Electoral Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 136—“Amendments to Electoral Act 1993”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair—and, yeah, it’s not a pleasure to rise and speak first in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, but there is a lot to interrogate in terms of the rationale behind the bill. Certainly, there have been a number of proposals that we have made that we look forward to the Minister of Justice considering in good faith.

I did want to just start by acknowledging the submitters who came to the Justice Committee and presented on this bill. Really, there was very strong opposition to a number of proposals—not all the proposals within the bill, but certainly the proposal regarding the limitation of registration was something that came up, and there was mass opposition to that as a proposal. We also had—I think it was Margot Govers who presented to the select committee dressed as a suffragette, and she was a very angry suffragette and expressed her views. But very thorough engagement from both general members of the public but also public law experts, who are extremely critical of these very dramatic changes to our electoral law.

Several people made the point that for the last 30 years, people have been able to vote either on election day or the day before election day, and that it would be nigh on impossible for the Electoral Commission to achieve the task of educating people within such a short period of time about this incredibly significant change in relation to the bill. It is a huge change.

The other thing that I just wanted to repeat, again, is my disappointment that we’re here at the end of the year and the bill is being taken through two stages under urgency. I’ve always believed that the value of having the different stages is also the gaps between those stages. The second stage is really a reflection on what we heard at select committee and the report back; that debate should allow us sufficient time to then reflect on the amendments that we are drawing up. However, that hasn’t been the case in this instance. Regardless, we do have a substantial number of amendments to go through already, although I would just suggest to the Minister in the chair that there may be some others that come up through the course of our discussion on the basis of the debate that we have had.

On clause 3, which references the principal Act, the first point I wanted to make was in relation to the Act that we’re amending. Again, the Electoral Act, in my view, requires due care because it contains our reserved provisions. I’m not disputing the fact that we’re amending that Act; I just would love to hear from the Minister whether his view is that it’s appropriate for the Electoral Amendment Bill to go through these two stages under urgency, and to hear some reassurance from the Minister that he does intend to consider each of the amendments thoroughly before making a decision on whether they’re to be accepted or not. I hope he will see that I’ve made some really practical proposals through the bill, mostly for clarification—some of which I think will aid the bill’s purported intention of timeliness, or looking after timeliness, as well.

One amendment that I will speak to first is the proposal I’ve made to include a new clause 3(a). This is, essentially, a sunset clause, and it is there to just really test the concept that the purpose of this bill will actually give effect to what it intends to do, because I think a number of submitters—and certainly some experts—pointed out to us that if people believe that they’re still able to cast a special vote, they will continue to do so, and so we might not necessarily see that improvement to timeliness in the 2023 election. What we might see is a dramatic increase in the special vote and no ability to improve that timeliness at all, because it’s quite institutionalised in New Zealand culture that that is the period of time that you also get to enrol and to vote.

The second question there is on whether the Minister would be amenable to accepting my proposal of 3(a)—the amendment (3)(a)—to include that sunset clause. I think I’ve been quite fair: I suggested a two-year period, so just testing that this is, indeed, what we want to do. The other reason why I suggested a two-year period is because the Electoral Commission told us that there were other measures that they’re taking to—[Time expired]

I think it’s worthwhile just starting out at the outset: we’re going to have a lot of speeches talking about the early enrolments, or the requirements that people be enrolled 13 days before the election, which is one day before early voting starts. Being enrolled before voting starts had been the tradition in New Zealand for a number of decades. What changed, of course, was the tradition of virtually everybody voting on election day over the last decade or so has changed dramatically. Vast numbers of people now vote before the election, in the early voting period. That’s the logic of having enrolments concluding before the day before voting starts.

There’s all these amendments. It’s worth just, for people tuning in—this is the committee stage where we’re supposed to look at the detailed elements of the bill. We have literally dozens of amendments, so we will be spending many hours voting. Choices have been made from the Opposition parties to spend their time in, frankly, posturing and voting, rather than actually debating the merits of the bill. Anyway, that’s over to them. They can do that. I’m not going to be proposing to support any of Vanushi Walters’ amendments, but time will tell. I’d be very happy to debate the issues of this bill, but we’re going to be in for a very long voting period with the way things are organised.

Before I take the next one—I am going to go back to Vanushi Walters—when you are referring to amendments, because there are a number, could you please refer to the date stamp, the time stamp, to help us track it up here at the front. Vanushi Walters.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I may be looking for a bit of guidance from the Chair, because I was very troubled to hear the Minister of Justice say that we’ve made a choice between tabling amendments and having a dialogue with him. I don’t believe that is the case. I would like the Minister to commit to a thorough conversation about these very significant changes to electoral law, as well as consider each of the amendments in a singular way. I thought that was quite a broad statement about all of the amendments that I’ve made, which cover the scope of the bill and cover many different issues, some of which might take a different ideological position to the Minister’s but are open to him to consider, some of which are quite technical, and some of which are about clarifying. Perhaps I’ll just seek some guidance from the Chair.

Yeah, just for clarity for the committee: while the discretion, of course, is the Chair’s, what we will be looking for is relevance and making sure that we are focusing on particular clauses; that is very helpful for the committee. Relevance is really important. Making sure that when issues are addressed, there isn’t repetition; that is another thing that we look for. What we are also looking for is the conduct of the committee and, of course, engagement from the Minister. These are the elements that help us to balance the different priorities. Vanushi Walters, do you want to keep going?

Helen White: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Helen White.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask some of the questions that are things that I traversed when I was talking in my speech. The first is the incredible number of voters who voted last time in the period that will now be a no-enrolment time. So people came in, in that period, having not been in that 13-day period; they hadn’t pre-enrolled, and they came in. It was well over 200,000 voters that were affected. We know from the submissions and from the evidence out there that this kind of curbing of the opportunity to enrol makes a difference of 3 to 7 percent, and it affects a particular type of voter. So it does have political implications.

Now, in a system like ours, which is MMP, we—even at the current time of polling—can see that, in the left and right camps, with various different parties, there is often only a fraction of a percentage difference between whether you form a Government or not.

I would like to know from the Minister of Justice, in putting this together, what thought was put into the issue of this within an MMP system where, in fact, we know that there is a change in trend—3 to 7 percent less people vote in this situation—and that has critical impact in our particular system, because we run an MMP system with a fairly even split between left and right, and populist parties having, basically, an opportunity to be kingmaker in between. What was thought about in terms of that?

I’d also really like to ask about our voters that I talked about in my speech who I met at the door frequently, the ones that had moved house. Now, that is becoming, unfortunately, more and more common for New Zealanders: that they can’t necessarily afford to own their own house, and the Government has moved our legislation and our protections on renters a further way, and now taken away their security of tenure so that they can be terminated in their employment at any time. That can happen. That means that they have very little control over whether there will be turmoil in their life at that time; they’re not even in control of that calendar. I want to know, for those voters who move house—and it’s not necessarily anything they are going to choose to do; it’s going to happen to them. What does the Minister have to say about that group of people who are one of the ones strongly impacted? How many of the voters that we are talking about are in that situation? I’d like his comment on that.

I’d like to know what his response is to the comment that was made—and it’s been made frequently, but it was made by the RNZ political reporters—that there was a disproportionate effect on participation in this situation. I’ve talked about the number of people who are impacted: the 236,000, I think, who voted last time as a result of being able to enrol at this time. I want to know what kind of response he has to the proportionate nature of the issue that he’s trying to solve, the mischief of the length of time, as I understand it, versus the impact on that giant part of the population.

I put in my speech my own personal experience, which was that I actually had to wait, and wait again, as there were recounts etc. I’d like to know from the Minister: why is it a proportionate response? If I’m the person in that situation and, in fact, I wait during those periods, does it mean that there are other reforms coming? In fact, having a recount took a while, and that can change the vote.

The issue has been raised about the number of people who have enrolled in the 13 days before the election in the most recent election, and the figure of 200,000 people has been raised. It’s also been raised that around 100,000 people enrolled on election day. The proposition put forward by the Opposition is that somehow these voters would be disenfranchised by this change. Now, that assumes that that 200,000 people are incapable of understanding that the rules have changed over the course of the year—and we don’t hold that view.

The problem that the Electoral Commission has had since the Labour Party pushed through changes six years ago which enabled enrolling on election day—they’ve had a very mixed message. The Electoral Commission has been saying—

Helen White: But this is 13 days.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I know. The Electoral Commission has been saying, “Get enrolled because it is your legal obligation to be enrolled. And every time you move, you need to make sure you update that information so you are properly enrolled for the election at any time.” But they’ve also said, “But by the way, you don’t need to get enrolled because you can just rock up on election day and enrol at the point.” So people have gone, “Well, which message is it? Do I need to get enrolled before the election or can I just rock up on election day and enrol at that point?”

Of course, more and more people received the second message and enrolled on election day. But there is a real consequence for that. The consequence for that is that if you’re enrolling after writ day, on election day, then you immediately have a special vote and the special vote takes, on average—the advice from the Election Commission is—10 times longer to deal with. More and more New Zealanders have been getting the message that you don’t need to enrol during the three-year cycle, but you can enrol on election day, and more and more special votes are happening. That is why it’s been taking longer and longer and longer to process the vote.

We’re going to send a different message this time around. We have every confidence that the people that enrolled on election day and in the 13 days before the election at the last election will have a different message this time. The message will be: “Get enrolled—as is your legal duty—as early as you can, keep enrolled, be enrolled by writ day, and then you’ll be able to vote.” Now, if the proposition from the electorate is that our voters are less capable of being enrolled, that is a very strange message to be sending to your supporters. I don’t think anybody would suggest that.

In relation to moving houses is that you qualify in the place that you’ve lived in for 30 days. If you move in those 13 days before the election but you’ve been in a house for the last 30 days, then you’ll stay enrolled in that house. That is the situation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just start by reaffirming what Vanushi Walters mentioned before, that because a substantial part of this is in Part 1, we’re going to be looking at Part 1 subpart by subpart. We are currently on Subpart 1, which is on electoral registration, but before that, I want to check with the Minister of Justice if the Minister has received any advice in terms of clause 3, “Principal Act”, on whether the amendment bill that we have presented in front of us contradicts the fundamental purpose of the principal Act, which is the Electoral Act 1993, so I wanted to just kind of put that on the table first.

I also want to check a couple of things that the Minister mentioned earlier, because the Minister has mentioned a couple of things that I think really deserve some sort of unpacking. The Minister mentioned that this is the Electoral Commission sending mixed messages. But would the Minister be able to let us know which part of the Electoral Commission’s advice, or, I guess, where they are saying—or any data or survey that has been done from the public that suggests that mixed messages are being sent to people? From what I’m hearing, what the Minister said is either you register as quickly as possible—yes, we understand that’s a legal obligation—or you’re registered on the day. Either way, the Electoral Commission is telling people to register, which is the fundamental baseline we’re looking at here, so I don’t quite understand where the Minister is coming from in terms of mixed messages, because it sounds like, from what the Minister is saying, both messages are saying “Register” and “Choose when you can register.”

Also, in terms of special votes, I’m interested to unpack some of the data and statistics with the Minister, because the Minister says special votes take 10 times longer. I don’t deny that in terms of the duration of how long special votes take, but how much of the special vote is from voting on the day? What proportion is that? I can see the Minister looking at the officials. I think that is really important data to address the actual policy problem we’re seeing presented here. Special votes also include people who are helping out people in retirement villages who are immobile—those are considered special votes; overseas New Zealanders, those are considered special votes. What is the proportion of the people who are voting within the 13-day threshold?

Again, we want to unpack some of the broader policy questions. What the Minister is saying—I just want to push back a little bit in terms of what the Opposition is saying in terms of numbers. That’s not what the Opposition is saying; that’s what the Attorney-General is saying. What we’re quoting from is the Attorney-General’s section 7 report. As the Minister would appreciate as well, the magnitude of a section 7 report is something that we rarely see in this House, hence we are putting a much heavier emphasis on what the Attorney-General presents in here.

I think the last question I have for the Minister for this contribution is, if you’re looking at paragraph 47 of the section 7 report, it says, “Taking into account these factors”—and there are four factors in total—“I conclude [that] the proposal for [the] 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on [section] 12 of … NZBORA.” My question, then ,to the Minister is: upon receiving this, what sort of work has been done to ensure that maybe there’s a way for us to bring it in line with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA)? It could be a shorter period; rather than 13 days or seven days, it could be something else. But as it stands, the 13 days that the Attorney-General raises as a concern is retained within the current legislation.

As the Minister would also know, when we’re looking at the NZBORA and we’re looking at checks and balances, the ability to limit is within section 5 of the NZBORA, so there is a possibility that a right could be limited, but upon balance that right is justified. But what we’re seeing is not here and what we’re seeing is not within the 13 days. I would like to just check, finally, with the Minister in terms of what advice the Minister has received to bring that in line with the NZBORA and to justify the limitation not only just under sections 6 and 4 but also under section 5 of the NZBORA.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to give a few general questions to the Minister of Justice and then speak to some of my amendments. The first general question is on the Minister’s problem statement—the problem definition. I’m just clarifying with the Minister that the key problem definition is the forecast to the 2032 election in terms of the number of specials. It’s close to 1 million, I believe, that are predicted that we would get to at that stage. It’s really about ensuring that when we get to 2032, we’ve got a system that is well managed and does give us a timely count.

The second general question is around whether the Minister considered the financial implications of moving ahead with the proposal as it is—instead of what the Attorney-General has proposed, given the implications for declarations of inconsistency to run through the courts, potentially over a number of years—and then returning to the House and taking the House’s time, but also the cost to the Electoral Commission of potentially setting up a system that it will then need to undo, both in terms of education as well as the administrative aspects of the system.

I just wanted to flag the date and timestamp for the amendment that I referred to earlier, which is Thursday, 11 December at 5.45.04. This was the one about the sunset clause to ensure that we could trial the system and see if it works and whether it’s still fit for purpose. I hear from the Minister that that’s not something that he would wish to consider. I didn’t get to finish the end of my argument, so I’ll just finish that one, which is: given the other changes will be made to the system after the 2026 election, there’s potentially an opportunity to line up appropriate changes or to leave them aside if they are no longer needed, because the other systems that we’ve identified appear to be sufficient to allow that vote count to speed up.

I then have a set of amendments which were filed on 8 December. They’re filed as Amendment Papers 448 to 460. A number of them concern clause 4. These are very serious amendments. They propose a number of different dates that the Minister could choose to restrict the registration period.

Now, the Justice Committee did discuss whether it was possible to not go quite as far as 13 days but go some way there to perhaps meet the objective of increasing the time available to count the special votes while still not overly diminishing the right to vote. Indeed, the Attorney-General herself suggested that one remedy to, potentially, bring the proposal within that reasonable limitation assessment could be to move the date back to where it had been prior to the last Government’s change, which was the day prior to the election. Again, remembering that for 30 years, people have either been able to vote on the day of the election or the day before. Those engrained habits, when you’re talking about something as significant as voting, are significant. Also, given that timeline we’re looking at, the Electoral Commission will have to pick this up next year and then start to operationalise these changes, alongside having to carry out a rather expansive education campaign before the 2026 election, test that it’s working, fix any bugs, and then get us to an election.

I’m just asking whether the Minister would consider any of those alternative options that I’ve put forward in that set of Amendment Papers, or the advice of the Attorney-General, to ensure that, perhaps, we can fall within a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet space, at least in regard to this part of the bill. I would also put it to the Minister that there’s an economic advantage in seriously considering that because of the very strong likelihood that we’ll see this bill come back to us in the form of a declaration of inconsistency and because, potentially, it’s a better position for the Minister to be in and for our justice system to be in for us not to have to pay for that as well.

The question was asked about the percentage of special votes that were related to enrolment status, and the estimate I have received is that between 300 and 350,000 are in that category.

In terms of the comments that have been made, have I considered, or did the Government consider, different options in terms of taking the enrolment back one day or 13 days or 26 days? Yes, we did consider all those options. There’s a variety of approaches taken in different countries. By recollection, in the UK, it’s roughly about 13 days before the election when people need to be enrolled. In Australia, it’s roughly 26 days before the election. Again, I object and reject the proposition that New Zealanders are somehow less capable than Australians when it comes to being enrolled for an election. I have greater faith in Kiwis now.

Of course, the reference has been made to the fact that it’s been 30 years that it’s been the day before the election or on election day. That is true. The previous Labour Government changed the rules to make it available on election day to be enrolled, but before that it was the day before the election. But the point I’ve made—and I’m repeating myself already, Mr Chair—was that electoral practice has changed significantly in New Zealand in the last decade or so. Most people used to vote on election day, until quite recently. Now it’s changed dramatically, so that a very large number of people vote before the election, as early voting has become more and more encouraged and a part of things. It makes no sense to have a cut-off to enrolment halfway through the voting period or in the middle of the voting period, and so the logic is that we are stopping enrolment the day before voting starts, which is the consistency that we’ve had for a long period of time.

In terms of the amount of time the Electoral Commission has got to prepare for this, it has been well signalled now for more than six months that this is the move that the Government intends to make. The Electoral Commission has a duty and a focus to encourage New Zealanders to be enrolled. Mr Xu-Nan talked about the mixed message: the simple message that is justified by the legislation is that there is a duty of New Zealanders over the age of 18 to be enrolled and, if they move, to alert, in a short period of time, the Electoral Commission so their electoral status in enrolment is up to date. It’s not just used for elections; it’s used for things like jury service. That is the job of citizens—to maintain their enrolment status up to date.

But, of course, there’s no reason to do that if the other message is out there which says, “But don’t worry, you can just rock up on election day and enrol at that point.” More and more people were getting that message, and that is why we’ve had the incredible growth of late enrolments over the last few election cycles. That is the different message that we’re going to send, and we’ve got every confidence in New Zealanders to be able to receive that message.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to ask a couple of questions around Part 1, clause 4(2): ”In section 3(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: close of registration, in relation to registration as an elector of an electoral district for an election, means the close of the 13th day before polling day for the election”. I just would like to ask the Minister of Justice about his view, because we seem to have some tension here in terms of the different advice that’s being provided to this House.

The regulatory impact statement under that—on page 12, it stipulates that the primary objectives are to improve the timeliness of the official vote count and the efficiency of electoral administration. Then it goes on to say specifically the Minister of Justice has expressed an expectation that the vote count should be able to be completed within 14 days of the election day for the 2026 general election. It says these objectives will contribute to the outcomes of concluding elections more quickly, managing the costs of future elections, and providing more effective services to the public and the electoral participants.

But then the interesting point is—and this is what I’d like to know, because there seems to be a contradiction between here and what the Attorney-General is saying—it says that the primary objectives should be considered in the context of other enduring objectives for electoral law, such as encouraging participation and maintaining the integrity of the electoral system. It does seem that the Minister’s priorities, which would be to improve the timeliness of the official vote and to have efficiency within electoral administration—it appears that he’s inserted those objectives to be above or in a higher rank than participation in our democracy.

That seems to be in contradiction to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because it says quite clearly that, at present, electors can register at any time before or on a polling day and then vote in the corresponding election. This bill proposes to change this by providing for a different registration deadline of 13 days. If a person has not registered by the deadline, they would be unable to vote in the upcoming election. The rationale for this change is to address delays in the post-election vote count, which have become more pronounced. While acknowledging the public importance of promoting timeliness in counting the vote, I none the less consider the specific proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears inconsistent with the right to vote in section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

My question to the Minister is: is he quite simply saying to New Zealanders, against the advice of the Attorney-General and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, that his view that the primary objective to improve timeliness supersedes the right of being able to participate in our democracy? That particularly relates to the fact that in the clause under Part 1, clause 4, he is changing the law that means the closing on the 13th day before polling day of the election would, quite simply, exclude a number of people, at least 100,000, from being able to exercise their right to vote. I think it’s really important that we get it on the record that the reason for making this change is that he is saying, against his own Attorney-General’s advice, that timeliness is more important than participating in democracy.

I think that is really the nub of what this bill is going to be about, this clause here, that New Zealanders are going to want to know about. If this is a Government saying that they want to cut costs and make things run more efficiently by excluding people from exercising their right to vote, then I think they should be clear and just say that out loud. A couple of days here or there—my view and the view of the Labour Party is that people participating in our democracy doesn’t have a price. That is a fundamental right that goes ahead of all those other things, and, in fact, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would support that point of view.

I’m interested to hear straight from the Minister if he’s prepared to put on the record that he thinks timeliness is more important than people participating in our democracy, and, if so, why?

The member sort of alleges that, in seeking to find a balance between timeliness and participation, the Government has erred entirely on the side of timeliness. That of course is not the case. If that was the case, then the Government would have decided to take enrolments back to writ day, which is about 30 days before the election. That was the case back 20 or 30 years ago; everybody had to be enrolled by writ day. We haven’t taken that course. Some people argued for that. If you wanted to have the most efficient system possible, everybody would need to be enrolled by writ day and then there are no special votes for late enrolments, and it’s nice and tidy, simple; that’s the most efficient way of doing things. That’s not what we did. We picked a more lenient date which allows people more flexibility and closes enrolments the day before election. So, in making that balance, we very much continued that.

In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications, one way of looking at it is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act approach, some people will argue, is almost like a ratchet: you can only get enrolments closer and closer to the election, and that’s OK, but the moment a Government reverses the flow, it immediately is a breach of their human rights. It’s like a ratchet that can only ever go one way, and that’s not how policy operates. Governments will have a different view. The previous Government decided that it was going to take enrolments closer to the election; this Government has got a different view because we are concerned about other things. So, with respect, we, as a Government, didn’t agree with the advice around that.

Thirdly, again the member continues to talk about 100,000 people being excluded from voting. That assumes that people cannot adapt in any way, shape, or form to a different set of requirements and expectations. Yes, 100,000 people enrolled on election day, but that is only because they could. Two elections before, they couldn’t have, and so there were zero people enrolling on election day. This coming election, they will have a very clear message from the Electoral Commission that if they want to vote, they need to be enrolled 13 days before the election. We’re very conscious—and I’m repeating myself again, Mr Chair, for the third time, that we’re very confident that people will be able to make those decisions.

I’m just encouraging members that I’d quite like to give one person several goes, but if they’re going to take the full five minutes, that becomes very difficult. Celia Wade-Brown.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to interrogate the question of age. The Minister of Justice has chosen to amend the definition of “adult”, leaving “an individual of or over the age of 18 years”. We heard through the evidence in the Justice Committee—which I enjoyed being part of for that period—that there were a number of questions that arose about age, and I’ll be interested to see which of these were part of the consideration in choosing to keep it at 18 with some changes. I have Amendment Paper 475, which you’ll be aware of.

There are a number of countries—Argentina, Brazil, but the one that I would know best would be Scotland—that have moved from the age of 18 to the age of 16, and there are a number of reasons for this. One is the idea that they are perfectly competent to analyse and vote. Another one is that they have longer to put up with the results of the election, if you like. But the one that really resonated with me—and the evidence we had from the Independent Electoral Review of the 2023 election—was from Scotland, where they found that when people voted at 16 or 17, they were more likely to keep voting. That consistency, that commitment to democracy was better exercised by that cohort of younger people.

It’s an interesting question as to what defines an adult, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s reflections on this. Is it when you can get married? Is it when you take a full-time job and you’re allowed to leave school—at 16? Is it, given we’re in New Zealand, when you’re allowed to drive, that being one of the great markers of reaching some kind of form of independence? Or is it, as Mr Cameron Brewer’s bill about life jackets—you’re allowed to make lifesaving decisions once you’re 15; or, in fact, you can skipper a boat at 15?

The Minister’s left the age at 18 despite—I think it was a few years ago now, the Supreme Court ruling that, actually, saying you could only vote from 18 or over and enrol a little bit earlier so that you’d be ready—as I think the Minister wants us all to be ready to vote and therefore to enrol early. The Supreme Court said that it was unjustified age discrimination not to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

We had some excellent submissions during the Independent Electoral Review of 2023 and also through the process of select committee. It was good to actually have a decent chunk of select committee to tease out some of these issues. There are some aspects of this bill that the Green Party—and, in particular, I—do support, like the automatic enrolments, and we may come to a little bit more discussion about the automatic enrolments.

I’m also interested in the potential for how the Minister thinks that these changes are going to be effectively put out there by the Electoral Commission, given I’m not sure that there’s been an appropriate increase in the budget for that election. If you’re going to do the same kind of thing, then maybe you can keep the same kind of budget, but if you’re making some quite radical change to when you can enrol, is there going to be the funding available for the commission?

Mr Chair, thank you. For the comments around the age, yes, it is not the Government’s intention to change the voting age; we’re retaining it at 18. I do find it rather fascinating hearing a member from the Greens arguing that 16- and 17-year-olds are adults and should be treated that way when it comes to voting purposes. If we were to apply the same logic to the criminal justice system and suggested that 16- and 17-year-olds were adults and should be held with the same responsibility, they would be calling for the intervention of the United Nations and in a state of absolute apoplexy. There seems to be a bit of inconsistency on that matter there. But in terms of the voting age, the bill does not amend the age.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to ask particularly what the Minister of Justice had to say about the inconsistencies of his choices with the advice that was given to him by the Electoral Commission. Now, I understand that the commission works to provide an effective and impartial electoral system and it gives advice on that basis, so it’s got to be the expert in the room on this. It is independent. Its whole purpose is to do that.

One of the things that most disturbed me was to see that the Electoral Commission had publicly stated that the changes were unlikely to speed up the counting of votes, and I would like to know what evidence the Minister can point to that would justify permanently restricting enrolment and voting access without a mechanism to reassess that decision. I’d like to understand how, from the expert, if it was unlikely to actually produce the result the Minister says that he was looking for, he went ahead and decided to ignore that, and whether he thinks that’s a dangerous precedent to ignore that advice, in terms of the independence of the group that is set up for that purpose.

I’d also like to know what he has to say—he’s talked about the cost of going out there and telling the public that they have to vote early and they just have to change their habits, but we haven’t heard anything specific about the cost of that campaign. It was something that Vanushi Walters raised in her speech. She talked about that being an enormous cost, and I wonder whether the Minister has had advice on what is it going to cost to actually do a public campaign. Also, what would an effective campaign look like? If we throw lots of taxpayers’ money at this task, actually what happens in terms of measuring uptake on that? Is there a target of people that have to be across the line in terms of enrolment that says that it’s successful and people are actually enrolling to vote in the way that he has reassured us they will just because they change their habits? I’d like some specifics.

I think also an interesting issue that was raised was the issue about challenges to this. I would like to know: has he asked for advice on the risk of litigation, and has he asked for the cost of that process of litigation? It seems to me to be one we’d want a handle on, given we have a cost of living crisis and we shouldn’t be putting money into a situation where it’s just thrown away. I would like to know about that.

I’d also like to point out to the Minister that there’s been a lot of reference to Australia tonight, but Australia does have compulsory voting, and so its ecosystem is quite different. In that situation, people must vote, and that changes the nature of disenfranchising people because you cannot manipulate the Australian system by making sure people don’t vote, or putting hurdles in the way, because everyone at the end of the day must turn up and vote. It’s a very different system, and I wanted him to comment on that in terms of not having that guardrail in place that is in place in Australia, but taking away in this situation the capacity to go right to election day, given the figures.

I still haven’t actually heard the Minister acknowledge the figures that I put to him, so I’d like to know if he agrees with them. The figure I put to the Minister was that it’s a 3 to 7 percent difference—that it suppresses that many votes, or that many votes are lost. Does he agree with that figure? And has he got advice at any point on what that means in an MMP system where there are fractions of proportionality that can make a huge difference to the system? Again, that’s not the same as other countries, and it seems, to me, important.

For the fourth time, I’ll now talk about rejecting the proposition put forward that this is, in any way, suppressing the vote. I reject that member Helen White’s suggestion that there will be 3 to 7 percent of the voting public affected by this because we have confidence that people will be able to receive a different message and change their behaviour accordingly. We do not accept that there will be people disenfranchised by this, and so there will be very clear messaging.

The Electoral Commission received an extra $61 million in Budget 2025 to support the 2026 election. At the previous election, the commission spent $11.9 million on advertising campaigns. We’ll expect that they’ll be doing something similar this time around. It’s a core function of the Electoral Commission to encourage people to be enrolled and, to remind the member, that enrolment in New Zealand is compulsory. The law says that you need to be enrolled, and so that is what we will be expecting them to focus on.

In terms of manipulating the vote by changing the enrolment date, of course, it’s very interesting that if this Government changes the enrolment date, we are manipulating the vote. Of course, the Labour Government six years ago changed the enrolment date, but that, of course, presumably wasn’t manipulating the vote. So it’s OK if Labour changes the enrolment date and not OK if National and the current Government changes the enrolment date! That’s an interesting approach.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora, Minister Goldsmith. Look, there are a lot of reoccurring statements and things being raised, and they’re all important, because, ultimately, a Government’s job is to increase democratic participation in a country. Whilst many of these things I will raise have already been said, I’ll raise them in light of them having a disproportionate impact on the voters of Te Tai Tonga and te iwi Māori.

As we’ve heard, there were 236,000-odd people in this very category in the last election, a disproportionately large number of them Māori—for many different reasons, Minister; many different reasons. They’re life condition reasons, OK? A large proportion of the Māori population live at the poverty line, in low-income houses; in poverty—in extreme poverty—in homelessness.

All I’ve heard from the speeches for the bill were, “Oh, you just get on and get organised, mate.” That’s so ignorant to the reality of life in New Zealand, in a cost of living crisis, in a housing crisis—all of the types of crises and issues that the vast majority of the Māori population and the people of Te Tai Tonga have to deal with, that many of the well-schooled young men from Tauranga would never have encountered. To just dismiss it as “Oh, get on and get organised, you’ve got a whole 13 days.” is quite staggering to me. It demonstrates a staggering ignorance to the nature of our society, the very society that this Government is elected to represent.

You know, just the dismissal of the Māori reality in our own country; I mean, you’re the Minister for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You should have a good understanding about all of these impacts.

Tom Rutherford: Not the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Not me.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, no, not the Chair; I’m talking to the Minister who’s fronting up the bill. We’ve spoken largely to the negative impact of that, that we already know from the last election. What we know for the 2026 election is that a population the size of the city of Invercargill will be excluded—will be excluded; official advice.

When I think about the Government’s role of increasing the participation in democracy, all of these things just point to reducing it. We can’t help but raise the blanket prisoner voting ban. The bill wasn’t introduced like that, but it’s just miraculously developed into it. Given the over-representation of Māori not only in prisons but right throughout the justice system, a bill like this just continues to compound and compound and compound the negative outcomes, the negative interactions. I’ve spoken to them at length today; we’ve questioned them today, the negative interactions and outcomes of the justice system that Māori continue to face. And here we have it again—and here we have it again.

Māori make up, unfortunately, around 53 percent of the total prison population and are 10.7 times more likely to be serving shorter sentences. These are sentences for relatively low levels of crime. They’re parking fines, they’re traffic fines, they’re not showing up to court, they’re missing—they’re very low-level things, and throughout the process of this bill, they will be severely punished for this—

Hon Matt Doocey: What a load of rubbish.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: What a load of what? What was that? What was that, Mr Doocey?

Hon Matt Doocey: I think you heard [Inaudible].

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah—I think the man wouldn’t even know what he’s talking about. But, anyway, let’s keep going. Far from helping to improve the participation rates of Māori, this bill seems determined to just continue to diminish them. We’ve got the official advice from the Electoral Commission that says that the bill actually solves no identified operational problem. The commission itself confirms that delays arise from integrity checks and processing special votes, not late enrolment. OK. They also state that there’s no evidence that shows early roll closure will speed up the count. So, many of the arguments that are being put forward are quite false—[Time expired]

I need to correct—a couple of members now have pointed to the Electoral Commission saying the changes would not lead to a speeding up of the vote. I queried them on that, and subsequently they gave advice to the Justice Committee contradicting that and making it quite clear that if we didn’t make these changes, their estimate is that it would take 23 days to complete the vote count, rather than the 20 that is allotted at the moment, which is more than the 14 that we always used to be able to do up to two elections ago. They sent very clear information saying that if we don’t make these changes, it will take longer to count the vote. Of course, all the advice that I’ve had is that if we don’t make these changes at the next election, it will be longer; at the election after that, it will be even longer.

Why does that matter? Well, that’s a good question. Why does it matter? Well, in the New Zealand system that we have under MMP, the tradition has certainly developed over the last few years that more often than not, a coalition is required, and, more often than not, the parties who want to negotiate that coalition do not start those negotiations until the final vote count is made, because there’s, quite often, quite a difference between the initial count and the final vote count. If the country is waiting for an extended period of time before we get to the final vote count, and then start negotiations over a period of time, there is a long period of uncertainty. Now, so far, the country hasn’t been in any sort of crisis during that period, but there’s nothing to say that we won’t be, at one point. So it is relevant about getting a timely outcome.

Now, for the sixth time, I will make the point that I reject the idea that a large number of voters will be excluded by these changes. There was some advice or suggestion from the Attorney-General that they may be. We certainly do not agree with that, because, like I say, they enrolled on election day at the last election because they could and because they were told they could. This time around, they will be told that they can’t, and we’ve got every confidence that those people will move earlier. In terms of the argument that Māori are somehow less capable of being enrolled during the rest of the term, I just don’t accept that proposition.

In terms of the reference to the need to increase democratic engagement, of course my view is that it is the first and fundamental job of politicians to persuade people to come out and vote for them. That’s the politicians’ job; it’s not anybody else’s job. It is our job, as politicians, to persuade people to come and vote for us. There is a big variation in terms of the voter turnout in our elections, depending on how motivated people are to come out and vote. It’s nobody else’s job but the job of the politicians to persuade people to come and vote for them. So I think that’s the most important thing to remember in this conversation.

Again, just before I take the next call, a different person making the same point does not constitute new material, could I say. The Hon Ginny Andersen.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak to the really impressive amendment done by Vanushi Walters and her amendment in relation to clause 4(1), proposing to change that definition of the “adult”, which is 18 years, to 16 years. I think this is really important because if we are—and we’re going by the regulatory impact statement—knowing that there will be some people who don’t vote and so we’re narrowing the voter base by this change, then it seems to make really good sense that we make up for that by enabling people who are 16 to be able to vote. We could do that with this bill right now. There’s been a really strong grassroots campaign by young New Zealanders called Make It 16, and there are young, informed people who want to have a say. There’s a good argument—and I’m sure that even Mr Goldsmith would agree—that if 16’s old enough to have sex, then surely they can vote too. It seems like a good idea to me.

When I look back into the regulatory impact statement, it says that electors who enrol or update their details after writ day are more likely to be Māori; registered on the Māori roll. In the general 2023 election, 17.3 percent of Māori voters updated their details or enrolled during the voting period, compared to 9.8 percent of non-Māori. Also what they showed is the Electoral Commission data—speaking to the Minister of Justice’s previous point—indicates that special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian, and Pasifika communities, and younger people are more likely to cast their special votes. In 2023, 33 percent of 18- to 19-year-old voters enrolled or updated their details during that voting period, as did 48 percent of Māori voters aged 18 to 19.

My proposal to you, as per the amazing amendment tabled by Vanushi Walters, is that if you’re going to disenfranchise a proportion of people by taking away enrolling in the early voting period, surely you could—if you want to stipulate and increase your timeliness and your productivity and cut your budget and do all those things—help that out by simply lowering the voting age to 16. That seems to be a really sensible amendment to ensure early engagement in the voting process. If we’re teaching civics and changing the curriculum and getting people to engage and know about the decision-making process and know about the value of democracy and the strength of the fabric of our communities and how we can all work closer together, why don’t we get young people engaged? Why don’t we do this? If you’re taking away that ability to early vote, then let’s be upfront and let’s say, “Right, be bold.” If 16-year-olds can vote, that would be a really good way of, I guess, making better what is quite a bad situation.

I would really like to hear from the Minister that one of the biggest decisions is to have a sexual relationship with somebody. Does he think that voting is more heavy or more weighty than making the decision to engage in sexual activity with another adult? I’m puzzled as to why voting requires another two years of life experience when that big decision on having sex does not.

I think we could kill two birds with one stone. We could empower our young people. We can increase the voting base. We could encourage younger people to engage in our democracy at an earlier age. I’m sure Erica could write it into the curriculum in a heartbeat with some help from her mates in Canada or Atlas or wherever they are, and we’d all be happier off. I think this is an excellent amendment and I’d love to hear his reckons on it.

For the second time, I will offer my reckons on the age of 16 as voting, and that is not something that is being proposed to be changed in this legislation. I do look forward to the Labour Party’s views when it comes to the criminal justice system and 16- and 17-year-olds being treated as children, and the arguments put forward for that in the fact that they are not able yet to be fully accountable for their actions in the criminal justice system. I struggle to see the consistency of the approach as proposed by the member Ginny Andersen on that one.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a subsequent question from the Green Party member regarding age, and this is around clarity of age, actually.

Vanushi Walters has also got an amendment for replacing clause 4(1), which would amend section 3(1), with the definition of “adult”, so that “the Monday immediately before polling day” would be changed with “the advance polling period”, and “the period beginning on that Monday and ending on polling day” with “the advance polling period”. The reason for that, really, is clarity, because it would clarify that any person whose 18th birthday falls within the advance polling period could vote in that time. Now, that’s already possible under clause 35’s definition of “advance voter” as including anyone who “is qualified to vote at the election” or clause 8’s amendments to section 89.

But clarity is better here, and that is because electoral law should be clear, certain, and accessible. If there is one type of law that really needs to be clear because it is so inherent to our democracy, it is electoral law. This amendment would clarify that so that any person who turns 18 at any point within the advance voting period would be eligible. It would ensure that no 18-year-old voter would be disenfranchised due to technical ambiguity in the timing and the definitions. I would remind the Minister of Justice that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) repeatedly highlights the importance of clarity and predictability in electoral law to ensure fairness and prevent confusion.

We’ve heard about media stories. I’d just like to mention another one: Radio New Zealand, on 4 March 2025, emphasised that youth engagement and lower barriers to earlier participation were something that youth MPs wanted. Those were the MPs that we all supported to come to our Parliament to stoke up the enthusiasm for democracy, that the Minister himself has spoken about—and yet here we are, sending them a signal to say, “but when it comes to sloppy lawmaking, it doesn’t matter. There’s going to be a bit of an ambiguity, and we’re not even going to be precise in the way that we write that down.”

I think that the ambiguity about when someone qualifies to vote really risks confusion at voting places. It’s going to put electoral officials into a difficult position, and we already rely on electoral officials to be employed for a very short amount of time. It’s really important for them to know what they are doing and to have processes as simple as possible. Internationally, jurisdictions like Scotland and Austria explicitly provide clear rules ensuring that young voters can participate as soon as they attain the qualifying age, and they take great care with the way that they write the legislation.

My question for you, Minister, on this is: why do you oppose clarifying voter eligibility when turning 18 during the advance voting period, given the LDAC guidance emphasises certainty and clarity as essential elements of good electoral law, or are you going to support the amendment of Vanushi Walters which clarifies that little change, those few words, so that there will not be ambiguity and people will not have to read across the legislation? Can you guarantee that without the amendment, no eligible young person turning 18 will be refused to vote due to inconsistent interpretation, and, if you can’t guarantee that—and I’m really keen to hear whether you will guarantee that, Minister, because, if you can’t, then why would you reject a simple fix? It’s a good amendment. This is our chance in the committee to make the law better. We’re not asking you to lower the voting age. I personally think that’s a good idea; I do realise it’s out of scope. But having clarity about when someone turns 18 and when they can vote is very, very important.

I would remind you, Minister, that the Children’s Commissioner talked about the failure of this bill to protect young people’s right to vote. The Children’s Commissioner said “the bill fails to protect young people’s right and participate in democracy”. It says that “the bill fails to protect the electoral rights of rangatahi Māori … and [fails to] provide equitable opportunities for their participation” contrary to Te Tiriti obligations—then it is failing.

So why, with nearly 70 percent of voters now casting their ballots early, will you not ensure, with this tiny little change, in this very well-crafted and serious amendment from my colleague, that we cannot at least have some certainty that those who turn 18 in that eligible period will have clarity about their eligibility to vote? It’s already quite difficult for them trying to work it out. The change in the rules is going to make that more confusing. I would support that amendment, and I hope you will consider it, Minister.

In terms of people who turn 18 after the deadline or after the 13 days beforehand, they are perfectly entitled to enrol before the closing of enrolment. People are able to enrol from the age of 17½ and so they’ve got plenty of time to be enrolled before the election, including if they turn 18 at any time before election day. That’s clause 8 of the bill, and we think that’s clear enough.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m seeking to take short calls, so I’ll ask my first question and then sit down and, hopefully, I’ll get another call. In terms of the 236,000 figure that’s been mentioned, would the Minister consider it a policy success or a failure if 236,000 fewer people voted in the next election as a result of these changes?

Well, of course it would be. Voting turnout fluctuates significantly between elections, totally unrelated to the electoral laws but related more to enthusiasm of voters for particular parties and particular Governments at particular times. That was the point I made to the member and to the committee before. It is the primary function of politicians to go out and persuade people to vote for them. We’re not like the Aussies. We don’t say it’s compulsory to vote. People have a choice. Sometimes, I’ve been uninspired and haven’t voted at local body elections because I haven’t found anybody inspiring enough to vote for. That’s a perfectly reasonable choice that New Zealanders make. If people want to vote or not vote, that’s up to them, but all we can do is ensure that people get a decent chance at it. I’ve lost my train of thought now. I can’t remember what the question was, but I think it’s fully covered.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple more questions on Subpart 4 too. The first, which I’ll ask now and sit back down, is the definition of “registration”. Is that when someone fully completes the registration and is fully on the roll or is that when someone starts the process of registration? For example, if I were to fill out the paperwork on the Electoral Commission website would that be counted as me being registered or do I have to fully complete the process to be fully counted as being registered? Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll also follow the Chair’s instructions and keep my questions brief and specifically on my amendments. I did propose—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): And new, perhaps.

VANUSHI WALTERS: And new—a new clause 4A, and that was a tabled amendment on 10 December at 5.45.05 p.m. That was a question about a review of that subpart, so just a question about whether the Minister of Justice would consider that.

When my colleague Ingrid Leary was speaking to one of my other amendments, it reminded me of an idea that I’d had, which I haven’t drafted up, which is allowing an exception for first-time voters. I’m just acknowledging that for that particular cohort of people, there may be merit in allowing more flexibility for them to enrol to vote right up to polling day just for that group. The reason is I, like other colleagues, am worried that if there is an issue for voting that first time, it may just create that habit for life of kind of going, “Well, this isn’t for me and I’m not going to try again.” Just asking if the Minister would consider that—I’d be very happy to draft that up.

The last one was Amendment Paper 488. This is an Amendment Paper, and this one proposes, essentially, that people be not allowed to register during that advance period but still be allowed to vote on polling day. I know a little bit of an unusual suggestion, perhaps, but the Minister spoke earlier to fact that—I think he said something like, “People rock up and enrolled and voted at the same time and we’ve gotten into the habit of that.” I wonder if there was any assessment of whether we could just condense our resources to allowing that to happen on that day as kind of a catch-all and whether any numbers were done on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to move to an amendment and I will give you the date stamp momentarily, but it is basically to delete clause 7, which is the guts of what is really wrong with this bill because clause 7 amends section 88, which is “Applications received after issue of the writ”. In our view, if actually we got rid of clause 5 and clause 7, that would be fantastic, but clause 7 itself might do it.

I just want to talk about why this is such a bad clause. It’s quite a complex one that’s in there at the moment. Section 88 governs what the Electoral Commission can do after the writs are issued and before the writ is returned, so that’s the entire election period. Currently, voters can enrol or update their details during that advance period, including on polling day. But this is the section here that, basically, through this bill, removes those exceptions and it rewrites section 88 so that after the close of registration, the Electoral Commission cannot enrol anyone new and cannot update anyone’s details. That blackout period basically lasts from the close of registration until the return of the writ. The close of registration is a hard deadline and there is nothing that can change after that point. I’d just like to make the point that not even an address update can change.

We’ve talked a little bit about homelessness. There are many more questions about homeless people and also people who move, but to not even be able to do something technical like update an address is particularly draconian and it shows what kind of a freeze is created. So this section 88 is a major, major change. It is one of the most major changes, really, that we’ve seen in electoral law reform. It’s going to dramatically narrow the special pathway. It’s going to tighten voter eligibility, reduce flexibility. It removes safety nets. It raises the risk that legitimate electors cannot vote because they missed a deadline. There are many MPs on this side of the House who I’m sure will be coming down to share stories of the concerns that they have from their constituents who are either worried about not voting or found in the local body election that they were suddenly no longer on their local body roll. They are already feeling disenfranchised before this has even come in.

So, really, you know, the best thing the Minister could do, given that his logic is flawed when it comes to the likely outcome of this legislation, which is going to disenfranchise voters, is just strike out clause 5, and clause 7 in particular.

So, really, my question to him is: would he make an exception for change of address? Would that be possible? Vanushi Walters has mentioned it for first-time voters, but what about for voters who have changed address? If he wants to make sure it’s not people who have got his, I would say, rather sanctimonious message about voting, perhaps then, people who have changed address within the previous two weeks, could be a good compromise.

Would he consider safety nets? For renters and young people, would he consider safety nets and other types of things where they could get to actually register so that they are not chilled from voting? Would he consider outreach to some of those groups so that if there was a record of the fact that they had not registered, there would be a special effort made by Government agencies to go into the places where those people coalesce, to go into high-renting areas and high-mobility areas, to make sure and remind people?

What is he going to do about people who have made clerical mistakes or spelling mistakes? For example, if they’ve misspelt their name or if their electorate has been spelt incorrectly? Is that going to be fatal to a person’s ability to vote once the registration has passed? Because, currently, on the reading of the legislation, that’s what it looks like. If that’s not the case, now is the Minister’s chance to clarify that for the Hansard, because there will be many, many votes excluded as a result of things to do with even handwriting that cannot be read or where somebody is interpreting the handwriting incorrectly. What I would like to know is, you know, why he is proceeding with this when I hear the message loud and clear: there must be some exceptions for people legitimately able to vote.

In relation to the member’s reference to “sanctimonious message”, I’m puzzled as to what that refers to. If it refers to a message of people being obliged to do what the law requires them to do—that is, to be enrolled, and, if they shift to a new address, to update that enrolment in a timely manner—I hardly think that’s “sanctimonious”; it’s just a statement of the law.

In terms of people moving, if somebody moves within the same electorate, their enrolment will not be affected at all, because they will remain eligible in the same electorate. If somebody moves to a new electorate, within one month of election day—so in the four weeks before the election day, if somebody moves to another electorate, they will not be affected, as they will remain enrolled in their previous electorate, because one needs to be in a particular place for 30 days to be enrolled in it. People who moved to a new electorate more than one month before the election day need to update their address before the 13-day enrolment cut-off. If they don’t, well, then, only their party vote will count if they have failed to change their address in that circumstance. So that is the consequences of that, but there will be a clear message.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really stoked to ask my first question in this committee of the whole House stage. What I am going to ask about is one of my colleagues’—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s—tabled amendments. I’ll start there, and then I have some other questions on the age-related stuff. I know it’s been traversed quite a bit, so I’ll make sure it’s something new to add to that discussion.

On the amendments, this is a tabled amendment that was tabled at 8.20 p.m., and it’s the amendment to add a new clause 5A, section 72 amended, and that’s around the rules for determining place of residence within New Zealand. Basically, what my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan wanted to capture is, “What about people who don’t have a fixed address, due to not having a home or being homeless or rough sleeping?” It doesn’t cancel anything out; it just asks to add in that people who are not residing in a property but live within an open environment of a particular electoral district will be deemed to reside in that electorate or to have resided in that electoral district.

I think the reason that this is so important is because homelessness and rough sleeping is increasing across the country. If we look to the most recent homelessness insights briefing that we have in New Zealand, we can see that rough sleeping here in Wellington has increased 24 percent. In Auckland, rough-sleeping has increased 90 percent, and in Christchurch it has increased 73 percent. Those are some pretty large numbers, and those are people who, when the election comes up, might not have an address to be able to point to, to say that they reside in a particular district. That’s really bad, because they’re not going to be able to participate in democracy.

I’m sure there are people who might think that they might not even be interested in participating in democracy, because they’ve got such bigger issues on their plate, but when I think about the conversations that I’ve had with people when I’ve gone out with Downtown Community Ministry (DCM) or the Salvation Army or Te Whare Nukunoa, the women’s homelessness organisation, I know that there are a lot of people who are switched on, who know who their local MP is, who come to our electorate office, who want to participate in democracy, and who, of course, want to be able to vote. I know that at DCM in Wellington, in Lukes Lane in the CBD, they put a lot of effort into trying to make sure that homeless people are enrolled and eligible to vote, but it’s still going to be a challenge if, at the end of the day, they can’t point to a fixed address within that electoral district. We’re hoping that the Minister of Justice might consider Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to rectify that.

I guess the other reason that we wanted to include that is because not all homelessness is visible. In this amendment, we talk about an open environment, which could be on the street or could be in a tent on a waterfront. It could be in a lot of different places, but the other concerning thing that we’re trying to address through this amendment is that homelessness is not always visible. Homelessness can include obvious rough sleeping, but it can also include people who are couch surfing, people who are sleeping in tents, or people who are sleeping in cars who are changing the location where they’re sleeping or residing, even though it tends to be within the same city or electoral district. There are other forms of homelessness that are a lot harder to identify, including things like overcrowding in houses, which we know is particularly bad for some communities.

We want to ask the Minister whether he will consider that amendment, and we think that it would be a really compassionate approach to ensuring that every person has a voice and an opportunity to participate in our democracy, particularly the people who are, I guess, feeling the harshest end of our democracy or who have fallen through the cracks of our system. Therefore, their participation might lead our system to be a bit more accommodating and fair and compassionate towards their circumstances.

Now, with my last 30 seconds, I want to talk about this age limit that we’ve traversed a bit. We’ve talked about lowering the age limit. Has the Minister considered an age limit on the age of people voting at all? Obviously, you have to be 18, but when do you get too old that your brain might not be up to voting any more? I’m not going to give an age, because I might offend some of my constituents or potential voters, but did you consider an age limit? I know that, for driving, at a certain age, you have to take more tests for your licence and get your eyes checked and stuff like that. Did we consider an age limit to voting at all in this country? We don’t support that idea but want to know if that’s maybe a consideration that he had.

In relation to the last question, no, we haven’t considered an upper age limit, and of course the member will be aware that there is a wide variation of capability amongst people of different ages.

In relation to the question of rough sleepers and people of no fixed abode, I won’t be entertaining Mr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment. But this bill doesn’t change the existing rules which are in place, which say that if somebody is of no fixed abode or rough sleeping, they can register at the place where they last lived—everybody’s lived somewhere, somewhere—or where they spend most of the time. Where they spend most of the time is another alternative. So there are two alternatives in place, and this legislation hasn’t changed that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

This would appear to be early to be even considering a closure motion, but members should be aware we’re still not making a lot of progress through this bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a genuine question that I am trying to understand—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sure they are all genuine.

Glen Bennett: “Genuine Ginny”, that’s what we call her—“Genuine Ginny”.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That’s me. In Part 1, clause 5(2)—and I just want to read this bill out—it says, “any person who is qualified to be registered as an elector of the district and was at the time of the last preceding election—(i) registered as an elector of that district (district A)”. Then it goes on: “because of a subsequent change of boundaries, that place of residence is now within district A”. It sounds a lot like The Hunger Games to me. I’m just wondering: are there, like, two people selected from each district and they get to fight for the right to vote? Or does this mean that the boundaries have changed? If the boundaries have changed, what does this impact mean? Does President Snow enter the picture at any point in time?

For the average person reading that section, it is really unclear to know what you mean by that. Does it mean that, if boundaries have changed and you’re registered in your old electorate, you have to reregister? There are parts of Hutt South, for example, that were previously in Ōhāriu—for example, Newlands—that, under the boundary changes, come into Hutt South. If those people were registered for Ōhāriu, do they need to change all their details because they are now in Hutt South? I would just like to say that I know you got rid of the Plain Language Act, but, reading that, it seems like there is something to do with boundaries changing, something to do with district A—we don’t know what “district A” means—but what does it actually mean for voters who have been affected by the recent electoral boundary changes?

I think what the member the Hon Ginny Andersen was referring to were matters relating to the dormant roll. But in relation to the question of The Hunger Games, I think that is more relevant to the internal workings of the Labour Party!

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I will try and be very brief and put some questions to the Minister. In relation to clause 6, we keep coming back to the one-month continuous residence criteria. I was just wondering whether there was any consideration of whether that was still the most appropriate way of ensuring integrity of the system and whether it’s comparable to like-jurisdictions as well.

In relation to some of my amendments to clause 12, these, I thought, were very sensible, in particular for anyone who finds themselves to be an eligible voter in that period. I’m thinking of someone who might have been released from prison, obviously hasn’t registered beforehand, but, technically speaking, should be able to then vote—whether the Minister considered being able to allow that as an exception, which I’ve drafted in those amendments on Thursday, 11 December.

I’ve proposed inserting a new clause 9A, as well; again, sunsetting that clause. I guess that my general question, because the Minister will have seen that I’ve made this proposal a few times, is whether there was any consideration of an internal review mechanism of some sort, just given the fact that this is electoral law, whether that be a sunset clause or a review clause? Thank you.

No, we haven’t considered a sunset clause but, of course, the electoral law is regularly reconsidered after every election—every three years Governments review it and so that is, I think, the appropriate way to handle that.

In terms of people recently released from prison, all the advice I’ve received is that Corrections have a well-organised set of arrangements in order to help people who are released from prison to be re-enrolled. Of course, in relation to where they live, as I said in the previous answer, if they’ve moved out of prison within 30 days of the election, they would be able to be registered at the previous place where they lived, which, of course, was the prison.

Thank you. Just looking at this issue of homelessness, there is a question in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) report, in terms of section 12 of the NZBORA, and I’m wondering what advice the Minister of Justice has specifically sought or received regarding the unclear residence rules and the risk of breaching them. He has talked about the previous residence—that doesn’t really work for people who jump on buses or get across town. My colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has got a nimble solution which would provide clarity and avoid that NZBORA issue, which would be to add a new section 74(2A) so that where a person is homeless, they may register in the electoral district in which they most commonly sleep, and where they commonly sleep in more than one electoral district, they may choose one of those electoral districts, the one to which they have the greatest affinity.

The homelessness issue is important. I would remind the Minister of the principle that under New Zealand’s constitutional values, the right to vote, under section 12 of the NZBORA, must be interpreted generously, not narrowly.

The first question, really, is: did he get that advice—because it doesn’t seem clear—and if he’s not willing to entertain the Greens’ amendment, could he entertain our amendment, which would provide the clarity that has been offered up by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to take the Minister of Justice now to clause 10 of the bill, where I propose a new subclause (4), which creates new section 80(2) to replace “not later than the fifth day of the month following the date of conviction to” with “not later than 10 days following the date of conviction”. This is about where notification needs to happen when someone is an ineligible voter, and given that the purpose of the bill is timeliness, it just seemed odd to me that the notification period was on the fifth day of the next month after their conviction, the reason being you could have someone who was convicted on, say, 1 October and the statutory requirement to report that would be the fifth day of November.

My proposal here is actually about timeliness. I would propose that it is potentially 10 days after the conviction, whenever it happens, which would create some consistency. I do have a second proposal, which, hopefully, will also be received well by the Minister, because, again, it’s a tidy-up for the bill. This is clause 10(4), “Replace section 80(2) with:”, and I suggest inserting, “(2) The Registrar must fulfil their obligation under subsection (2) before the fifth day of the month following the date of the conviction.” It’s neither the polling day nor any part of the advanced polling period for any general election that falls between the date of the conviction and date A or if the polling day or any part of the advanced polling period for any general election falls between the date of the conviction and date A, the close of the polling day for that general election.

The point that I’m making in that is that, if the conviction falls within that voting period, essentially—the period of the election—then it would make sense for reporting to happen more speedily. Using those two as separate amendments might actually make the system more efficient as well. If the Minister would respond, I can leave it there and come back to my next question. Otherwise, I can continue. OK; I can continue. It looks like he’s making a list—joke!

This is also still on clause 10. After clause 10(3)—after section 80(1A), insert “despite paragraph (d) of subsection (1), a person is not disqualified from registration as an elector if they are eligible for a sentence of home detention and are in prisoned only or substantially because of section 80A(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002”. This is a case where you might have someone who would be on home detention but, because a placement couldn’t be found, they end up incarcerated and therefore have their right to vote taken away. This would be just a carve-out exception for them as well. I think that would be a substantially fairer way to treat these particular people who, it would seem, are being disenfranchised on the basis of administrative availability of home detention facilities.

As a side point, I do know that this tends to affect female prisoners a fair bit. This is anecdotal, but I was told by the someone from the Howard League that women who are looking for home detention facilities are often declined because their home residence is also the home detention residence of a former partner or spouse who’s currently there. It’s declined on that basis. They will then find themselves in prison and subject to this rule as well. So, again, it seems like a carve-out would be really useful.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question. I accept that the Minister of Justice has told us that he doesn’t believe that the impact of this legislation is going to be fewer people voting, but my specific question, in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), is: what are the less rights-impairing alternatives he considered before adopting the fixed-enrolment cut-off that prevents late-enrolling electors from voting? We have talked about the NZBORA section 12, but we have not talked in detail about the really important elements of what is required. It’s very clear from the Attorney-General that she has said that the enrolment deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on the right to vote. Now, the Minister may disagree with the impact, but the question then becomes: what is his duty to consider less rights-limiting options?

If we look at the limitation that was justified under section 5 of the NZBORA, the Attorney-General has said that that is OK. Where the NZBORA fails is on the minimum impairment, which is a key failure, that is around the 13 days, and also proportionality, and that is to do with where the Attorney-General has specifically said that the harm to the right to vote—complete exclusion from an election—outweighs the administrative benefit, which is fast accounting. Because it’s a core democratic right, even a temporary loss—one election—is considered serious. That conclusion is stated on page 9 of the report. Then, again, there is the formal conclusion, further on in the report, that the limit cannot be demonstrably justified under section 5. It appears in the summary of inconsistencies section on page 7 of the report; it’s reinforced in the justification analysis on pages 8 and 9. The logic, therefore, says that under the NZBORA methodology, which is used time and again for bills in this House, an inconsistency with section 12 after a section 5 analysis makes it an unjustified limit on the right to vote.

The Minister has only justified his answer, based on his reckons, on the outcome of the voting, but what we have not heard is the duty, or failure to exercise a duty, to consider less rights-impairing alternatives before adopting that specific methodology, given the gravitas of the NZBORA. My question to you, Minister, is: what did you consider, what advice did you receive, and what reports can you table that showed us that you considered alternatives to what is currently in this bill?

We won’t be supporting Vanushi Walters’ amendment—I don’t know which; there’s about 100 amendments, but the ones tabled at 12 o’clock, and 13 minutes past 12—because the bill provides for notifications to the Electoral Commission for people who are disqualified.

In relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) issue, I would remind the committee that the 2017 election—which some on that side of the House would regard as consequential—was carried out with a ban on enrolments on election day. The 2014 election, likewise the 2011 election, the 2008 election—they were all carried out with a ban on enrolments on election day. I’ve talked about the ratchet sort of effect of the BORA approaches, which is to say: when Parliament in 2020 decided that they’re going to change the rules and allow enrolment on election day, there was no discussion around that in relation to rights, but if Parliament was to reverse that change, suddenly it engages human rights. The simple point I make is that Parliaments will form different views on these matters.

Overall, the question is: what is a reasonable expectation in a democracy in terms of people carrying out their civic function, to be enrolled as the law requires them to be so? And what’s a reasonable amount of notice to give people time to get involved? The point that we’ve been making, as a Government, is for more than a year before the election, people will have received the message that they need to get enrolled 13 days before the election. The Electoral Commission will be running campaigns, as they’re fully funded to do, reminding people to get enrolled. Certainly my strong message to the Electoral Commission is that a real focus should be on getting as many people enrolled by writ day as possible so that as many New Zealanders get to cast full votes, not special votes, and that simplifies the situation significantly.

In terms of other things we considered, well, there’s a whole lot of things that this bill also does in relation to these matters in terms of changing the ability to have auto-enrolments. One of the difficulties with auto-enrolments of new enrolments and people who have enrolled for the first time is that New Zealand has a unique system where there are two different rolls—there’s a general roll and a Māori roll. Auto-enrolling becomes difficult if one has to make a choice about which roll to put somebody on. That’s a real issue that we’ve got to work our way through as a country, because it does make it harder for having people automatically enrolled, the nature of the system that we have. That might be something for the next Parliament to consider.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The first few questions that I have are in terms of the Minister of Justice’s Amendment Paper 493. Yeah, another genuine question: could you explain the rationale behind your Amendment Paper? We’re currently deciding whether to support it or not, so any explanation would be very helpful.

I can see that we are now really interrogating the provisions under Subpart 2, which is great because I’ve got an amendment—it’s Amendment Paper 479—and what that does is it, basically, grants people in prison the right to vote. It’s the reverse of the blanket prisoner voting ban provisions that are within this bill as it stands. There are lots of reasons why we’ve brought this amendment forward, and I’m going to talk about those now.

My first question to the Minister is: will he accept my amendment? One of the reasons I want to ask that is because there is a lot of unfairness within the blanket prisoner voting ban, and I’m sure we’re going to get into each of those reasons over the next little while. One big reason is because this blanket prisoner voting ban applies to people who have been sentenced; it does not apply to people who are awaiting sentencing or are remanded in prison. The remand population makes up about half of the people in custody in our prisons and jails.

When you ask yourself why we have such a high remand population, one of the reasons for that is because there is a very big court backlog. Actually, we talk about this a lot in the Justice Committee, but we also talk about it a lot in this House as well—access to justice and the way that there have been existing court backlogs; the way that the COVID19 pandemics and the limitations that were applied during that period have contributed to thousands and thousands and thousands of people awaiting justice through the courts. What that means is that there are a lot of people who are remanded in prison and in jail, and those people are still going to be able to vote but only because they have the unfortunate luck that they are still waiting to be sentenced. Basically, because there is a court backlog, that means that if you are lucky enough to have gotten your sentence and have that access to the rehabilitation that you get when you are sentenced, you also lose the right to vote. However, there is half of the prison population who will still be able to vote. How is that fair when that really is contingent on court backlogs and people’s access to justice.

The fundamental problem we have with it is the blanket disqualification that exists for all prisoners. What we’ve heard from the Minister and what we’ve heard from Government MPs who are proponents of this bill is that they believe that your right to vote is tied to a set of civic responsibilities that you apparently hold. In breaking the law, you are therefore relinquishing your right to vote. That’s the rationale that the Government has put out there. One thing that was really helpful that the Attorney-General laid out in her New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report is how inconsistently that can be applied. Someone could be in prison for one month for a petty, non-serious, non-violent crime, and they lose their right to vote; then there could be another person who is in prison for, let’s say, murder, and they’ve lost their right to vote. How is it fair that both people in those circumstances lose the right to vote? Those are not crimes of the same magnitude. There are victimless crimes. There are crimes that people commit that have no victims at all, and they still lose their right to vote. That should not be the same. If that is the rationale, that should not be held to the same standard as people who have created victims or taken somebody else’s life. The fact that it is so broad and so sweeping in terms of those blanket provisions is really deeply unfair. That’s exactly why the Attorney-General pointed out that there is that inconsistency.

The other thing is that disenfranchisement for prisoners. Did the Minister consider that, in the Corrections Act, one of the purposes and principles of the correctional system is supposed to be—[Time expired]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to check with the Minister of Justice, because, in the Justice Committee, when we were considering the legislation, there was quite considerable debate that was related to the Government Amendment Paper pertaining to clause 11 of the bill. The way I understand the law, as it is, is that if a person is incarcerated, they can’t vote, but if they undergo a period of being mentally unwell—and that goes to the point where they need to go to a hospital, like a mental health facility—then they can vote. That’s the way I understood that. There was some discussion, and I understand there’s been a Government amendment to that.

I just want to clarify: for the purposes of the bill and the amendment, is the law staying the way it is? If you’re in jail and you’ve committed an offence, you can’t, but then you go through a period of being mentally unwell, and that deems that you are able then to vote; or does your amendment, which you proposed, mean people who are incarcerated and then put in a mental health facility still can’t vote? Are you confident that there’s sufficient checks and balances between the two systems to enable you to keep tabs on everyone when they’re going through those? One is our criminal justice system, obviously, one is our health system, and they don’t always speak to each other great. We, in the select committee, and even the chair, asked some very good questions around that. It did seem an interesting methodology or reasoning that someone who is not in a great space, in terms of their own mental health, is deemed to be eligible to vote when someone who might be in a better space mentally but is incarcerated would be deemed to be not able to vote.

As we know, quite often in our prisons, we have people who are on medication. When I’ve visited prisons, I’ve seen that, quite often, you have people who refuse to take their medication when in a prison facility; what then happens is that their wellbeing and their mental health erodes, and prisons are actually not able to require or force prisoners to take medication. There’s no ability to do that. That’s only able to be done in a health facility, under a health framework. What happens, very often—and I’ve found instances while visiting prisons—is that someone gets to a point where they’re no longer well, they go to a hospital, the hospital then can administer their medication to the point where they’re stabilised and able to be returned to the prison facility, where, then again, after a period of time, they refuse to take the medication. They go back and forwards often between a prison and a mental health facility.

The proposal here, where someone can’t vote when they’re in a prison but they can vote when they’re in a mental health facility—I am just interested to know if the Minister’s got any clarifications and if his amendment actually makes that any better?

Yes, the Amendment Paper actually restores the current approach to people who are detained, often on mental health grounds: if you’re a detained person for more than three years you lose the right to vote, which is the current regime. The bill as introduced changed that and took away that, and the Amendment Paper brings that back so it maintains the current position around a three-year period.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

There’s still a bit to go, but I would encourage members, as I’ve said earlier today, it’s been my observation that committee of the whole House works much better when there are quick-fire questions to the Minister, rather than filling up a five-minute space. I can assure you, a quick-fire session with the Minister, I will continue to give you the call until you’ve exhausted your questions for that round, OK?

Thank you. Just following on from the previous questions around the relationship between people held under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act—it’s currently referenced as 1992—of course, there’s a bill going through the House that changes some of the duties and the delegations of the Director of Mental Health. There are more proactive reporting requirements and accountabilities.

I’ve just got a few questions regarding where the director is required to communicate with a person in a way the person can understand, at replacement section 86K, inserted by clause 12. I believe we have an amendment that would make explicit the requirement for translation services to be available. I will have to find the date stamp because we have a number of amendments. Just wondering if the Minister of Justice is going to agree that there is a requirement on the Director of Mental Health to have the communication be given in a way the person can receive, and that also refers to the sedation question raised by the Hon Ginny Andersen. Will there be a duty for them to make sure the person is not overly sedated at the point when the offer is made for them to register?

The more concerning question I have, if the Minister can please comment, is around the delegation in replacement section 86L(3): “A delegation must be in writing and may be revoked at any time.” It’s a really passively written piece. There’s quite a lot of power in that regarding the delegation, which is presumably from the Director of Mental Health to the other subordinates under them. It doesn’t say that there has to be any reason given, and it can happen at any time.

I read that as limiting the rights of a person who might have asked for registration to vote, believes that the Director of Mental Health has actioned that, that has been delegated, and then suddenly, out of the middle of nowhere, there is this kind of all-empowering subsection (3) that says that that can be revoked. It doesn’t say by who, and no reason is given. It’s a very powerful clause. Would the Minister, please, explain why it’s in there? If it’s to protect the person, then it probably needs to be rewritten. Otherwise, would the Minister consider removing it?

In relation to communicating in a way that a person can reasonably expect to understand, my expectation is that Health and Corrections officials must communicate with people—prisoners—in a way that they can reasonably expect to be understood, to accommodate for each person’s needs, when carrying out their functions and duties under the Electoral Act. This includes, where necessary, providing for particular language comprehension and reading need, neurodivergence, or particularly neurological and psychosocial needs. Front-line staff at Corrections and Health are best placed to make operational decisions about what those needs are and when they apply.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In accordance with instructions, I will be brief and to the point. I would just say that we’re currently sitting on clauses 10 and 11 of the bill. Of course, in Part 1, there are 136 clauses and, given that it is an electoral bill, it is important that we examine them.

Very quickly, my first question is: in terms of restricting or disqualifying whether the Minister of Justice considered, as opposed to having that complete ban, just a reduction in the number of years of the term of sentencing—so two years or one year.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which clause are you on?

VANUSHI WALTERS: Section 80(d)(i)(C), amended by clause 10(2)—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS: —is the one I’m looking at. It’s actually a question—I saw it and I wondered to myself, “Has the Minister considered, in terms of disqualification generally, rather than making it everybody, that someone who has under two years could still vote, or under one year—just bringing it down?”

The reason I ask is because the Attorney-General says that it kind of reiterates that court decision where it’s acknowledged that you can restrict the right to vote and it still be reasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA). Perhaps those would have been options for the Minister to potentially be compliant—just whether they were explored.

My other one is one of my favourite amendments. This was filed 10 December at 5.45.12. This proposes a repeal of this subpart on a finding of rights inconsistency with the BORA. Right now, if someone takes a declaration of inconsistency case to the courts, they can issue the declaration, it comes back to the House, and then the House’s time is spent re-examining things, etc. One other option is that the House could just direct that, if that happens, that is repealed automatically. The benefit of that is, essentially, saving some of the House’s time, but also trying to look at how we can develop rights and consistency law in New Zealand. Thank you.

In relation to the last point raised by Vanushi Walters, what has been proposed by an amendment to the electoral bill would amount to a fundamental constitutional change in this country, which is to say that, effectively, court decisions strike down legislation. It amazes me that a member would be suggesting that by way of an amendment to a bill; that is a fundamental constitutional change that we haven’t made in this country. We hold the view that Parliament is, ultimately, fully accountable. The good thing about the election process is that every three years the people of New Zealand get a chance to have a say as to who is going to be accountable for that; we’re not going to change those rules.

In relation to the comments from the member that we’re up to clause 10 of many parts, my understanding of the discussion in relation to a part is it’s not a chronological matter that we work our way through clause by clause. It can be on any point, and we’ve been, obviously, having that discussion for quite some time now. The member raised another point, but I fail to recall what it was.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will trial the format you suggested. This is in relation to the Minister of Justice’s Amendment Paper 493. How many people is the Minister expecting will be captured as part of this amendment? Does he have a breakdown by age and ethnicity and/or, even, region? If he does have an estimate, it would be good to hear it. If he does not have an estimate, it would be good to understand why he isn’t able to produce that. I’ve got more questions, but I’m going to trial the quick-fire exchange.

Well, I’ve remembered the other question that Vanushi Walters raised, which was: did the Government consider different options in terms of restricting voting rights to people in prison for two years or one year? Yes, we did consider that, and we came to the conclusion that all prisoners should be excluded after they’ve been sentenced. One of the conclusions of the long-term insights report into the prison population in New Zealand by the Department of Justice a couple of years ago was that most people who are sentenced in prison in New Zealand are there for serious crimes. It is an urban myth that the prisons are full of people who haven’t paid their parking fines or have done minor things. That is not the case. The vast majority of people in prison in New Zealand today are there for serious violent or sexual offending, and that is quite relevant.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m still seeking engagement on whether there’s an estimate of the number of people that are going to be captured by Amendment Paper 493.

Another quick-fire question ahead is: what level of engagement did the Minister of Justice have with the Minister for Mental Health in relationship to producing this amendment, and what feedback did he receive from the Minister in relationship to this amendment, if he did seek any feedback from the Minister? Clarity around that would be useful.

Just for clarity, the reason why I asked the previous question around the figures is because, looking at the explanatory note, that is not available. It would be good to understand, particularly from an ethnic and gender breakdown, if he does have any estimates on who’s getting captured by the amendment.

Just in relation to the question asked in terms of Amendment Paper 493 which relates to detained people, the numbers of detained people are very small: there are about 500 people found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible due to insanity, over the course of about 24 months. In terms of the ethnic breakdown and gender and so forth, I don’t have those figures to hand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m still seeking engagement as to what level of feedback he sought or received from the Minister for Mental Health in developing this, based on the reality that this quite relates to powers that the Director of Mental Health has. I’m still seeking engagement on what feedback he received.

Finally, I also wanted to understand, in developing this amendment, whether he also—this is a new quick-fire question—engaged with any stakeholders on the ground who are mental health experts, and particularly around the components of the links between ill mental health and criminalisation. It would be useful to get a sense of what level of feedback he received from any stakeholders, if any, since we don’t have access to, for example, a departmental report or regulatory impact statement that has this amendment as part of it. We don’t have access to external feedback that would have been sought by the Minister in the development of these amendments. That’s why I’m asking that question.

In relation to feedback and consultation with the Minister of Health and indeed the Ministry of Health, of course that was very much part of the formulation of the policy and of course the Minister of Health was part of the Cabinet who agreed on these measures. In terms of the other matter that was raised—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Any external stakeholders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: External stakeholders, yes. Well, in terms of the external stakeholders, the point I would make is that—

Ricardo Menéndez March: On the Amendment Paper.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On the Amendment Paper. The point is that the Amendment Paper restores the status quo. That is the current settings and has been for quite some time in relation to detained people. The bill has changed that, and on reflection, we came to the conclusion that it actually is better to stick with the status quo. It probably wasn’t a matter that particularly was worthy of comment if we’re sticking with the arrangements as they are.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to an amendment proposed to new section 86A, inserted by clause 12, and that’s in relation to the prison manager’s requirement to send notifications to the Electoral Commission with information about prisoner disqualification for registration. Currently, the proposal is to look at, basically, that administrative role and how to ensure that there is no additional administrative work in taking a prisoner off the roll and when restoring them to the roll when their sentence will end before polling day.

We did ask for information from officials on this in the Justice Committee when we were being briefed on the details. This section applies in respect of a prisoner who is over the age of 18; “a person who is described in section 80(1)(d) and who has been received into a prison to serve the whole or part of their sentence”; and “No later than 7 days after the prisoner is received into a prison, the prison manager [is required to] forward to the Electoral Commission a notice” that, basically, gives the name and date of birth of the prisoner and “the prisoner’s previous residential address or, if the prisoner has been transferred to the prison after previously being detained in a hospital or secure facility, the name and address of the hospital or secure facility in which that prisoner was detained;”.

The proposal is to really, I guess, facilitate a smoother flow of how we make sure that those records are kept up to date. The section would not apply if it is certain that the prisoner will not be detained in a prison on polling day—for example, if the polling date was set and the maximum period of time that the prisoner can be detained will expire before polling day. I would really like the Minister’s views on the proposal of that amendment, which would really ensure—in terms of the additional administrative burden already being placed upon a prison manager to notify the Electoral Commission—that there is no additional administrative work in taking a prisoner off the roll and then restoring them to the roll when their sentence will end before polling day.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

We’re not there yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a set of amendments on clause 12, which I would like the Minister of Justice’s response to. They all involve just making sure someone senior is involved in the decision-making and accountability processes—that’s the amendment at 17.57.09 on Wednesday, 10 December.

There’s a requirement about informing the prisoner—at 17.57.01—so just ensuring that that’s done in writing when updates are being made in terms of their enrolment status. Likewise, at 17.57.02—so that’s a compliance provision. And then 17.57.03 is also in relation to clause 12, where it inserts, after the word “may”, “after their release, apply to the Electoral Commission for registration as an elector of an electoral district”, and before the word “and” adds the words “but must do so when they turn 18”. That’s just to ensure that the young person has clarity about their obligations when they turn 18. That’s a clause that’s about a 17-year-old, but I think it’s actually a perfect opportunity for us to ensure that they know that that requirement is there.

There are other amendments also in relation to clause 12. All of these—Madam Chair, and to the Minister—I do think are useful, practical amendments that would help clarify the law and still serve the purpose that the Minister is looking to achieve. There’s another one around ensuring that the prisoner knows the difference about being enrolled on the general roll versus the Māori roll; so they have the option to select, but there there’s no obligation to inform them about the difference. Again, just ensuring that these practical things are done, ensuring they know about enrolling and having their details on the unpublished roll and just thinking about the cohort of individuals who we could be thinking about. They may have issues where they do want their details to be kept confidential on departing prison but still be on the roll.

It’s that information obligation, and there are several more going to—let me give you the last one so that you can view them as a collective. The last one in terms of that cohort was filed on the 10 December, 17.57.10. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to those amendments, they all deal with particular matters in relation to the administration of the Act. The Government does not intend to support those amendments. We have every confidence the procedures outlined in the legislation are clear and effective; and officials have consulted the affected agencies such as Health and Corrections; and the Electoral Commission advises that the changes are not prohibitively burdensome and could be incorporated into regular intake, induction, or discharge processes as drafted in this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to move on to a different area, and it’s about the treating offences, and it’s about trying to understand what the Minister of Justice meant by not accepting the Independent Electoral Review recommendation which suggested just repealing treating offences. I absolutely support the avoidance of bribery, but treating manaakitanga, welcoming people, without having any intent to encourage them to vote a particular way—and given we have secret ballots, you wouldn’t know whether they’d just come for the sausage or were just going to vote whatever way they were going to anyway. Why did you not listen to the Independent Electoral Review?

I’d also like to go a little bit further and say, does “drink”, in this instance, include drinking water as well? I mean, here we are in the House; we’re all very well hydrated thanks to the staff, but if we have a hot day for the election, would somebody not be allowed to provide water to those voters?

Well, I can answer the member: we were staggered with the recommendation to do away with rules in relation to treating. I think people who read their history will look back into earlier periods of, certainly, British history, where beer and pies and money were available to people to encourage them to vote for a particular person. Yes, we have a secret ballot, but we don’t think that’s a useful way that we should go. If people are being encouraged to come and vote with a piece of pizza in a particular area from a particular party, we think that would be a very unhelpful thing to be encouraging in this country and would be a very negative step, so we wanted to clarify the rules around treating.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking at the new section 89CB inserted by clause 25 “Electoral Commission may remove person’s name from dormant roll and register person as [an] elector”. New section 89CB(2)(d) says, “that the proposed action in paragraph (c) will be taken after the expiry of 28 days from the date on which the notification is sent (the notice period) unless before the end of the notice period the person provides in writing such evidence as may be necessary to satisfy the Electoral Commission that the proposed action should not be taken.”

I’m just wondering whether there ought to be an amendment to this that says that the change can be made earlier with the consent of the person concerned. It just feels to me like it’s almost worded as if it’s assumed that there won’t be communication between the individual and the Electoral Commission. Could there be an opportunity to allow for some affirmative wishes to be expressed, which shorten that time period and would just clarify things. I mean, I appreciate that the bill is anchored to this idea of timeliness, so it just seemed like it would be an appropriate thing to do.

The other part I was looking at was clause 26, amending section 87, in regard to the delivery “to the applicant (personally or by post) a written notice” and replacing that with “give written notice to the applicant”. I’m just actually wondering about what the practical implications will be for individuals. Is the idea that, from here on in, individuals will only be receiving electronic communication about the status of their registration and whether they’re on the dormant roll or not, or is the intention that, in each instance, there will be an individualised assessment of what the best means of communication would be for that particular individual, and thereby give some flexibility? I’d just be concerned that, for many people, having an email arrive as the method of communication is not going to be the best form for them to be able to engage and, potentially, correct some errors.

The reason I stopped on this clause is because it’s a particular matter that the Electoral Commission did speak to us about. They talked about an instance where an individual had gone from the normal roll on to the dormant roll because they’d been sent some correspondence and the time period had expired, they hadn’t replied, and so they’d been moved to the dormant roll. The person hadn’t moved whatsoever. They then got in touch with the Electoral Commission and kind of went hands up in the air “What’s going on? I should be on the regular roll here.”

I’m just anticipating that the Minister might say that this is an administrative matter, which it is, but sometimes the method of communication can be quite significant in terms of determining whether someone stays on the roll or not—remembering that, once you’re on the dormant roll, then, after a period of time, you lapse off that roll as well. There could be people who have not moved where it’s assumed that they have moved, go on to the dormant roll, have no idea that they need to register, have maybe received an email because that’s the new means of communication, and just completely missed it.

I’m curious about what the assessment was. What does he understand the direction will be? Will there be an individual assessment? What protections are there to ensure that correspondence really does get to those people?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I am looking for new material and moving on through this. We’ve slogged this particular issue out for a while.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I knew you were going to say that.

GLEN BENNETT: I just want to clarify, because we have been very methodical on this side of the Chamber. We actually skipped from clause 12 right through to clause 25 just now, and, I guess, in terms of looking at Speaker’s ruling 68/4 when a bill is in urgency, which I know you would understand, but I just want to share with my colleagues across the floor that there are 136 clauses in Part 1; we are at 25—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And your point of order is?

GLEN BENNETT: It is just that, please, we are doing our best on this side to ensure that we are being methodical—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, yes. I haven’t shut down the debate, Mr Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT: Are you looking for new material?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am looking for new material, yes.

GLEN BENNETT: Which I just think we gave you.

I’ve got some awesome material, Madam Chair. When we’re looking at all of the new sections, which are 89CA and 98CB, I want to ask a general question for the Minister of Justice because this has come up a number of times and it’s come up in other legislation as well. The problem that we are facing is how people are notified. If you’re upping the stakes, if you’re saying someone’s not going to be able to vote over a certain period, you’re really increasing the weight of how communication is delivered. We know, well and truly, that the postal system is pretty broken right now. We know a lot of people don’t check their mail regularly; some people can go for quite a long period of time. We also know that, depending on what your email situation is, people can receive multiple emails and not respond.

In situations here where the Electoral Commission is updating electors’ addresses on the electoral roll without receipt of notice from the elector, if you’re waiting on how this is done, I want to know from the Minister—and it’s for this bill, but it’s also in general for people to understand that if we’re going to be upping the stakes, whether it’s penalties or not being able to register to vote or having things up to date, we need reliable forms of communication. Currently, the postal system isn’t that, and I’m not sure that email’s that much better, to be honest.

What I’d like to understand is if the Electoral Commission is going to remove someone’s name from the dormant roll or not—these are pretty big stakes if it’s going to mean that you can’t actually turn up and vote on the day. Is he satisfied that the current means of communication are actually robust enough for us to be upping these stakes? Even—indulge me if you will, Madam Chair: what is the future? What is the future for New Zealand of how we’re going to effectively communicate to voters about having their details up to date? Is it some kind of ID on your phone? What is it?

The way that we’re heading now with this is that you are disenfranchising a whole bunch of people from being able to vote who might not have an email, who might not have a post box, who might not have a telephone, who might not have these things because they can’t afford it under the current cost of living crisis. How are we ensuring that there is clear communication with people if you’re raising these stakes when some of the key means of communication, because of a number of reasons, are not as reliable as what they were in the past?

I agree with the member in terms of the very significant changes that have happened in terms of postal voting—people’s use of postage generally. That is why this bill makes significant changes to reduce the requirements around everything being done by post in circumstances and enabling communications to be had through text messages and also email. The good news is that people are more able to communicate now than ever, but they’re communicating in different ways and that is why this bill is more enabling of that to happen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking at clause 28, “Section 89D amended (Inquiry to be made to update electoral rolls)”. When I read this, I thought it was interesting that the clause says: “The Electoral Commission must make an inquiry into the particulars on the roll for every person registered as an elector of a district at the following times: (a) if practicable, within the period of 12 months ending with the day on which a Parliament is due to expire; and … at any other time determined by the Electoral Commission.” What I found interesting is that it’s only if it’s practicable to do within a period of 12 months ending with the day on which Parliament’s due to expire. It does, of course, also give the commission the power to make those inquiries at any point, but I would have thought that it would be useful for a statutory direction to be explicit.

I would also have thought that a period of within 12 months is quite broad, and that’s sufficiently broad where you wouldn’t need to include that qualifier because, actually, that’s a substantial period of time and, indeed, the Electoral Commission should be making that review as well.

Just within the same clause, as well, in clause 28(4) there’s a reference to insert “some or all of” in place of, essentially, “all of” which is the primary piece of legislation that it’s replacing. I’ve actually proposed removing “some” because I think all of the information should be considered and sent through. I think, from memory of the primary legislation, this is about the individual concerned being given information about findings of an inquiry: the fact of an inquiry and then findings of an inquiry. The amendment to give them “some or all of” the information relating to it just seems to me to be potentially in breach of their rights to obtain that information. So just proposing that those matters are considered for the Minister and keen to hear his answers. Otherwise, I have some other matters in further clauses that I’d very much like to put to the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Fernando Hernandez.

Thank you, Madam Chair—thank you, Madam Chair. I will seek a quick call. I just wanted to get a clarification from the Minister of Justice on his reply to my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March. Can I just confirm that the Ministry of Health submitted in support of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 493. My second question is—and this wasn’t answered by the Minister—I asked earlier about what the threshold of registration was, and whether that was at the beginning or whether the registration had to be complete, for the purpose of registration.

I’ve got a couple of clauses I’ve got questions on—clause 18 and clause 20. Why were occupations and preferred honorifics deleted? And do preferred honorifics cover titles like “Mr” and “Mrs”, or is it just fancier titles like “Your Worship”, and that kind of thing?

I’ve got a question around new section 216(2)(c), which is inserted by clause 43, around where a person “gives … money to, or procures any benefit for, any person for that person to induce any voter to—”. The way that provision is worded kind of makes it seem like it might be possible for that to capture campaign staff, for example. I mean, they’re not bribing people to vote, but they’re certainly encouraging people to go out and vote. What’s the threshold for inducement in that clause?

I’ll close by asking a question around clause—and this is leaping ahead—82, which replaces section 145. In new section 145(2)(c)—this is page 44—I’m interested in the threshold of “commonly known”, the name by which the candidate was commonly known throughout the period of 12 months. Obviously, some of us might have names that are only known amongst certain communities, for example. Some members of the Filipino community know me as “Kiko”, for example, but I think the only member of Parliament here who knows me by that name is my colleague Paulo Garcia, across the aisle from here. What is the threshold for “commonly known”?

Those are my five questions that I’ve asked and I’m happy to repeat them, but I’ll sit down now. Thank you.

Before I take the next call, I must apologise to the member—it’s a flashback to my Abba days. I haven’t unprogrammed the name, so my apologies, Franciso Hernandez.

The question was about why requirements to collect occupation information were being removed. Of course, the occupation doesn’t affect whether anybody is eligible to vote or not. It’s not necessary to collect that for enrolment purposes, it’s inefficient to do so, and we’re taking it down. [Government members seek the call]

I’m only entertaining you standing up because I know it’s good for your health, but I’m not going to take a closure just yet. Celia Wade-Brown.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions and potential amendments about donations. I wondered what the reason for not reducing the amount of disclosure that needed to be disclosed was. I mean, $6,000 is a very large amount of money for most people in New Zealand, and we thought that $1,000 would be a highly appropriate limit, or $2,000, so that we were clear where influence was coming from.

The other amendment that I’ve suggested, and I’d like the Minister of Justice’s opinion on, is the idea that only individuals should be able to make direct donations to parties, in the interest of reducing influence of corporates. Please, Minister, advise me on your thoughts.

I’m at clause 33; this is in replacement section 99, “Notice of alterations to roll”. This is a proposal for clarification and, again, it relates to timeliness. The current clause 99 says, “If the name of a person is removed from the roll under any of the provisions in section 98(1) (d) to (i), the Electoral Commission must, in accordance with subsection (3) or (4), give written notice to the person that their name has been removed from the roll.” It repeats a similar ask in replacement section 99(2) of that same clause. So, again, my view here is that, actually, this individual should know this in the speediest way possible, so I’ve just proposed adding “within a reasonable period of time” in terms of that direction.

Again, I think, because it’s electoral law, it warrants this happening, but also because we have heard of—well, what the Electoral Commission told us, but I think all of us are also very cognisant, as we went through the local body elections, that a number of people were raising issues of what they called dropping off the roll. I suspect it was possibly also a mixture of people dropping off the dormant role, potentially—so people who felt they had been enrolled fell into the dormant role and then fell off that as well.

Again, these communications are extremely important and there’s an opportunity for us to give statutory direction here, which potentially might help rectify the situation. I did put in some Official Information Act requests to the Electoral Commission on how they were responding to those complaints—well, whether they’ve received any complaints about people dropping off the roll, and if so, what they were doing to try and rectify that. I must admit, the responses I got seem to indicate that there was an assumption that that’s what was happening: people had enrolled, fallen into the dormant role, and then fallen off that roll. All entirely lawful, so no flaws with the system whatsoever. It didn’t sound like there has been active investigation into whether it could have been a systems flaw.

I know for some MPs that I’ve spoken to, they talked about people who were very on to it, who were very sure that they were registered and it wasn’t a dormant roll issue. Again, this is a notice of alteration to the roll. It’s a very key provision. Again, I think we should give some direction. My suggestion of language, again, I thought was pretty reasonable: “within a reasonable period of time”. I had considered putting “urgently” or “with haste” or “within a set number of days” to make sure that it was a very clear direction that this should be done very, very quickly, but I think “within a reasonable period of time” is quite reasonable. I’d hope that the Minister of Justice would be willing to consider that as well.

I do have a set of amendments on clause 37 that the Minister would have seen that I filed on Thursday, 11 December that I’d like to speak to. Again, these are all very practical amendments. They don’t challenge the direction that the Government has decided to go in. I understand that I have challenged the position that the Government has taken on the principle and the substance of this bill, especially in my second reading speech. However, you know, I’m a practical person, and, at the end of the day, I want to make sure that if we are passing this legislation, we give it some precision and we ensure that where there are vague terms, especially if we have hit issues around timeliness in the past, that we rectify that with some very clear direction to the Electoral Commission as they navigate how they’re going to communicate in this new system with potential electors.

I’m very interested to hear if the Minister will consider what is an administrative solution but I think is also extremely important. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m advised from my own memory that the Electoral Commission throughout the inquiry and then the consideration of the bill, have been pushing for things like automatic update of enrolments and improvements to administrative systems for a while. They were supportive of these kinds of changes, and they are ready and willing to make the administrative changes needed to make that on the operational side. So as long as we agree to make the changes in the bill, we will be able to allow them to get on and do that.

Hon Members: Madam Chair?

Sorry, I did make a commitment to go back to the former speaker if she had some more questions on that line of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do, so I did want to just speak to some of the amendments that I’ve put forward. These are amendments that start at 10 December, 4.32 p.m. on the dot—so no seconds, just 4.32. I’m looking at—let me see—the advanced polling section, which we haven’t got to yet. This is Subpart 6, and it speaks to advanced polling spaces.

My first amendment is in relation to clause 37. Clause 37 sounds like a small clause, but, actually, it inserts, after section 171, new sections 171A to 171E and a cross-heading. It’s quite significant, so I’m sure there might be others who also have questions in this part, as it’s quite significant and inserts multiple sections. Clause 37, new section 171C(1): I am proposing to replace “in any electoral district or districts” with “across all electorates”. The reason for this is—so this is the provision that allows the shortening of the advanced polling period, so, again, it’s a really constitutionally significant thing. New Zealand’s not unfamiliar with things that might happen that are unexpected, whether that be weather events or other emergencies. One can only imagine that, if such an event happened while we were in the middle of this advanced polling period, then it would absolutely have the potential to impact New Zealand. The suggestion here is that, perhaps, we could look at an event only that spans the whole of New Zealand due to a location-specific disruption in one district.

That’s how I’ve worded it; that it doesn’t preclude the fact that there might be something—a weather event that only affects Auckland, for example, as we’ve had, of course, in the recent past—and because of that event in Auckland, it would impact services across the country such that people would be pulled into Auckland to assist with various things in that space. It wouldn’t be possible or even fair to conduct an election across the country and then potentially limit only a portion of voters to a shortened period of time—and so you may want to, for fairness’ sake, allow a shortening, but a shortening that applied to the whole country, and that could be something that the Minister of Justice could consider.

I also filed an amendment, also on the Thursday, 11 December, at 5.45.14 p.m. This one is in relation to clause 37, new section 171C. You’ll remember, of course, that this one inserts new sections 171A to 171E. This is in relation to 171C(2), where I’ve proposed replacing “electoral district or districts be” with “electoral district or districts affected by the disruption of, if the electoral officer considers the disruption is of such magnitude as to require it across all electoral districts”. This is just a point that I don’t believe that it’s appropriate to shorten the advanced polling period across the whole of New Zealand due to a location-specific disruption in one district, unless there has been some thought to whether that’s appropriate or not. It’s just weaving in a little bit of discretion in terms of the nature of the event, whether it’s a weather event or another event. The other possibility that it could be is some sort of security, or security and intelligence, event, where there is some uncertainty about whether particular booths in the country can open for the full period, or whether all of them, by means of caution, should be closed or the period should be shortened—and so allowing for that decision to be made using this discretion could be quite important.

I do have some other amendments in relation to clause 37, as well, which I’m happy to continue with unless the Minister would like to respond to those two.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We don’t support these amendments, because the current drafting, as it’s formatted, allows for disruptions in one or more electorate, which include the whole country.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The next one that I had in terms of clause 37 was filed at 4.32.02. This one is in relation to the title of new section 171D, inserted by clause 37. I’m sure everyone’s following along. This is on page 27, lines 26 and 27. The proposal is to replace new section 171C with new sections 171C and 171E, and in clause 37, new section 171D—that’s page 27, lines 26 to 234—replace new section 171C with new sections 171C and 171E. Here, as I’ve put in the explanatory note, the considerations relevant to unforeseen or unavoidable disruption should be clear for both before and after the advanced voting period. Again, if there are changes that are going to be made, we need to be very clear about the criteria against which we’re saying that can happen. Also, it would make sense for those to be the same criteria, in essence, because we’re trying to do the same thing. We’re trying to protect people’s safety, we’re trying to ensure the integrity of the vote, and we are trying to ensure that we’ve been fair to the democratic vote.

I see Madam Chair telling me to be brief, so I will just also reference Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment to clause 37 because I’m sure he would like me to do that. His proposal in clause 37 is actually to delete new section 171E, saying that it’s not appropriate to shorten the advanced voting period due to disruption. If anything, it should be extended. Disruption is likely to make it harder to vote, and shortening the period would mean even fewer electors, again, would get the chance to vote. I just didn’t want to acknowledge that because I think I was trying to draft to accommodate the Government’s intent, and Dr Duncan Webb has made the excellent point that, actually, maybe it’s not appropriate at all to shorten the advanced voting period due to a disruption. I would tend to favour his as a priority and then mine perhaps as a backup. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We don’t support this amendment, because the current drafting of those clauses actually reflects or mirrors the existing provisions for polling day, and so we want consistency for advance voting for polling day.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m moving to the amendment filed at 4.32.01, in relation to clause 37, replacing new section 171E with a new drafting, which I’ll read out in a moment. I do want to acknowledge that the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, just said he wasn’t going to accept those previous amendments; this one’s different. This amendment just proposes linking the decision making to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. It says, “The advance polling period in section 171B may be curtailed under section 195B if an unforeseen or unavoidable disruption occurs and a state of national, or local, emergency relating to the disruption has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 after the commencement of the advance polling period.”

The reason I thought this was important is, you know, allowing curtailing on—while I agree with Dr Webb’s amendment, given the Minister’s not going to accept that, I’m going to have another go at some rationale in terms of some guidance for the decision making, here. You could have a list of criteria on when a decision maker can make a decision to curtail, or you could link it to an existing piece of legislation which already sets out the kinds of circumstances where we would consider an emergency to exist. My view is that there’s great value in consistency across the law. We do have the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act already, so, potentially, that could be something that we could link this decision making to.

I do have others, so I’ll continue on while I still have some time. The next one I filed in relation to clause 37 was at 4.32.03. This is in relation to clause 37 again, but it is replacing new section 171E—this is at page 28, lines 1 to 5—with a new 171E, “Polling period may be extended if unforeseen or unavoided disruption occurs after commencement of advance polling period”. I’m now moving to an approach on the extension of the polling period, as opposed to curtailing it, so quite different from the points that I was raising earlier, just for the room who are following. The amendment says “Notwithstanding section 171B, the Chief Electoral Officer may, if unforeseen or unavoidable disruption occurs after the commencement of the advance polling, direct that the advance polling period be extended by up to 7 days after polling day.”

I’m going to stop there for a minute to explain that. The reason I chose seven days is that, obviously, we can’t propose an indefinite extension. There are still other electoral rules in terms of the return of the writ, although that, in theory, could potentially be extended—I’m guessing by prerogative—in the case of a natural disaster, and there are rules about when Parliament must sit again, but I put the seven days in there. That is entirely open to debate, and I very much welcome engagement on whether that’s the appropriate number of days or not.

The remainder of the amendment says, “Before making a direction under subsection (1), the Chief Electoral Officer must—(a) consult—(i) the Prime Minister; and (ii) the Leader of the Opposition; and (iii) any person or organisation that in the Chief Electoral Officer’s opinion is able to give information about the scale and duration of the unforeseen or unavoidable disruption; and (b) be satisfied that the direction is necessary in all of the circumstances. (3) If the Chief Electoral Officer makes a direction under subsection (1), then the other provisions of this Act shall apply.”

I’ll just stop before reading the full thing out, but my point, really, here is that those consultation requirements should be the same for the curtailing of a voting period as well as the extension of the period.

Arena Williams: I think they should be different.

VANUSHI WALTERS: Right now, they are different.

Arena Williams: But different the other way.

VANUSHI WALTERS: I hear my colleague Arena Williams may want to make the counterargument. I’m going to, for now, stand by my proposal, but I’m willing to be convinced.

Arena Williams: Let me convince you.

Helen White: Can I weigh in on that, too?

VANUSHI WALTERS: Actually, I’d very much like to hear Arena, and Helen White also has a view on this. I think this is very important, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a number of private areas out the back that the two Labour caucus colleagues could have their dispute and then come to a joined-up resolution. But I’ll address the two main questions.

The first one was around unforeseeable, unavoidable disruptions. That is already defined in the Electoral Act, and to connect it to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act could unnecessarily restrain the ability to curtail for a particular reason. There are many examples, that I’m sure the member could think of, as to why you wouldn’t want to connect it to the civil defence Act; there may be things outside that Act that would warrant curtailing.

The second question around extension. The policy intent, for both this section and the Electoral Act itself, has always been that the advance voting period should not—and, essentially, cannot, by definition—extend beyond polling day, because otherwise it’s not advance voting. The reason for that is to avoid, as the member asked and answered, extending the writ itself. That’s the answer to those two questions.

Look, I’ve been watching this debate for three hours, and I’ve noticed that the quick questions have turned into speeches. My tolerance will not be long at 11.05 p.m. in the evening. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, do you have short, brief questions?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Short, quick-fire on two very distinct parts.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The first one for the Minister in the chair is on clause 43, under Subpart 7, “Offences”. The first question I have for the Minister is this: I understand in terms of the offences that have been mentioned in these subparts, but what is the monitoring mechanism that is going to be required to monitor the offences?

The same monitoring mechanisms that are currently used for other offences in the Electoral Act.

Cool. Awesome. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll keep going. This is really, really interesting because, for example, how are the current monitoring avenues able to monitor offences that are now incurred under Subpart 7 from languages or from communities that the Electoral Commission, for example, doesn’t have access to?

Let me give an example. During the cannabis referendum, I noticed that, in Chinese social media on WeChat, people were advertising that if voters were voting against the referendum, they would get a discount at their store. That was never picked up by the Electoral Commission, and it wasn’t until it was reported to the Electoral Commission that that was deemed to be unacceptable—which is my question. Now that we’re seeing more of these offences, how is it going to be expanded to cover these sorts of media?

Ginny Andersen, do you have a brief question?

I do. I have a question in relation to the proposed amendment to add new subsections (2) and (3), and this is pertaining to clause 37, inserting new sections 171A to 171E.

Subsection (3) of new section 171C applies where the Chief Electoral Officer takes any action under section 195B, if only able to do so under subsection (1), and where this subsection applies is the Chief Electoral Officer must, before taking any action referred to, consult all those people. This proposed new power under new section 171E is quite a significant one and, therefore, it deserves, we think, to be coupled with some quite clear protections. This amendment provides some of those protections so I’m really interested to hear the acting Minister’s view on whether those protections would be adding to this bill. They are modelled on those under the new section 171C to provide consistency. We think this is quite a reasonable suggestion to strengthen the current bill.

I also have one other question—excuse me, Madam Chair, but if you have been watching the debate, we’ve moved quite quickly and I’ve actually been trying to ask a question that I’d really like answered. I agree if you want to rule it out, but it actually related to Subpart 5, where we were discussing method of delivery. My question, to be answered if possible—I’d appreciate it—is under that Subpart 5, “Electronic delivery of registration processes”. We’ve received a number of briefings in the Justice Committee, over time, around how, with the increase of bad actors in the internet domain, democracy is particularly attacked and there are certain nation States that have a vested interest in undermining democracy. If we have a reliance on our electoral roll using electronic delivery of registration processes, I would be interested to know if the Minister has a view: whether he thinks that that doesn’t unnecessarily expose our democracy by using emails for confirmation of delivery or whether that exposes us to any threats that are currently—we know that there’s a whole lot of issues in this space, and whether or not moving to the email system potentially compromises the integrity of our electoral system.

Just to address Mr Xu-Nan’s question, essentially, the monitoring will be undertaken in the same way that it is currently undertaken and has been undertaken for a number of years, which is, essentially, electoral law is a complaints-based system. The Electoral Commission will receive complaints and investigate them, and when those complaints are from people who are making them or referring to advertisements or communications in other languages, those language translation services are available to the Electoral Commission to investigate them.

Just in terms of the member Ginny Andersen’s question around whether there are sufficient protections and safeguards in new sections 171A to 171E, yes, we think the protections are sufficient and don’t need to be strengthened any further.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I request that members do not speak during voting. Some of the comments that went on—this is not a bill that is all stages under urgency. It has had a select committee, and I did ask for brief questions and that wasn’t what I was getting.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, to delete the amendment to clause 10, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, amending clause 11A, new section 86AA be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, amending clause 11A, new section 86AA(2)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493, amending clause 11A, new section 86AA, to insert new subsection (3) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to replace “advise the person” with “assist the person” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to insert new subparagraph (ia) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a)(ii) be agreed to.

I would just ask that members—and at this stage, I’m not going to request in anyone’s name—vote promptly. There are 23 pages of voting to be done here, so in the interests of time, it would be nice if people could be as prompt as possible with their votes.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to insert new subparagraph (iia) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB(2)(a), to insert new subparagraph (iii) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB, to insert new subsection (3A) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAB, to insert new subsection (4) be agreed to.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAC, is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAC(1)(a), to replace “advise the person that” with “assist the person with” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A to replace new section 86AAF be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to delete “can reasonably be expected to” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to include reference to “the use of a personal representative” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to include reference to “any disability to the person may have” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAF, to include reference to “what languages the person speaks” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG, to include the word “senior” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG(2), to replace “may carry out” with “must carry out” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG(2), to insert “must” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 493 amending clause 11A, new section 86AAG, to insert subsections (5) and (6) be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 493 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 474 be agreed to.

Members, we are about to vote on an Amendment Paper that proposes to amend a reserved provision of the Electoral Act 1993. Reserved provisions may only be amended if they are agreed to by 75 percent of the members of the House, which would be 93 members.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 475 be agreed to.

Vanushi Walters’ amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 492 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Members, again, we are about to vote on a tabled amendment that proposes to amend a reserved provision of the Electoral Act 1993. Reserved provisions may only be amended if they are agreed to by 75 percent of the members of the House, which would be 93 members.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, amended section 3(1), be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to replace clause 4(1) set out on Amendment Paper 486 be agreed to.

Members, we have a number of amendments from Vanushi Walters, Celia Wade-Brown, and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to clause 4(2), proposing to replace the number of days before polling day specified in the definition of “close of registration”. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I will put the question on a representative selection of those amendments to test the will of the committee.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Paper 449, moving the deadline for close of registration from the 13th day before polling day to the 12th day be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Paper 455, moving the deadline for close of registration from the 13th day before polling day to the sixth day be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Paper 448, moving the deadline for close of registration from the 13th day before polling day to the day before polling day, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to replace “13th day before polling day” with “day of the polling day” be agreed to.

Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 4(2) in so far as they replace the number of days before polling day specified in the definition of “close of registration”. The will of the committee having been tested, Vanushi Walters’ remaining amendments to clause 4(2), set out on Amendment Papers 450 to 454 and 456 to 460 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to clause 4(2) set out on Amendment Papers 476 and 477 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to replace “13th day before polling day” with “day before the polling day” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to delete section 3(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 4A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendments deleting clauses 5 and 7 set out on Amendment Paper 489 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment deleting clause 5(1) set out on Amendment Paper 487 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment deleting clause 5(3) set out on Amendment Paper 488 be agreed to.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to insert section 72(3A) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing subsection (2) of section 74, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting subsection (2A) into section 74, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, section 88(1), to replace “Electoral Commission may not” with “Electoral Commission may” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting words beginning “unless the individual has ceased to be disqualified” into new section 88(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting words beginning “unless the applicant has turned 18” into new section 88(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting words beginning “unless there are circumstances that would create manifest injustice” into new section 88(1) be agreed to.

Members, we have a number of amendments from Vanushi Walters to clause 7 proposing to replace “close of registration” in new section 88(1) with alternative dates. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I’ll put the question on a representative selection of these amendments to test the will of the committee.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 7 amending new section 88(1) and (2) to replace “after the close of registration” with “after the close of the 12th day before polling day” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 7 amending new section 88(1) and (2) to replace “after the close of registration” with “after the close of the 6th day before polling day” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 7 amending new section 88(1) and (2) to replace “after the close of registration” with “after the close of the day before polling day” be agreed to.

Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 7 in so far as it amends new section 88(1) to replace “after the close of registration” with an alternative date. The will of the committee having been tested, Vanushi Walters’ remaining nine tabled amendments to the clause are ruled out of order.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 7(3) be agreed to.

Members, we have a number of amendments from Vanushi Walters to clause 7(5) proposing to replace “close of registration” with alternative dates. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I’ll put the question on a representative selection of those amendments to test the will of the committee.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7(5) replacing “the close of registration” with “the close of the 12th day before polling day” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7(5) replacing “the close of registration” with “the close of the 6th day before polling day” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 7(5) replacing “the close of registration” with “the close of the day before polling day” be agreed to.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 7(5) in so far as they amend section 88(3) to propose an alternative date for the registration date. The will of the committee having been tested, Vanushi Walters’ remaining nine tabled amendments proposing such changes to clause 7(5) are ruled out of order.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to delete clause 7(5) be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 7(5) is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting subsection (1AA) into section 89 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 8, section 89(1B), to replace “1 month” with “1 week” be agreed to.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 9 set out on Amendment Paper 478 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment deleting clause 9 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 478 be agreed to.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 9A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clauses 9 and 12 set out on Amendment Paper 479 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 479 be agreed to.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment deleting clause 10 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 10 replacing new section 80(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 490 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10(2), section 80(1)(d)(i), to delete subparagraph (C) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10(3) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 10 replacing “not later than the fifth day of the month following the date of the conviction” with words beginning “not later than 10 days” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendments to clause 10 inserting new subsection (2A) into section 80 be agreed to.

Before I take the next vote, it could be sleep talk at this time of the morning but there’s a little bit of noise starting to creep in while there are votes taking place. If we could just be a little bit quieter, please.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendments to clause 10 inserting new subsection (1B) into section 80 be agreed to.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 10A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to delete clause 11 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 11A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12, inserting the word “senior”, is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment deleting clause 12 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, section 86A(2), to replace “No later than 7 days” with “No less than 3 years” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subsection (3) into new section 86A be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 86AB(2)(a)(ii), be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 deleting new section 86B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting the words “in writing” into new section 86B(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting the words “in writing” into the new section 86B(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting the words “in writing” into new section 86C(1)(a) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, section 86C(1)(a), to replace “advise the prisoner that” with “assist the prisoner with” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 86C(1)(a) with words beginning “but must do so when they turn 18” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subparagraph (iii) into new section 86C(1)(a) with words beginning “about the difference between enrolling” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subparagraph (iv) into new section 86C(1)(a) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subsection (3) into new section 86C be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 86D is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting new section 86D(5) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting words beginning “this includes having regard to disabilities” into new section 86F be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting words beginning “this includes having regard to the mother tongue” into new section 86F be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 86F be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendments to clause 12, new section 86G, are out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, section 86G(2), to replace “may carry out” with “must carry out” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, section 86G(2), to insert “must” be agreed to.

Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 12, new section 86H(2), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 86H(2)(a)(ii), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 12 amending new section 86H(2)(a)(iii) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 86I is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 86K is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 12 inserting subsection 3(a) into new section 86L is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83A be agreed to.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83B is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83C is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 13 inserting new section 83D be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing clause 14 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 16 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 17 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 19 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 20 be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 21 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 22 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 22A inserting subsection (6AB) into section 82 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 22A inserting subsection (6AC) into section 82 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 23 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 24 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 25 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 89CB(2)(d), be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 26 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing clause 27 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 28 replacing paragraph (a) of new section 89(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to delete “if practicable” to be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to replace “12” with “8” be agreed to.

The question is the Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to replace “12” with “9” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(1)(a), to replace “12” with “10” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 28(1), section 89D(2), be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 28(3) be agreed to.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to delete clause 28(5) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 30 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 31 be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 31 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 33 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 33, new section 99(1), be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 33, new section 99(2), be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 35, definition of “advance voter”, set out on Amendment Paper 491 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to delete clause 36 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171B, be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37 replacing “in any electoral district or districts” with “across all electoral districts” in new section 171C(1) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171C, be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171C(2), be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 37, new section 171D, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171D, be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171D, to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the accessibility of polling venues be agreed to.

I must say, I have noticed I’ve just flipped the page. My voice is still going, and the whips are having an awesome workout. I think the Green Party’s having a bigger workout than everyone else because they have to jump up twice.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, new section 171D, to insert new paragraph (e) regarding ensuring all eligible are able to exercise their vote be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 37 deleting new section 171E be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, replacing new section 171E, regarding curtailment of the polling period where a declaration of national or local emergency has been declared be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, replacing new section 171E, regarding curtailment of the polling period by the Chief Electoral Officer be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 37, replacing new section 171E, regarding extending the polling period be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 38 inserting words beginning “and special votes” into new section 174C(1) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 43 inserting new section 216(2A) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 43 inserting new section 216(2B) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing clause 44 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 44 inserting subclause (3) be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 44(1) set out on Amendment Paper 480 be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 46 replacing new section 218A(2) set out on Amendment Paper 481 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 46 replacing “business” with “activity” in new section 218A(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 46 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 46 replacing “100 metres” with “50 metres” in new section 218A(4) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 46 inserting new section 218A(5) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendments to clause 46 inserting new section 218B be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 48 replacing new section 205C is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 49 is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 50 is out of order as not providing a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 51 inserting subsection (11) into new section 266A be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 52 replacing “3” with “5” in new section 4D(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 4D(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting subsection (1A) into new section 4D be agreed to.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting subsection (1B) into new section 4D is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 52 inserting subsection (1C) into new section 4D is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 56 inserting subsection (2A) into section 63 be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 57 inserting paragraphs (c) and (d) into new section 64 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 58 inserting subsection (2) into new section 71BA be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59 be agreed to.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 64 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment inserting new clause 67A set out on Amendment Paper 482 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 69 be agreed to.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 89 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment inserting new clause 118A set out on Amendment Paper 483 be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment inserting new clause 118B set out on Amendment Paper 484 be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to clause 119 set out on Amendment Paper 485 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,100” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,200” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,300” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,400” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 119(1) and (2) replacing “$6,000” with “$5,500” be agreed to.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 119 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “11” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “9” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “8” be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 120 replacing “20” with “7” be agreed to.

The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.

Members, no doubt to the great disappointment of the committee, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 1.40 a.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)