number of us in this place do at school visits and otherwise.

So I think, really, the Opposition’s opposition to this legislation is nothing more than a bit of politicking, kind of providing a platform for yelling. I think that we deserve a bit better than that; so the Green Party is proud to support this legislation and move on greater enfranchisement for the people in this country. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. May I start by wishing you a happy New Year. Since the last time I spoke in this House, we’ve had a New Year as marked by the Gregorian calendar, the Lunar New Year, and now we have the parliamentary New Year. If I have a New Year’s resolution for this place, it will be that I speak in shorter sentences!

I stand here at the second reading, and, of course, it’s worthwhile reflecting on the select committee process as part of the second reading. I did have the privilege, if we were to call it that, of being a member of the Justice Committee throughout almost all of that time. The report was late to start, and it was consequently and subsequently late to finish, but we got there in the end.

The bill is, at its heart, about democracy in the sense that every amendment of the Electoral Act is about democracy, and so I want to acknowledge the democratic participation of many of our citizens, or New Zealanders more broadly, in the process whereby at select committee we received a number of excellent submissions and enjoyed hearing those and discussing those along with other aspects of our deliberation.

As far as the substance of the bill itself goes, a number of its provisions were pretty keenly scrutinised. The extension of the writ from 50 to 60 days was one that we discussed, including in the context that more time might be needed following the counting of votes being combined with the process of enrolments on election day itself. Traditionally in New Zealand in the last several years—the last couple of decades, in fact—the period following election day is used for counting votes and recounting votes and, in the case of one member of our democracy, counting his baubles.

We also talked about the venues at which voting can take place. That was universally agreed to be a positive move whereby we have a greater range of different places at which voting can occur. Examples of supermarkets have already been given, but also licensed premises. The select committee did, you’ll be pleased to know, turn its collective mind to the idea that it might be helpful to allow a place that is licensed to supply alcohol, in the case of, say, a country pub where that’s a natural hub for the community, but not for that to occur in such a way that those other activities might impinge on the democratic practice of voting.

So we considered that, including in the related matter of allowing votes to be counted away from the place that they’ve been cast. That’s a change in New Zealand law, but it fits, really, with the idea that, if we’re going to open up a greater range of places at which votes can be cast, it will be appropriate in some cases to allow those to be moved securely for the purpose of the count. Much more detail on that; no doubt we’ll get to that at the committee stage. So I’ll leave my contribution there. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is one which is traditional in the sense of an electoral cycle—that there are some changes made to the election rules that are necessary to have a better electorate representation and better electoral result—and there is one key change in this piece of legislation that the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick has identified, and that is the voting on the day. Now, that hadn’t been done in the past, because it has a number of issues with it, and it has suddenly become something that the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First parties have mandated as being exceptionally necessary for greater governance in New Zealand. It can only be for one reason, and that is because they see advantage in it for themselves.

It is very clear to anybody that’s been through an election campaign how especially the Labour and Green parties—and New Zealand First to a limited extent, because New Zealand First doesn’t have the resources of the other two parties—do try and utilise and take advantage of people during that last part of the electoral cycle. We see that quite often in how they try and round up people to vote and then tell them what to vote. That’s the plain reality of what goes on. Anyone that’s been in an election has seen that before, and the Labour Party and the Green Party are just feathering their nests in this legislation, because they know those are the tactics they engage in with vulnerable people at election time, and they will continue to do that. This is just legitimising an activity that they undertake in every election that I have seen.

💬 Darroch Ball: So vulnerable people shouldn’t vote? Is that what you’re saying?

No, no, no, no. It’s the way that they’re taken advantage of, and if anybody has any doubt, go into the political world, go see what happens in election campaigns, go see how those two parties act with voters out there, how they remonstrate to them, how they tell them, effectively, a lot of rubbish about who they should vote for, and then try and dictate, try and pick them all up on election day, and what we will see is swaths of people being picked up by Labour and Green members, taken to election booths, told to register, and told how to vote. That is exactly what will happen, we know that will happen, and that’s why they are doing this legislation to feather their own nests.

It will not work. It will not work, because people will rebel against that, and they will see through the Labour and Green parties, which are just trying to take advantage of them through the electoral cycle.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I support this bill. This is a bill which is quite clear. The National member opposite, David Bennett, has just spoken to say that they don’t want vulnerable people voting. This is a Government that stands up for all people, and they have the right to vote on election day. The only reason they’ve given in their minority view is that they think that the 19,000 people who didn’t vote on election day outweighs the 10 days of waiting for the other general population. This is about giving people the right to vote, and I support it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would also like to wish you a happy New Year. This is my first contribution, and I would like to start with acknowledging Chlöe Swarbrick for her contribution. At least she had the courtesy to talk about the minority view given by the National Party—the viewpoint of National Party; let me correct that.

💬 Darroch Ball: Do you have one?

Yes, it is over here. You should have taken the courtesy of reading it before pointing out what it is. So at least she had the courtesy of talking about what we said in our viewpoint. It’s not that we are in Opposition and we are trying to oppose everything, whatever it is, in this bill, but there are a few things which are positive. I would like to touch upon those two points which we feel are positive in this bill, because this is the last contribution on this second reading. Those points are that we have more polling booths where people would be able to go and cast their vote. We want to make sure people get the opportunity to enfranchise their right to democracy. We want to have more people participating in this election process.

The second thing, which is very important, is in case there is any emergency. Then the Minister has got the right to take some points where he can make sure that people who are affected by those conditions can participate in the election process. So with these words, these two points, which are very important, which we support from this side of the House—that’s why we’ve mentioned in our viewpoint that these are the points we will be supporting, but we won’t be supporting the same-day registration and casting of votes. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just apologise to the people of New Zealand who are listening to this debate this afternoon for the appalling lack of quality of the speeches coming from the National Party. Can I just remind the House and inform the public that the essence of this debate is about a piece of legislation that will enfranchise more New Zealanders to vote at the next election because they will be able to enrol and vote on election day, which the National Party heartily disagrees with. They have obfuscated and deflected, told us fake stories all afternoon, and it’s, quite frankly, been pretty appalling.

💬 Paul Eagle: Disgraceful.

Disgraceful is the right word. The reason that an election inquiry has been discussed is because it took 18 months for that election inquiry to report back to the House after the 2017 election. With this bill, the Minister couldn’t wait in order to ensure that New Zealanders could enrol and vote on election day, and I want to thank Andrew Little for the work that he’s done on this bill.

There have been a lot of accusations passed around. I do encourage New Zealanders to go and look for the inquiry into the 2017 general election and 2016 local elections report, which is available if you google it, and to please read the Government members’ views on page 75, which refer to the unconscionable behaviour by former Ministers in the National Party and the previous National Government around procuring a $150,000 donation from the Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry that was received by the National Party and declared on 17 May 2017. I’ll leave it there. I commend this bill to the House.