Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill. We come first to the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill.

Members, before we commence the debate on Part 1, I remind the committee that clause 5 proposes to amend section 35 of the Electoral Act 1993, which is a reserved provision under section 268 of that Act. Therefore, a vote on this provision will be taken separately after the vote on the amendments and the vote on the remaining provisions of the bill. Clause 5 will stand part if the vote is carried by at least 75 percent of all members of the House, which is 90 or more members. I will also scrutinise any amendments to the bill as they are lodged to check whether they also need the support of the special majority. Members, we come first to Part 1.

Madam Chair, I’m very pleased to be here for the committee stage of this very important piece of legislation, the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill—a bill which will reduce barriers to Māori participating in elections, strengthening this Government’s commitment to honouring both our electoral system and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I’ll keep these introductory remarks very brief, but I want to acknowledge every single party in this House that will be voting for a Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled this evening which would amend one of the provisions in this bill to ensure that there is a hold, three months out from a general election—a local body election—which is aligned with the by-election provisions.

So, to our counterparts in the Opposition, the National Party, to our counterparts the ACT Party, to the Green Party, and, of course, to Labour, I just want to commend the collective will of this Parliament to see an equitable outcome which will enable an increased and enhanced participation rate of Māori in our electoral system.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I want to acknowledge the Minister in introducing the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which has changed. So for those tuning in, not necessarily following the way that the Parliament works, when the Government of the day introduces a bill—and the purpose of this bill is to move away from a five-yearly option, so when people are either on the Māori roll or the general roll, once every five years, linked with the census, in order to have the populations right, people have a chance to switch rolls if they are of Māori descent.

So the purpose of this bill is to enable people to switch at any time, not just wait for every five years. That makes it certainly easier, and if people decide that they want to be on a different roll and vote on the general roll or on the Māori roll, then they have the chance to do that. So that was introduced and we had our first reading. And National opposed the bill because we were concerned, particularly, as the bill, as introduced, excluded by-elections from a certain amount of time around a by-election that you couldn’t switch between rolls. Because people were naturally worried that people who might be on the Māori roll in an area, and say there was a by-election in Rotorua—I’m sure that wouldn’t happen with Todd McClay but if, say, there was—if they were able to switch and vote in that by-election, then that would undermine confidence in the way the system worked.

Now, the previous Minister of Justice who introduced this, Kris Faafoi, in writing to me referred to the concern around tactical roll switching. We just held the view that the logic, as it applied to by-elections, equally applied to general elections and increasingly, of course, local body elections where there are a large number of Māori wards. So we asked that the Government consider this.

Now, during the select committee process, which is after the first reading, when people from different sides of the House get together, we hear submissions, and where concerns were raised on all sides—some people wanted even more substantial changes—the Government members didn’t listen to our concerns, particularly, and didn’t make any changes. However, the Minister did at the subsequent stage in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper, and we’re grateful for that. Some cynics have said it’s just because 75 percent is required and they need our support. I’m sure that that’s not just the case actually, but I think the Minister was genuine in her concern to have widespread support for what is a significant electoral change—as this is.

And this gives us the opportunity to make it easier for people to switch between rolls, but also to have that period, three months, around an election when, in an MMP environment, there is movement potentially around if you happen to be on one roll but be in a place where one election is very tight and marginal and the other one is a foregone conclusion—then to have one group able to choose between which one they want to vote for right up in the lead-up to the election, we thought, wasn’t appropriate.

So with that change, which is part of this SOP introduced by the Minister, if it passes, which it sounds like it’s going to, the bill will be different from what it looked like when it came into Parliament, but it will come out the other end achieving its purpose, which is to make it easier for people of Māori descent to engage in politics and be on a roll that suits them best and also will retain widespread support in the House.

And I think that’s a good way of doing things when we’re dealing with electoral law, and so I would just finish by just encouraging the Minister and the Labour Party in particular to adopt that approach generally when it comes to electoral law. Because it’s tempting, when one has a majority, to arrange the rules to suit, but it’s better if it’s done across the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has done, I want to start by acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan. We’ve had good engagement with her, and it’s important, for the reasons that Mr Goldsmith has outlined, in the area of electoral law, that we have an enduring system. These are the rules of the game by which we must all play. So the engagement of the Minister has been helpful in that regard. I don’t know what engagement she has had with other parties. No doubt she would have reached out to them, and she made a point, in her opening remarks on Part 1, of noting the importance of getting non-partisan consensus. So I think that’s really positive.

Of course, in the spirit of enlightened self-interest, there is the aspect of the entrenched provisions of the Electoral Act. It might have been the case—and, indeed, we’ve heard from the Speaker of the House and now, also, the Chair of the committee that it is the case—that, for certain changes being made within this legislation, it would have required 75 percent of the House. Having said that, just to acknowledge, if the Government had wanted, the Government could have passed by simple majority a repeal of the entrenchment provisions. So it could have got to where it wanted had it wished to force its will upon the Parliament, and therefore the country, but they’ve done the right thing by having that discussion with us. So I wanted to start just by acknowledging that.

I think the only remarks that I would really make in relation to Part 1 would be just understanding the mechanics of how it is that a person can change rolls. We’ve talked about the fact that we want roll changing to be maximised—and therefore the interests of democracy to be served by maximising voter participation in the way that that feels right to those persons who are able to exercise that option—without, of course, jeopardising the integrity of the system as a whole. We’ve talked about that enough at previous stages, but, in terms of the mechanics of how this operates, I guess I do have probably only three questions, and they’re reasonable short. I’ll just give you a heads-up, Madam Chair; I’m not seeking particularly to prolong the matter, but a couple of important points, I think, are worth putting on the public record.

One is that, in exercising the option we see in the amendment to section 78, which is clause 6 within the bill—so that’s talking about exercising the option not only in writing but also the opportunity to do that in an approved electronic medium by providing the required information—I presume that the intent there is to align the exercise of the Māori electoral option at this different timing in a way that is consistent with other ways that people can update their details on the electoral roll; and also just to test with the Minister her thinking about voting by electronic means. I think I’m right in saying that most voices within the Parliament are nervous about electronic voting per se. But it’s worth acknowledging that overseas-based New Zealanders can cast a vote, I think, by faxing it through, of all things, which is kind of amusing in itself. I’ve some written questions on the use of faxing, and as soon as those telegrams arrive in your office, Minister, I look forward to your response by pigeon post!

But, actually, in all seriousness, just to sort of get a feel for, as it will be, amended section 78(1)(b), “approved electronic medium”, and just to see if there were any thoughts you have about the way that we want to make it easier for people, whether in this bill or going forward, and in relation to the Māori electoral roll or general roll, to exercise their preference for being on a particular roll and indeed for voting by some method other than a physical piece of paper and ticking a physical box. I invite any comments you may have in that space.

First of all, just to the member Christopher Penk, thank you for your considered contributions on these constitutionally significant matters. I appreciate that you always turn your thoughtful eye to these issues with diligence.

With respect to the first question, just on the operational mechanics, the Electoral Commission has a plan for how they will implement the continuous option. The plan is that they will deliver a nationwide public information and education plan to ensure that voters are aware of the option, how they can make their choice, etc., and what it means for them. They will be running this educational and informational drive through personalised mail-outs to all those enrolled of Māori descent with information about how they may switch between rolls if they choose to. They’ll also receive texts and/or email messages where their information is available. They intend to run a targeted community engagement via face-to-face and digital channels, work with various Māori groups, and then advertising across multimedia channels, public information on the commission’s websites and the like.

I guess that ties a little bit into the second question, just in terms of practically how people can go about amending their roll. As you correctly point out, new section 78, set out in clause 6, sets out the ways in which they may indicate their new choice. So an approved electronic medium, as I best recall, is that there are digital applications that can be filled online via the Electoral Commission, but it may, indeed, include some fancy form of facsimile. I will have to get a briefing from my officials there, but the general way that that will be done is through the forms on the Electoral Commission’s website.

With respect to the, I guess, hypothetical situation of electronic voting, the member may be aware that there is an Independent Electoral Review Panel that’s been established to look at a broad range of areas. This, I’m sure, is a part of that, where they look at how we can increase participation in democracy, but I thank the member for his question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I would like to express our thanks for the work that you’ve done on this bill as well, including looking at some of the concerns that we, as a party, had towards this. Again, this was a bill where we agreed with the concept in being able to allow Māori to change, we were hoping only once every electoral cycle, but agree with your Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 280 that people would be able to change the rolls that they’re on as long as it’s not within three months of a local election, by-election, or a general election.

The questions that I have for you, Minister, include—well, there’s a couple of them. One is: why was it set at three months? Is there a possibility it could’ve been six? And if so, I wouldn’t mind tabling a SOP or an amendment to make it six months instead of the three months, which we would be happier with. So I just would like some clarity around why it’s three months and whether or not we could actually look to make it six.

Also, Minister, I just wonder if you could explain to us, please, with this ability to be able to change, except for three months out from one of those three options, how, if in any way, is it going to affect changing boundaries for electoral areas, and, potentially, how would it change electoral seats, especially for Māori seats and those greater boundary areas as well? I’m just wondering, Minister, whether you’re able to address that, because some of the concerns about using the system to game—it can still be there. So I’m just hoping that you can alleviate that concern for those viewers at home. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just first of all, I acknowledge the member and their party for engaging constructively through the process, and also for the questions raised this evening. I think that when we can get full agreement of the Parliament on these types of issues, that’s such a successful state for democracy in New Zealand. So me mihi, ka tika, kei a koe e te tuakana [I must be sure to thank you, sister].

The three-month period was selected because it aligns with what is the regulated period, essentially, for elections. So it’s the period where, particularly in a general election, traditionally parties, candidates, really begin to step up their electoral campaigning efforts. So it was to align with that regulated period. Obviously, there were views given to a broad range of periods right from as the bill was, prior to now, relatively free range through to larger exemptions and extensions. It was deemed that this was, essentially, the most appropriate time when people become quite interested, and if there was a hint of gaming or those types of things, it would become most evident in that three months during that regulated period.

Just trying to recall the member’s second question with respect to changing boundaries. With respect to changing boundaries, that’s done once every parliamentary term. It’s done by an independent—well, the Electoral Commission stewards and facilitates with cross-party support. So it wouldn’t change the electoral boundaries but for that period directly after an election.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for that engagement following my first question—that was really helpful, actually, to get bit of a sense of how the Electoral Commission would be looking to engage. And I’d be remiss, I suppose, for not mentioning that the Electoral Commission, of course, is the body that is responsible for the running of elections that are general in nature, as opposed to local—and that’s been the subject of some discussion recently, and I think the National Party’s made pretty clear its view that it should be the Electoral Commission that’s also responsible for running local government elections. However, that’s by the by in terms of this bill.

In terms of Part 1, which we remain on, obviously, at this stage, I’m just interested in teasing out a scenario in which an election is called and where the choice has been made by a Māori person to go from one roll to the other quite recently—such that they would be within the period of time that they’re not allowed to change before an election, and then the election having been called would actually put them in that window. Now, in fairness to the bill, as it was introduced to the House, this situation was contemplated at least somewhat. So looking at section 78Aas it would be, within the legislation—that’s under clause 6—that’s saying that the “Māori option [would be] paused for registered electors and persons on dormant roll if by-election called”.

So whoever’s drafted the legislation, or the policy intent behind it, and the very smart people who have helped put it together have acknowledged that there’s a situation where it’s not an attempt to game the system; it’s just an accident of timing that a person has said “I want to change my roll from Māori to general” or vice versa, and a by-election is called—a “notice of vacancy [has been] published” in the language of the statute and, indeed, the way we operate business in the case of by-elections. We’ve had a couple of by-elections, or will have a couple of by-elections this year; we’re all far too familiar with these mechanisms!

But the legislation has contemplated that. And just so everyone’s aware, what happens then is that the Electoral Commission has to pause at that point. So they don’t process applications that they’ve got sitting on their desks in a pile; maybe a virtual pile or a physical pile of papers, I’m not sure. But they won’t process those until such time as the election’s finished, because that would fall foul of the rule against processing applications during that certain period before a by-election.

And, similarly, with Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 280, that the Minister has introduced, saying that that stand-down period, if you want, also applies to local elections and general elections, the equivalent provision’s there. So that’s good; so far so good. I think I’m right in saying that the Minister would intend, and the policy intent is, that if a person happens to want to change roll and then a general election is called, or a local election or a by-election—in whatever instance it is, a person shouldn’t have that undone; their wish to change rolls shouldn’t be undone by the fact that the election would take place within that certain period. And I think that would be fair, because they’re not doing it to game the system; they’re just doing it at a certain moment in time and it just so happens that an election gets called.

But if I’ve made my question clear enough for the Minister to give an answer, then I’ll certainly welcome her comments on that.

In sum, if a Prime Minister calls a snap election tomorrow, and you’d just changed your roll yesterday, does that stay valid? Yep. So in SOP 280, at what will become the new section 78AA(4), it sets out—this is on page 2 of the SOP—the relevant period: if less than three months’ of polling day is given that the period commences on that day on which public notice of the polling day is given, and it ends on the polling day itself.

Thank you. That’s actually a really helpful answer, and if anyone had just tuned into Parliament TV at exactly the wrong moment, they would have heard a Minister of the Government talking about a snap election being called tomorrow. But it was a hypothetical; to be fair, she did say “if”. So that’s helpful engagement actually, not least of all because I clearly hadn’t read the Supplementary Order Paper fully, but, in my defence, it was only dropped this afternoon. So that’s helpful. That’s, I think, actually really useful lawmaking in the sense that that scenario, unusual as it is—and certainly, as I say, wouldn’t necessarily arise as a result of someone trying to game the system, but nevertheless could be something that was potentially problematic—actually has been contemplated. So that’s a good news story.

I’ve got one more question actually, in relation to Part 1, and then, pending other colleagues’ questions and comments, certainly that would be my dash done. It’s just in relation to section 77 as it will be within the primary legislation, or the legislation that we’re amending, which is “Exercise of Māori option”. So this is “Exercise of option by 17-year-olds”. Just to get a bit of a feel for what the intent there is, and I presume that the idea is that in the same way that we allow people to apply for registration as an elector—maybe the 18th birthday’s coming up and they’ll be able to vote in the general election, but until such time as they turn 18, if we don’t have a mechanism like this, then they can’t actually get on the roll. And it might all happen very quickly. We don’t want them to miss their opportunity to #PartyVoteNational—a lot of hashtags have been thrown around tonight, so I just put that out there.

But, anyway, if the Minister can just sort of explain that that is indeed her intent, that would be helpful. I, for one, support it and I think on this side of the House we’d say that mechanisms that apply generally should also apply to the Māori roll of course, and, in relation to the change, which of course only people of Māori descent can change one way or the other, because for the rest of us it’s the general roll or nothing. So without going too deep into that underlying philosophy behind the legislation, just that 17-year-old registration bit, if the Minister can just sort of helpfully elucidate the thinking behind that.

The member is absolutely right in his analysis there. Currently 17-year-olds can enrol to vote. This clarifies and really expressly states that when that 17-year-old goes to enrol on the roll, if they choose to select that Māori option, they are indeed entitled to do that.

I just wanted to comment on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 282 from the Māori Party, from Rawiri Waititi, who was wanting to change the names that we have in electorates. Currently, it’s the Māori roll and the general roll, and his suggestion is to change the general roll to the “non-Māori roll”. I just wanted to make it clear that we don’t support that. I don’t describe myself as non-Māori; I don’t describe myself as general, either. But, having said that, I don’t think people should be defined by who they’re not, and I don’t think that’s a very helpful distinction to divide the country into Māori and non-Māori. It’s a pity that we haven’t had any real sort of explanation as to what the idea is behind this SOP, but we certainly wouldn’t be supporting it. Thank you very much.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper number 280 be agreed to.

Rawiri Waititi’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 and 282 are out of order as being outside the scope of this bill.

Part 1, excluding clause 5, as amended agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001