Electoral Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll just speak very briefly on this part of the bill, and this includes a number of consequential amendments just to make sense of the rest and tidy up the relevant regulations.

I note in particular, in clause 19, the change to regulation 12 of the Electoral Regulations. That, again, is consistent with the newly acquired right of those who wish to cast a vote but who are not on the roll at the time of the election day to turn up on election day and to both enrol and cast a vote. That provides the mechanics for the Electoral Commission to send the returning officer a list of the persons whose names have been entered on the electoral roll for that district after writ day and up to the end of polling day.

The only other part I would draw the committee’s attention to, which I thought was interesting, is the allowance and disallowance of votes of members of the Defence Force. So every effort is made to ensure that members of the Defence Force serving here or overseas can participate in our democracy—the very values of which they are, in fact, defending abroad. So we want to do our best to make sure that their vote counts, and that is provided for in that particular regulation. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.

There’s a very strong consensus across the Parliament around the importance of our defence personnel that are serving overseas that the provision by which they are able to vote is made as easy as possible for them, and we are supportive of the provisions in Part 2 and replacement regulation 52, set out in clause 24, that provide for that. We would argue, on this side of the Chamber, that those brave men and women that are serving in our armed forces, defending the very values of democracy, have, at least, the same right as anybody else to vote, and it is proper that Parliament makes specific identification of their issues to enable them to participate.

We’d also note the regulation changes, that there was some discussion in the Justice Committee around the issue of supermarket voting. It’s an innovation that National introduced, and supermarkets these days are one of the places where people most frequent and it is entirely appropriate that we make voting as easy as possible. The issue that the select committee spent some time on was that the law requires that the votes be removed from the voting place and that they be counted in a place that’s free of other people. I think we’d all agree that it’s not particularly appropriate to have returning officers in a busy supermarket continuing to count the votes. So there has been a change to allow the votes to be removed from the actual polling place but still counted. On the amendments that the select committee made that’ve been carried through into the regulations, it is our view on this side of the Chamber, not because we have any concerns about the Electoral Commission, but that it is good practice to always ensure that scrutineers are able to stay with the polling boxes, that where we are using those extra provisions, that that is able to be done, and that has been carried through in the amendments provided for in Part 2. We’re pleased that there has been sensible amendment by the Government to ensure we maintain that belt and braces approach to the protection of the security of those voting boxes.

The one part of which we have difference of view in respect of Part 2 of this bill is in respect of the regulations that, again, are designed to allow these late enrolments. Our view is that the Electoral Commission and the taxpayer go to extraordinary efforts to make it as easy as possible for people to enrol. Anybody in this Parliament that suggests that somehow it’s hard, I’m surprised by how many opportunities there are for people to get themselves on to the roll. We are actually going well beyond what most democracies—where you look around the world, and you ask the question, “Do most liberal democracies, of which we respect, make sure that there is a separate enrolment process?” The reason for that separate enrolment process is that while we share the value that we want as many New Zealanders to vote as possible, we also want to ensure the integrity of the vote. By ensuring that there is a proper enrolment process, in our view, separate to the process of voting is adding to the integrity of the role, and that is best practice internationally around the running of elections.

So the provisions that we have in clauses like 19 that are designed to facilitate this Government proposal for us to have people simply enrol on election day and vote at the same time is long term going to undermine our system of elections. Effectively, with these regulations we are saying to New Zealanders there is no bother, though, bothering yourself with trying to enrol. There’s absolutely no requirement, if we pass these regulations, for anybody to bother enrolling. Why do it? Why, if there’s absolutely no restriction on your capacity to vote, would people bother to enrol? I think that is a dangerous and wrong culture to establish. I think the long-established principle in New Zealand electoral law, going all the way back to the 1850s, that people—and, actually, all around the world—need to make the effort, they need to get themselves on the roll, and as a consequence of doing that they are then able to exercise their free and democratic right to have a say in the governance of this country.

So, again, National, in Part 2, would want to express our concern about this obsession by this Government of doing something that most democracies do not allow to do. Very, very few democracies around the world exercise the capacity to enrol and vote on the same day that it’s facilitated.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As Dr Nick Smith has just noted, in most respects Part 2 is not overly controversial. In fact, it’s largely amendments that are consequential upon the more substantive provisions of Part 1 of the bill that we’ve been debating. But there is still, nevertheless, that very controversial aspect to which Dr Smith has just been alluding.

Just before I deal with a couple of points in Part 2, I just want to draw the attention of the member Darroch Ball to the wording of the report, because when we were having the debate in the second reading last Thursday, Mr Ball on several occasions used the term “the National Party minority view”. When I took my call, I pointed out to him that the National Party had not expressed a minority view because we’re not in a minority on that committee. It’s a split committee. Mr Ball then—and I didn’t have a chance to respond then, so I’m responding now—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No. Thank you. Yeah, I presided over that, and so we’re not relitigating the second reading; we’re actually debating Part 2 of this bill. So, what happened in the second reading? The House accepted the bill, and now we’re going through each part. This is not the time to be examining the process. I want the member to actually speak to the bill, not to the process.

Absolutely understand that, sir, and I wasn’t seeking to relitigate. I was simply going to point out that the word “minority” doesn’t appear in that report as the member had indicated. But for Part 2, I’m in the slightly unusual position as a member of the committee of now asking the—

💬 Greg O’Connor: Build a bridge and get over it.

As the real party of infrastructure, Mr O’Connor, I’m happy to assure him that we’ll be doing that on numerous occasions, should we be given the privilege to govern again. But unfortunately, at the moment, infrastructure has come to a shuddering halt thanks to the actions of his Government. But then I really would be transgressing well beyond the scope of the bill. I’m simply responding to the member’s totally inappropriate interjection.

What I was about to ask the Minister to do was to focus on clause 19 in Part 2. He has already drawn our attention to it, he referred to it in his opening comments, but I don’t feel that he’s really given an explanation as to why that particular clause is necessary and—to the average punter reading it—it could seem to be slightly convoluted. So I would be interested to know—and I think some who are listening to this debate at this moment would be interested to know—why is this particular clause necessary after the votes have been cast? And I mean necessary in the sense of why does it have to be written into this particular bill when it’s something that would be happening anyway? Is he concerned that it might otherwise not happen? I’d just be interested in his comment on that. There may be a very good reason and, if so, I look forward to hearing what it is.

I also do want to pick up on the point that Dr Nick Smith was referring to with respect to members of the New Zealand Defence Force, because I think all New Zealanders—or certainly the vast majority of us—hold members of the New Zealand Defence Force in the highest regard and for very good reason. They serve us extraordinarily well, courageously, and with great diligence, and they thoroughly deserve our highest respect and admiration.

So regulation 52 in clause 24 refers to the “Allowance or disallowance of votes of members of Defence Force”. Of course, at any time when there’s a general election, there will be members of the New Zealand Defence Force who will be deployed overseas or perhaps just deployed in such a way on some sort of training within New Zealand—maybe in the navy, out to sea, or whatever—whereby it’s much more difficult for them to cast their votes than it would be for a civilian.

But regulation 52(1) refers to “The Returning Officer for the district in respect of which a special vote has been cast in an election by a member of the Defence Force must allow the special vote if”—then (a) and (b). Again, I’m wondering what has changed so much to make it necessary for this to be written into the bill. There may be, again, a very good reason. My colleague the member for Helensville is a former member of the Defence Force. He may well take a call and be able to shed some light on this, but I’m wondering if the Minister can just give a little bit of history to explain what has led to this particular regulation 52(1)(a) and (b) being written in. And, of course, regulation 52(2) comes to the conclusion that “If a special vote cast by a member of the Defence Force is not allowed under subclause (1), the Returning Officer must disallow the special vote.” Well, I would imagine that that is equally applicable to somebody who’s not a member of the Defence Force.

So I’m just genuinely puzzled as to why it is necessary for this to be a special provision in the bill. It probably wouldn’t take a long time for the Minister to answer, and there may well be a very simple explanation, but I am hoping that we will hear it and look forward to hearing from him when possible.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As anticipated by my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe, I would indeed like to take a call just to comment briefly on the members of the Defence Force regulation within the electoral regulations, as amended by Part 2 of this bill.

There’s a particularly corny line in some kind of military film—I think it was actually on a submarine—and it was to the effect, and I’ll excuse myself from the American accent: “We’re here to defend democracy, not to practise it.” But in fact, as has already been alluded to by the Chair, I think it was—the fact that our Defence Force people are indeed defending the values of democracy isn’t a good reason for them not to have the opportunity to practise it.

In 2007, I was a member of the Australian Defence Force and had the opportunity to cast a vote in that election. I was overseas, even from the point of view of Australia—I think in the Middle East—and I would just like to place on record that notwithstanding the laws of that country that require voting, I did not avail myself of the opportunity to vote. I may have broken the law, but at least I cannot be blamed for the rise and then the fall and then the rise and then the fall of Kevin Rudd.

I’m just interested in the fact that there’s a witness needed to sign a declaration. I suppose it’s inevitable that Defence Force personnel, even on deployment, will have the opportunity to have a witness available to sign and verify the declaration that they have made under regulation 52 of the Electoral Regulations 1996. On Navy ships, this might be in what’s called the ship’s office where a new sailor would be encouraged to go and ask for a “thick regulator”, which sounds like a bit of engineering kit but, actually, it’s a rude way of describing one of the naval policemen or police persons. A regulator being, sort of, the shorthand for that, in the way of being asked for a can of striped paint, or a left-handed hammer, and so on.

Anyway, a member of the Defence Force, I presume, civilian or uniform alike, is captured by the regulations. So it seems sensible, for the reasons that others have stated, that we provide, in these consequential amendments, for the regulation to be amended in this way, even though, actually, I do share the point—I can’t elucidate the matter that Mr Macindoe has raised in relation to that, so the Minister might have to spare both of our blushes.

My final note is just the circular nature, which amused me—nothing wrong with it. Replacement regulation 52(2), set out in clause 24, states that “If a special vote cast by a member of the Defence Force is not allowed … the Returning Officer must disallow [it].” I suppose you can’t really say much, other than the fact that if it’s not allowed, it must be disallowed. Fair enough, I guess. So I’ll leave it there for tonight. Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Minister and anyone else able to provide further comments on that, all the best.

I’ll just take this opportunity to respond as briefly as I can to the very good points raised by the Hon Tim Macindoe and Chris Penk. Just on the last point, to Mr Penk, there is a difference between something that is not allowed and the act of disallowing it. One, I think, requires the application of intellectual or physical force, the other is a state of being.

In relation to clause 19 of the bill that, I think, Mr Macindoe raised, which is about the Electoral Commission sending to the returning officer, basically, the up-to-date list of people who enrolled on election day. There is an existing provision that that provision emulates, but obviously it aligns with the fact that the enrolment now goes right down to the end of polling day. It is obviously to ensure that the returning officer has an accurate roll against which to count the votes. So it’s an existing provision amended just to accommodate the election day enrolment.

Then in relation to clause 24 and the provisions for members of the Defence Force—there is also an existing provision, and the only material change to the provision in the bill is the removal of a reference to form 20. It looks different because the previous regulation was drafted some time ago in the days when the Parliamentary Counsel Office did seem to be interested in the number of words being used. It seems to be less of an issue these days. So a lot more words are used to achieve exactly the same thing, apart from the deletion of form 20, but that is what that provision amounts to. I hope I have answered the members’ questions.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Firstly, can I congratulate the Minister on the small piece of regulatory reduction that has occurred by removing reference to both form 20 and form 21. The only thing I would note is it is a small step forward for the overwhelming—one small step for man, when at a time the Government is passing so much extra regulation. But it is a good step, and I want to acknowledge that.

The bit where I am wanting the Minister to make a further contribution is around clause 19, and this ongoing debate that we’re having around the issues of writ day and its extension by a further 10 days. That is part of clause 19 in regulation 12. That is the rationale for New Zealanders having to wait a further 10 days under that regulation for the Electoral Commission to conclude the election cycle. I think most New Zealanders out there find the uncertainty that already exists between the results on election night and the time it takes to get the writs—and, of course, you’ve then got the significant period of time. In the first-past-the-post days, we generally got a pretty clean election result and, from writ day, the Government could get on with business.

Sorry to interrupt the member but it has come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill with amendment, and progress on the Electoral Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.