Electoral Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 of this bill does two things of which I want to make some comments on in the remaining three-and-a-bit minutes that I have.

The first of those is in replacement regulation 52 of the Electoral Regulations, inserted by clause 24, and there we are making changes to the regulations, and I want to emphasise to the Chamber how strongly National supports those. These are amendments about making it as easy as possible for our defence personnel serving in different parts of the world to vote. The reason National’s—

💬 Michael Wood: You told us last night.

—so supportive of those measures, Mr Wood, is that the very people that are serving our country in dangerous places around the world, championing the values that Kiwis hold dear of democracy, should not be inconvenienced in any way in being able to exercise their vote. In fact, our view would be that through their line of work and the risks that they are taking for New Zealand, it is incumbent on New Zealand and our Parliament to ensure that they are able to exercise those democratic rights, and that is properly provided for in clause 24, that makes changes around the voting for those members of our Defence Force.

The part that I’m far less enthusiastic about is clause 19 and the changes that it is making consequential to the Government’s decision and voting on the same day. That is not a change that was recommended by the Electoral Commission for the 2020 election; it’s a change that the Government is making because it thinks it can screw the scrum a bit its way for the 2020 election. We know there are about 19,000 votes where people have not enrolled on election day. The reason that National is nervous of the provisions in clause 19 is that it completely removes the incentive for people to enrol. Effectively, what the Government is saying to the people of New Zealand is “Don’t bother enrolling, you can turn up any old day you like and you’ll still be allowed to vote”. It will be a consequence of these provisions, including clause 19, that over time the number of people enrolling will drop because there is no restriction or no requirement to do so.

And we’re also concerned about the consequential amendments that have the election writ day, final conclusion of the election, and the results announced being delayed by 10 days. Already we have a problem of too great a portion of the electoral cycle being consumed by election uncertainty; I already see it in the Government’s eyes today that they are more concerned with re-election than getting on and governing the country, and the concern that we have is that New Zealand has a very short electoral period—three years. That period has been further shortened in my period because we have not only the election and the results of the final special votes being counted, we can have periods up to 100 days of which negotiations occur to be able to form a Government and that is just churning up an increasing proportion of the three years electoral cycle.

So what we see in the consequential amendments in Part 2, in clause 19 is the Government delaying the formation of a Government by 10 days. Some people say, “Well, what the heck? What’s 10 days?” Well, actually, the Government spends $1.3 billion per week. That’s another week and a half of which you don’t have an elected Government giving clear directions to the officials and all that Government is responsible for, and that is one of the reasons that we are not supportive of the change the Government is wanting to make around same-day enrolment and voting. We think the Government has overruled the Electoral Commission on this view, that they’ve overruled the practice in the sort of democracies that we would want to be associated with that don’t allow same-day voting and enrolment, solely because they think they can get some small electoral advantage by allowing that same-day voting and enrolment.

So this is not the worst electoral bill nor the worst part that we have seen from this Government. It is the fourth without any consultation. The bulk of the provisions are minor, administrative, and supportive. We are particularly supportive of those changes in respect of the New Zealand Defence Force that I’ve already mentioned. But we are not supportive of the change around clause 19, and the same-day enrolment and voting and those consequential amendments.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m speaking to Part 2 of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I just want to focus a little bit, if I may, on the amendment of regulation 12—that’s within the Electoral Regulations 1996—of course, Part 2 being consequential amendments, the other parts of our law that need to change as a result of the more substantive parts or aspects of Part 1 that we’ve already discussed in some detail.

Looking at regulation 12, I wanted to focus on some of the mechanics of the list of late enrolments, and specifically the timing of that, and also what it is exactly that the Electoral Commission must do in relation to the list of people who have taken advantage of the provisions of Part 1 in enrolling later than they’re currently able to do. Just to be clear, when I say “take advantage of”, I don’t mean that in any sort of ugly way, but rather to avail themselves of the opportunity that the bill is now going to afford to them.

So I note that it’s “as soon as practicable after polling day” that the obligation applies for the Electoral Commission to send a certain list to the returning officer. We’ll get to that list perhaps in a minute—I can sense your excitement to do so—but focussing first on this aspect of timing, as I say, as soon as practicable after polling day, I wonder if the Minister can advise, perhaps leaning heavily on his officials, noting that he is not the same Minister who was in the chair last night, whether any thought was given to another formulation of timing.

For example, it might be that the obligation applies as soon as practicable after polling day but, in any case, not later than the return of the writ, or in any case, prior to either the final results being announced or the provisional results being announced. Alternatively, the Minister might offer a view as to whether there is a certain period of time that it would be ideal or desirable to have the Electoral Commission send those names. So if the Minister can address that aspect, that would be very helpful indeed, not only for the purpose of the current debate but, I suppose, to shape the understanding of the Electoral Commission, following the election, as to exactly what is expected of them, other than that reasonably vague instruction to simply do so “as soon as practicable after polling day”. So that was the first thing that I was interested to raise.

The second is in relation to the list of persons who will be sent in the way I’ve described, and these are the persons whose names have been entered on the electoral roll for the district after writ day and by the end of polling day under various sections of the Act. I wonder if the Minister can explain why it is that the Electoral Commission wouldn’t simply advise all the names of eligible electors—so that would include not only those who have recently become eligible but also those who were already eligible prior to that time. It seems, perhaps, that what we’re going to end up with in the regulations is an artificial distinction, given that the law, the policy behind the law, and indeed the provisions of Part 1 now establish a regime where all enrolments are to be treated the same. Indeed, all enrolment applications are to be allowed whether or not they are before writ day or indeed on polling day. So I wonder if we’re going to have somewhat of an anachronism within the law whereby we’re going to have a list of persons over here and list of persons over there for which there is no meaningful distinction.

Alternatively, I suppose, we can look—[Bell rung] Madam Chair? Excuse me; I misunderstood the timing. The other aspect I was interested to look at within that provision was whether there might be someone else who would appropriately receive that list of persons of newly enrolled electors. Those might be, I suppose, the people who already receive notification of new electoral enrolments. Members of the public who are watching this broadcast, both of them by now, might be interested to know that, actually, enrolments that are made in the course of a three-year parliamentary term are, as a matter of course, periodically—I think, perhaps, on a monthly cycle, but I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong there, but in any case, periodically—advised to the offices of sitting MPs, and that’s a matter of current members of Parliament, electorate and list, I presume, being able to maintain contact with—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I, first of all, before I call the member, apologise—in my excitement with the content of his speech, I made an error and pushed the bell a minute early.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Your excitement is understandable and, indeed, shared. In fact, I will excite you not much longer, Madam Chair; I’ve almost finished my points—if indeed I’ve started them! The question was, really, just whether the Minister can advise if there’s anyone else who should be receiving this information following the newly registered electors having come on board, so to speak, the electoral train leaving “Election-ville Station”.

The only other point was just around the point regarding New Zealand Defence Force members. Dr Nick Smith has already made the point about allowing those who are defending democracy to indeed practise it as well. I’ve made that point already; so, as much as I’d love to go there again, so to speak—and I know others would as well—I shall refrain from doing so.

I move, That the question be now put.