Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill is an ambitious bill, it has a lot of things in it. When looking at it, I actually did wonder—I haven’t asked the member responsible, Golriz Ghahraman, but it might be the entire, kind of, policy for justice for the Green Party, because there’s a lot in here. It wants to enable voters of Māori descent to change roll at any time. It wants to extend the voting age to 16 years, to remove the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last three years to maintain their voting rights, to give all people in prison the right to vote, to implement the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP review recommendations, to increase the transparency and safeguards on donations to parties and candidates, and, finally, to extend the reserve provisions to include all provisions that reduce eligibility to register as an elector or to vote in an election.

So the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill for two primary reasons. The first reason is that we are already addressing a number of these points, which I’ve outlined, in legislation that is currently before the Justice Committee. Secondly, those issues that are not currently in train within legislation before the House, those are part of an independent review of electoral law that is due to be reported back by the end of 2023.

So the Government has already recognised that we want to make the election rules clearer and fairer so that we can build more trust in the system and better support people to exercise their right to vote. This is a process that we’re pleased to have kicked off already. Progressing this bill past the first reading will simply duplicate the work that is already under way.

The issues in this bill are important, but they are already being addressed by bills that have been introduced to this House. The Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill, which is one of the bill’s proposed areas of reform, is something that is before the committee right now. We have heard submissions. We’ve heard really good submissions from different areas around New Zealand, from individuals and groups. We’ve been lucky enough to have that before us and we are due to report it back shortly. The Justice Committee is due to report back on 3 November, and that area will be before the House for a second reading.

The Māori electoral option is not the only option covered in this bill that is already going through the House. There are other issues, including increasing the transparency of donations, and also enabling citizens who have not been in New Zealand in the last three years, due to COVID restrictions, to vote—they are being addressed in the Electoral Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the Government earlier in the year.

We fully recognise the importance of trust in the integrity of New Zealand’s electoral system, which is why the Government is committed to increasing the transparency around donations to political parties. The issues in the Electoral Amendment Bill are similar to the bill we are debating today and require disclosure of donor identities for any party donations over 5,000, the number and total value of party donations under $1,500 that are not anonymous, the proportion of total party donations that are in kind or non-monetary donations, and also loans to candidates from unregistered lenders.

In addition to changing the rules around donations, the Electoral Amendment Bill will amend New Zealand’s electoral legislation to temporarily extend the ability of those New Zealanders overseas so they can vote in the 2023 general election, and allow for the regulated election period to shift if the election date shifts. The change in the Electoral Amendment Bill addressing New Zealanders voting from overseas is due to the challenges so many New Zealanders have faced, who are permanent residents and have been unable to return home after the past few years due to COVID-19. While many requirements have been lifted, overseas voters still face considerable financial, travel, health, and logistical barriers returning home, and we would not want to let this prevent them from participating in the next general election. Temporarily extending the overseas voting from three to six years for citizens, and one to four years for permanent residents, will uphold the rights of those Kiwis to exercise their democratic rights by voting in the upcoming election.

The other point that I’d like to make is the issues that are covered off in the independent review of New Zealand’s electoral law. These matters will cover voter eligibility, which could also include the consideration of permanent changes to the provision of overseas voters. This will allow for significant, permanent changes to our electoral rules, and will also be properly reviewed in a more thorough process than a member’s bill. We are fully committed to upholding New Zealanders’ democratic rights, and are already taking steps to strengthen this.

It’s important that I go over some of the areas that the independent panel will be able to cover. The independent panel is due, as I said, to report back by the end of November 2023. This review, in itself, will take two parts: a broader review led over the next 18 months; and targeted changes, also ahead of the general election, which I’ve already outlined. This review is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to consider how to make our electoral laws clearer, fairer, and more accessible.

The current bill that we are discussing is attempting to cover the same issues as this review but without the depth and the attention that an independent review can provide, especially when it is considered how many issues are lumped together in one bill. A crossover in issues that this bill and review both look at include a number of areas: voting age, overseas voting, funding of political parties, the length of the parliamentary term, and the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP. A wide-scale review is better suited for ensuring New Zealanders’ electoral laws are fit for purpose. The review is an opportunity to take a good and proper look at how we run our elections in New Zealand. Progressing this bill will undermine the opportunity by duplicating the work that the review is undertaking, with, potentially, less attention to detail.

It’s important that any review of electoral law has broad public and cross-party support. Appointing an independent panel will ensure that the review is fair and impartial. Furthermore, a review is more of a thorough process than a member’s bill when covering such a broad range of issues that are so fundamental to our democracy and so important, as New Zealanders, for us to understand.

For these reasons, an independent review is fit for purpose and a better way to proceed, in terms of trying to understand what best changes to make to our electoral law in New Zealand. We are confident that the panel members have the right mix of skills, expertise, and diverse perspectives to lead this important piece of work. Public engagement will be a really important part of the review, so all New Zealanders will have the chance to share their views before the panel makes its recommendations. This bill wants to strengthen New Zealand’s democracy, but we are already doing so. We would like to have the ability for people to have their comment and to have their say in a wider submissions period than what would be provided through simply a member’s bill.

The importance of the review being independent is really important. I would like to highlight that maintaining public confidence in elections is critical for democracy, and it is that bipartisan support that is important. This review, as initially outlined by Minister Faafoi when announced, has consulted with all parliamentary party leaders in Parliament and Parliament’s Justice Committee on the terms of reference for the review. Consultation also included other groups, such as Māori organisations, youth organisations, universities, and the New Zealand Law Society, when seeking nominations for potential panel members. It’s critical that the review has broad public and cross-party support, and appointing an independent panel will ensure it is fair. We are confident that these panel members will do a good job in the area.

Labour’s position on aspects of electoral reform, as already mentioned by the member in charge of the bill, has addressed areas that are important to that member. The ban of foreign donations—in June 2022, justice Minister Kiritapu Allan announced changes to electoral law to bring together greater transparency for voters. Changes to electoral law, announced by the Minister, aimed to support participation in parliamentary elections and improve public trust and confidence in New Zealand’s democracy.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is an ambitious bill; it raises a lot of important areas, but these areas are already being covered, either by existing legislation that is before the House presently or those important topics that require an in-depth and more lengthy process that is part of the independent review. While we have a world-class electoral system, times are changing and the Electoral Act needs to continue and move with them. It is only proper that we give such an important process the right course. We do not support the bill proceeding.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a rare and great thrill for me to be able to join with our friends in the Labour Party and agree with them that, in an area of electoral reform, we’re on the same side. We both agree that something’s not right here, but we both agree that this particular bill put forward by the Green Party, the so-called Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill, is not a good one. It is one that we won’t be supporting, either, partly because of the reasons outlined by the previous Labour speaker, Ginny Andersen: that many of the issues put forward in this bill are to be considered over the next couple of years by the Government’s independent panel.

I do want to take issue, however, with the previous speaker’s reference to it being bipartisan. Quite frankly, it followed this Government’s definition of “bipartisan engagement” when it came to the selection of an independent panel, which is to say that they come up with a list of names, send them to us on a letter, and say, “These are the names that we want to appoint, and if you object, well, tough luck, because they are the ones that we’re still going to appoint.” And so it’s a very strange form of bipartisanship on their part. In fact, we’d have a very different view on how you could get a broader support for it. We do have serious concerns about a lot of electoral reform being pushed through by this Government without bipartisan support, and we can point to a bill currently before the House which we strongly disagreed with and they’re still pushing through regardless. So, unfortunately, they’re not quite consistent on those matters.

But, nevertheless, we agree with them that what this bill does is a whole bunch of things. One of them, of course, is giving murderers the right to vote—as one thing which seems like an odd and strange priority for any parliamentarian at the moment. We would sort of take the view that if you take somebody’s life, maybe you have forfeited the right to vote while you’re in prison for having done that. But, clearly, that’s a priority for the Greens to change.

When it comes to extending the voting age to 16, I’ll be very interested to see the arguments put forward over the months and years about that. I certainly would think that if we were talking with the Green Party about youth justice, they would have a very strong view that 16- and 17-year-olds are kids and should be treated very differently in the justice system and in a very different way to adults. Now, their brains haven’t formally developed, and so they’re not fully responsible for criminal activity in the same way as adults. But when it comes to electoral law, it’s a very different standard. So I’d be very interested to see how they square those two different views.

We could go through all of these issues, but the sad reality is that this bill, having being opposed by Labour—which, under the current electoral laws, have an insurmountable vote that will stop anything that they want to stop—this bill is, unfortunately, dead on arrival. And so whether we support it or not is irrelevant to the matter. But on that basis, I just want to make clear that we won’t be supporting it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to this bill. I just want to start by congratulating the member and recognising both her work on this bill but also her luck in it being drawn. Ms Ghahraman and I have known each other for a number of years, and sat on the steering board of an organisation called Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa, so we have a passion for a number of the same issues. And I am always excited to see the work that she’s doing on members’ bills because they come with strong values-based proposals. So I do want to recognise that.

However, as my colleague Ginny Andersen has canvassed, we won’t be supporting the bill today, so I’d just like to speak to some of my rationale behind that. Ms Anderson has already spoken to the significant overlap in terms of work, and it was actually really good to hear that acknowledgment from Ms Ghahraman, as well, that a number of proposals within the bill are already in train. So some of them are in front of the Justice Committee now—which is the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill—and there’s, of course, the independent review of electoral law as well, with the report due back no later than 30 November 2023.

So, in short, I agree with the need for us to be discussing these issues and these important processes. But I do think it’s important for us to know when we need to seek independent advice first. There are some signals within the bill in front of us today that indicate that they’re in that space. They touch several of the proposals; touch on areas of our law which are morally entrenched. That, in my view, gives them semi-constitutional status. And that, to us, should be an indication that there needs to be a robust process if there are changes to those areas of law. So it’s my view that a member’s bill just isn’t the right vehicle for a number of the changes proposed.

I just want to briefly explain, I guess, that term “moral entrenchment”. There’s a section within our Electoral Act, section 268, which creates “reserved provisions” and that restricts the repeal or amendment of some provisions, including the definition of the term “adult”, which is in section 3(1) and section 60(f) of the Electoral Act. This bill attempts, through clauses 10 and 11, to change those provisions.

So the reserved entrenchment provision clause says that that cannot be changed unless the change is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives, or has been carried by a majority of valid votes in what would be a referendum.

The reason it’s called “moral entrenchment” is that, in reality, changes could be made to those rules by a simple majority, first by repealing section 268 itself and then, in the absence of that section, using a simple majority to change the voting age. So it’s not true entrenchment, but it is an indication to Parliament that we need to be very cautious and step through due process if we are going to make changes in this area.

Now, this is what we are doing at the moment. It’s why we have the independent review; it’s why we have a non-partisan review as well. I understand that the previous Minister of Justice consulted with parliamentary parties across the House when setting the terms of reference, also consulted with the Justice Committee and a number of different organisations—including Māori organisations, the New Zealand Law Society, youth organisations, universities—when seeking nominations for the potential panel members. Due process for really robust work like this is incredibly important.

So, in short, the work is under way. It doesn’t just address the voting age; there’s also the length of the parliamentary term—which, interestingly, is another morally entrenched provision—and there’s an examination of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP as well, including things like changes to the party vote threshold. So I’m afraid I don’t support this bill proceeding through the House today, but I do believe these are issues that will be addressed through a separate track. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill. Why? Well, let’s see how many ways we can count up in a short five minutes. I’m reminded, when I read the title of this bill, of places like the democratic republic of North Korea. Spoiler alert: it’s not democratic, and sometimes when someone protests too much, it turns out that what is labelled on the tin is not what is within. That’s very much the case with this so-called strengthening democracy amendment bill.

It does a number of things—or would if it had support from any party in this House other than the one that proposed it. It says it “[enables] voters of Māori descent”—that would be me—“to change roll type at any time.” So what it says is I am absolutely, sincerely committed to honouring my whakapapa today, but I might change tomorrow. Well, there’s a reasonable amendment to be made that somebody should not have to wait for seven years until there’s a specified date when they can change. A person should be able to choose to change on a particular day, but they shouldn’t be able to change continually at any time. That is insincere, it’s an insult to whakapapa, and it undermines faith in the democratic system because people go on a particular roll perhaps for political reasons rather than identity reasons. That is completely wrong.

It says “[extend] the voting age to 16 years.” Now, this could be reasonably debated by different people of different views. Once upon a time, it was 21; now it’s 18; perhaps it could be 16. But don’t let anyone doubt that the Green Party believes this is a good thing because it would introduce around about 120,000 more voters who pay almost no tax but enjoy getting Government benefits—in other words, more Green voters. That’s the only reason they want to do it, and they say it will increase participation. Well, that’s actually not true. What it’s found is that when people are allowed to vote younger, they vote more the first time they’re allowed, but then they vote less on their second vote. All that this change would do is bring forward the timing of that vote.

It says, “[remove] the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last 3 years to maintain their voting rights.” Well, this might not be popular with some New Zealanders overseas, but, frankly, if you’re not a tax resident, then no taxation without representation doesn’t apply. Those of us who are here in New Zealand under the scourge of the IRD giving away a third to half our income every year, we do have an interest and a say in where this country’s going. So that’s wrong too.

“Giving all people in prison the right that vote.” OK, so everyone has a bundle of rights. You can’t move; you can’t freely associate; you get locked in a six-by-four cell. The Green Party’s happy that people should be in prison but they’re not allowed to take away their right to vote. Well, actually, that’s not right. If you lose all of those other rights, maybe part of the punishment is losing the right to vote periodically as well. But if the Green Party is going to campaign on increasing the rights of convicted rapists and murderers, the people who aren’t currently able to vote, then I guess that is up to them.

“Implementing the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP Review recommendations.” What they want to do is say that if you win an electorate seat, you have to also win at least 4 percent of the vote to get your party’s proportional share. I really do need another five minutes to go through the history of how MMP was designed in Germany and what the 1986 royal commission considered in terms of the population of—

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a mischaracterisation of what the bill contains. People winning electorate seats would enter Parliament under the Act, so that’s wrong. He could correct it, or we can move forward.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That’s not a valid point of order, but you could continue on your remaining—

Point of order. I seek leave for my speech to be extended by an extra 10 minutes so I can correct the record for the member’s benefit.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is absolutely an invalid point of order. You’ve got 55 seconds to go.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I have every right to seek the leave of the House. Is there any reason why you wouldn’t put that leave?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That leave is put to the House. Is there any objection to that? Yes. You have 55 seconds.

People at home might ask, “What is it that the left are afraid of that they wouldn’t give him another 10 minutes to talk?” They don’t like it up ’em.

And finally we find that they wanted to put a legal cap on how much a New Zealand citizen should give to a population. And you know what? The Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act said that it is inconsistent with the bill of rights to limit someone’s right to give their money that they’ve earned to a political party to campaign for their views. This is the party that talks about democracy but doesn’t follow it, and then—

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order. That was, again, an incorrect statement of the Attorney-General’s statement. The Attorney-General said that the $35,000 limit suggested may breach the right, not putting a limit at all on political donations.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): It’s not actually a valid point of order.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Sorry, just a factual error.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. In all seriousness, I actually would like to seek leave for another minute because the clock’s been running down while I’ve been needlessly and pointlessly—it was running down.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): When a point of order is taken, the clock is stopped.

Well, it actually wasn’t in this instance for quite a while.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I was watching. David Seymour—16 seconds.

Point of order. Well, actually, you’re supposed to take a member at their word. I just told you that I was—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): And you are also supposed to take the Chair at her word that she’s been watching the clock.

Madam Speaker, it’s gone down another second while we’ve been having this point of order. It was 16 before and now it’s 15.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I put leave to the House that David Seymour seeks another 10 minutes—

No, no, no. No; just one minute now. I’m being reasonable.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): One minute. David Seymour seeks one minute. Is there any objections to that? There is an objection.

I make the simple point that Golriz Ghahraman, in introducing this bill, said colonisation had undermined democracy. Golriz Ghahraman doesn’t even understand that without colonisation, there would be no democracy in New Zealand. That’s how it got here; that’s why she’s wrong about everything—

Order! The member’s time is up. Before I call Jamie Strange, may I just remind members that when they’re taking points of order, those points of order should be valid and based on actual Speakers’ rulings; not just that they don’t agree with the statement or the part of the speech of the previous speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to bring a little bit of decorum to the House after the relative shambles of the last few minutes over that side of the House there. I think the ACT Party and the Green Party should just sort of hold hands and maybe just get on a little bit every now and then. But anyway, that’s up to them.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call at the first reading of the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the member for bringing this bill to the House, and as other members have said, acknowledge the passion of Golriz Ghahraman in this area.

Now, you’ve heard previously from speakers on this side of the House that we will not be supporting this bill, and those reasons have been fairly clearly outlined, primarily based around the fact that we are already doing work in this area. When I was growing up, at dinner time my mother and father would often say to me, “Your eyes are bigger than your stomach”, which would mean that I’ve got a little bit too much food on my plate and I think I can eat more then than I can. If I could just give a little bit of advice to the member, I feel like, in this bill, she’s probably trying to bite off a little bit too much in one bill. Seven really large chunky areas in one member’s bill is possibly a little bit of an overreach. Maybe if the member had chosen one of these areas, who knows what may or may not have happened. But seven fairly large areas around this bill: enabling the voters of Māori descent to change roll at any time; extending the voting age to 16; removing the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last three months to maintain the voting rights; giving all people in prison the right to vote; implementing the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP review recommendations; strengthening transparency and safeguards on donations to parties and candidates; and extending the reserved provisions to include all provisions that reduce eligibility to register as an elector or to vote at an election. Seven really large chunky areas of electoral law that the member has tried to bring to this House. Obviously, it’s quite clear from the speeches that this bill will not progress.

Now, I did mention before that this Government is undertaking some work in this area, the independent review of electoral laws, and it will pick up on some of these points. I’d just like to offer my personal reflections on some of these points. Extending the voting age to 16 is an interesting topic. It’s one that is regularly canvassed by people, particularly on the election trail. I’m sure members of this House have been asked this question at many candidate meetings. My personal view is I’m actually open to this idea. However, I do believe that if we are going to change the voting age to 16, then the first vote should be at high school. There should be civics education, there should actually potentially be a voting ballot box at the high school. Research shows that if someone votes for the first time that they’re eligible, then there’s a high likelihood that they will continue to vote. If someone doesn’t vote the first time, if they miss the first time, then they often don’t come back to voting until they’re maybe in their thirties, forties, maybe when they buy a house, maybe have children. So, look, I think it is something that is worth exploring.

There was another interesting one that sparked my interest that was around the length of the parliamentary term. Obviously, it’s three years at the moment. Some people would argue it should be longer than three years. In the UK, it’s five. The United States is four, for example. I think there’s an interesting nuance here in New Zealand that we don’t have an Upper House. So three years, yes, it is relatively short, and generally it is challenging for Governments because, if you come into Government, you spend the first year setting up, second year doing things, and third year straight into the campaigning. But the reality is, without there being an Upper House in New Zealand, we don’t have quite the checks and balances that other jurisdictions have. The three-year term, effectively, becomes a balance for this. So I’m not sure whether extending to four, without some form of Upper House, is appropriate. Yeah, but just a little reflection on that one; thoughts for those in the House tonight.

The Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP: changes to the party vote threshold. Now, this is set at 5 percent, and I see I’m running out of time—I could seek leave for a little bit more time but I won’t try that. So I’ll just summarise: some interesting points here, but unfortunately for the member, this side of the House won’t be supporting.

Look, one of the things I have found in life is that the more you try to insinuate something in the title, the less it actually is. And so saying this is “strengthening democracy” is the first indicator it’s doing the complete opposite. While I do not take away from the intention of the member putting this forward, Golriz Ghahraman, this is just a grab bag of Green Party wish lists to gerrymander the whole system. It’s not how we do electoral law reform. To give credit to Government, they’re putting reviews in place, Justice Committee’s review, a grab bag of seven ideas—

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: They came out of the justice review.

I know, I’m on the Justice Committee, which is one of my delightful biases that I’d much prefer that we do our normal reviews of each electoral cycle than a member’s bill, as I say, with seven rather arbitrary and inconsistent ideas, as I say, under the somewhat Orwellian double-speak of strengthening democracy. This will do the complete opposite, other than, of course, strengthening the democratic results that the Green Party would want.

After that uncharacteristically short and taut and to-the-point contribution from my friend Mr O’Connor, it is a pleasure to rise and discuss this very interesting bill, which I regret that we cannot support, simply because we’re doing it already. Ms Ghahraman called it disparate. My colleague Ms Andersen called it ambitious. Mr Strange got homespun and referred to it as having eyes bigger than its stomach. All of those descriptions are somewhat true: it is something of an omnibus. I think I will personally stick with more homespun and go with: this is a member’s bill that has possibly bitten off more than a member’s bill should.

But let’s talk about what is in this bill, because these are all important ideas that do deserve respect. The first is enabling voters of Māori descent to change roll at any time. The second provision is to remove the requirement for New Zealand citizens who have been living overseas to have visited New Zealand in the last three years to maintain their voting rights, which, of course, is a very pertinent issue at the moment, following on from COVID. The third point made in the bill is that it would just strengthen transparency in safeguarding rules around donations to parties, another important issue. The fourth idea is giving all people in prisons the right to vote. Fifth, we come to extending the voting age to 16. The ambition is fairly staggering. Then, sixth, we go to extending the reserve provisions to include all provisions reducing eligibility to register as an elector or vote in an election. And then, finally, implementing all of the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP review recommendations.

These are all worthwhile, important ideas to canvass. So worthwhile, in fact, that we are already doing them. Ms. Golriz, with commendable confidence, referred to the Government as having picked up her ideas. There is a difference between correlation, of course, and causation, and I believe that most of these important points predate the terms of most of those of us speaking in the House today.

So let’s go through exactly what is being done here. First off, taking point one, the ability of Māori voters to change roll type at any time. Now, we announced on 9 June we’d be progressing this through, and so we are doing. On 21 June this year, the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill—my goodness, we give these things snappy titles—

💬 Simeon Brown: Where’s the plain language?

—was introduced to the House. We are working on it as we speak. It is before—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brown, you will not come and yell something when you come into this Chamber. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Simeon Brown: I stand, withdraw, and I apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Feel free to join and debate, but make sure you’re sitting down when you do it.

So point one we’ve already got covered. Then we come to point two, which is the overseas voters point, the one made so pertinent by COVID and the lockdown restrictions. We are also progressing law changes to this one that will include a temporary amendment to enable New Zealand citizens who have not been in New Zealand for the last few years to bypass the normal requirements for the next election. And, again, we have this bill in and we will be progressing it in time for the next election.

Then we have the donations point, and, again, the same Electoral Amendment Bill which is going to deal with COVID restrictions—and I think it is appropriate that those be dealt with on a temporary basis—they will also be dealt with in that same amendment bill.

Giving prisoners the right to vote, giving all prisoners the right to vote—this is something that was canvassed as recently as three years ago, when we allowed all people in prison for three years or less to have the right to vote. It seems somewhat premature to start again and revisit it.

And finally, as my colleague Ms Walters so eloquently pointed out, some of the other provisions which would look to change the points which require a referendum—these are constitutional law points, they shouldn’t be part of a member’s bill.

We are, however, undertaking a wide-ranging and independent review of the remaining points. I’m not unsympathetic to many of them, including the ability of 16-year-olds to vote, but that’s for another day. I cannot commend this to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Congratulations to the member for having the bill pulled, but the National Party opposes this bill. The Labour Government has already implemented an independent review of electoral laws and is due to report back later this year and that is the appropriate place to consider changes to electoral law. There can be a few things as important as determining how people can select those who represent them in this House, and the appropriate place to do that is in the independent review of electoral laws rather than on a hodgepodge basis, which this, unfortunately, is.

Staggering individual electoral law changes risks having changes all over the shop that are unaligned and could have unintended consequences. In fact, the Attorney-General has already raised concerns about the bill, which is indicative of why electoral laws should be considered thoroughly. Electoral law is, of course, incredibly important and should be thoroughly considered on a cross-party basis. So we do not recommend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill, and I want to join some of my colleagues in congratulating the member sponsoring this bill for having the bill drawn and for bringing some really interesting issues to the House. As you would have heard from previous speakers from the Labour Party, it’s not a bill that we will be supporting today. However, I believe that most of us come to this House in order to enact real change, and so I think it should be some consolation to the member sponsoring it that a great number of the ideas that she has suggested in her member’s bill have, in fact, either have already been adopted by the Government or form part of an independent review. So I’m sure that the change itself will be reward enough for the work put into this bill, even though I understand that she may be disappointed it’s not progressing.

So what I thought might be interesting to do is just to go through the main points in this bill and just spell out exactly, really, what’s happening already in this space for clarity. One of the key points raised in this bill is enabling voters of Māori descent to change roll type at any time. I think that’s a very valid point. I was pleased to see the then Minister of Justice—Kris Faafoi—announce that we would be making this change in time for the 2023 election, and I understand that this is currently before the Justice Committee at the moment.

Another thing that we’ll also be implementing before the 2023 election will be removing the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last three years. That’s a really practical, pragmatic change on a temporary basis due to the obvious travel restraints we’ve had through COVID-19. So that’s also happening as well.

Also, prisoner voting rights: last term, there was a reversal of the 2020 changes that were brought in by the National Party that had limited voting rights for prisoners, so that’s something that’s also been implemented. We’ve heard at length today about the implementing of the Electoral Commission’s independent changes, and, in fact, we’re supporting that review, which is due in November 2023, as I understand it.

There are also other things: strengthening transparency around donations has been announced by the current Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, and other law changes have been announced in order to remove the requirement for local government candidates to have their address published. So that’s another type of electoral reform.

One thing that, as a list member, I was particularly interested in was looking at the section in this bill as it related to list seats. It’s something that I’m quite interested in in relation to how list members fit in and the role that we play within the democracy that we have. I was quite surprised at the extent to which this bill looked to change some very entrenched provisions that have been in place for a very long time within our democracy.

So, for example, to go through a few of the things, this bill is, I understand, proposing: a threshold change from 5 percent to 4 percent, which is something that has been discussed throughout the time that I have studied our politics and our democracy—a significant change. There also wouldn’t be coat-tailing, as it’s colloquially known, under this bill. So I think even in some circumstances, there would be a reduction in the number of seats within this Parliament.

In New Zealand, we don’t have an Upper House, we don’t have state government, and we don’t have regional parliaments, so that would actually be quite a significant change, I think, which is being proposed within this bill. Now, that’s not to say that I don’t think there’s value in debating these ideas as they’re outlined in this bill. I think that very many of these ideas have merit and have been discussed from a constitutional perspective in relation to the best way for us to see our democracy progressing. The thing that I would agree on with members on this side of the House and also members in other parties is that a member’s bill is, in my view, not the appropriate way to move forward significant changes within our constitutional frameworks, and that is what this bill proposes to do.

So I do commend the member for bringing the bill and for allowing us to have these very interesting discussions and to reflect on a lot of the work which is already taking place in this very important area, and I don’t begrudge her the opportunity to bring a bill on an important subject matter through the member’s bill process. We are all members of this House; we use the tools that we have to draw attention to the issues that we feel are important. But, unfortunately, I will not be commending this bill to the House today. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

💬 Hon Member: One more.

Oh sorry, my apologies.

It’s all right, and congratulations, I believe this is the first time I’m speaking with you sitting in that Chair, Mr Speaker.

It is a great pleasure after four years to have this bill heard, debated in the House, in the four months since it’s been introduced. We have done the crucial work of bringing the voices of people like the Electoral Commission, the 4,000 people who were heard by them in the MMP review, the Justice Committee, all of the people who’ve submitted there, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal. That, by the way, is where the seemingly disparate parts of this bill come from. The idea is that once we as a House hear from those expert independent institutions, that is the way to do bipartisan electoral review. So it is heartbreaking to hear the National Party say we need another inquiry. It is heartbreaking to hear the Labour Party say that we will do an inquiry on matters that have already been the subject of inquiries, without a commitment to, in fact, implement those recommendations once we have them.

There will be a lot of people engaging. There’ll be sector-based people, there’ll be NGOs, there’ll be communities who will come and pour their hearts and souls in to telling us what democracy should look like. But they’ve already done that on the subject matter issues that are contained in this bill. That was my point in putting them together.

It’s disappointing but not surprising to hear the Opposition will oppose this bill. You know, having already addressed the disappointment with the National Party’s refusal to take up matters that they oversaw an inquiry, I’ll turn to ACT and say: when will the one-vote-per-person ideal that you keep trotting out actually apply when it’s not to do with opposing Te Tiriti - based democracy? That seems to be the only time that ACT believes in one vote per person.

We’ve heard the National Party belittle young voters and say that they will only ever be voting one way or another. Well, we actually don’t know. The idea that you would limit democracy because you feel that the voters that you are disenfranchising may not vote for you, that’s callous. It has no place in this House.

So the pressure is on Labour. You have announced—not you, Mr Speaker, but the Government—an inquiry. But we haven’t yet heard from the Minister or the Government a commitment to that implementation. We know that things like prisoner voting, that disenfranchisement, came through a single-vote majority member’s bill. We know that the MMP review sat buried since 2012. So there is another inquiry. We don’t want it to turn into a Welfare Expert Advisory Group situation where we have robust, independent recommendations that sit rotting away. It would be heartbreaking to see that inquiry so inspiringly announced be used only to vote down this bill, to impede a proper debate of these issues in select committee after we’ve heard from our highest courts and institutions, and then to see that inquiry going nowhere.

The people out there in the nation that first declared full suffrage are watching. They expect better from us. Future voters, young people, are watching. The Make It 16 campaigners—their movement; not mine— expect us to put party politics aside. They expect us not to askew democracy in favour of political parties who are already here: the big parties, the parties most able to get those big, deep-pocket donors, the parties most able to reach their already institutionalised voters. They expect better from us, and we have our democracy at stake. It’s a mixed-member democracy, and we know globally that that is under attack. We know globally that interference is a real thing. We know that the more people that vote, the more different kinds of people that vote, the stronger that our decisions will be in this House. That is what we are here for. So let’s hear that commitment from the Government.

I, tonight, with the Green Party will celebrate that we did get, in the face of being told repeatedly that electoral reform is not a priority, more than half of this bill, step by step, put into Government law. It is a win for democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.