Electoral Amendment Bill

Members, when we finished last night, we had completed considering Part 1. We now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 137 to 156, amendments to other legislation, and schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Mōrena. It is good to be back in the Chamber, and I just have a few questions regarding Part 2. I’ll start at clause 138, which is “Section 9 amended”. This is about the preparation of the jury list, so it amends the Juries Act. The current section 9(4) of the Juries Act has two parts which exclude the publication of names. One is in relation to circumstances similar to this, so that’s going to be included. The other list is of names who are excluded, who are the people who, essentially, can’t serve as jurors, so people like the GovernorGeneral, parliamentarians, and lawyers. It just looked like, to me, on my read, that that section hadn’t been included in this amendment, and so that this was an amendment to exclude that list of people in terms of non-publication. A very brief first question this morning is whether that was the intention, or whether it’s assumed because they can’t serve that it’s not necessary to also say that their names shouldn’t be published, and what the Minister’s intention is in terms of clause 138?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and good morning to you all. I also wanted to start with clause 138, and I’ve got two amendments that I will ask the Minister to consider.

I guess that one of them is quite a specific amendment, and this is an amendment that was delivered at 1.30.01. The reason for this particular amendment is that—like the previous speaker Vanushi Walters has mentioned—this clause has changed, acknowledging that there have been some changes to clauses 13 to 15, and clauses 17 to 21. However, I would like a clarification from the Minister of Justice, and the Minister can ignore the amendment if the Minister actually does have a response to this. In the previous instance, and instances referred to in clause 15, for example, they don’t use the term “address”; they use the term “residences”, and that was originally in the Juries Act 1981, as well. I wanted to check with the Minister what the distinction is between “address” and “residence”, and whether “residence” should be kept as the current wording—which is my amendment.

My second question to the Minister is this. The reason there’s a list of any persons who, according to the electoral roll, are holding office or engaging in any occupation, etc., is because that has now been removed. However, if we’re looking at—I know that this is in Part 1, Mr Chair, but it’s relevant to this particular section. If you look at new clause 12(1)(b) in the new Part 4 being inserted in Schedule 1AA of the principal Act by Schedule 1, it does say that the collection of the person’s occupation, for example, may occur up until “31 December 2027.” If it is still being collected, and it could just be that it’s collected but not being used in any way, shape, or form, which is also possible—but if it is collected, then wouldn’t their identity appear?

My amendment delivered at 1.30.02 is to say that we’ll just reinstate that particular part but with a particular repeal clause that is aligned with the date in Schedule 1. That is just to cover that off in terms of any sort of potential overlap, and just in terms of consistency. Those are my first two questions regarding the Juries Act for the Minister, and I have just seen that the Minister has received some advice on that.

I’d like to speak to the amendment in relation to regulation 12, which is around the list of late enrolments, and it relates to Part 2, clause 142. The purpose of this—and I’d like some feedback, if possible, from the Minister—is that “As soon as practicable after the close of registration, the Electoral Commission must send to the Returning Officer a list of those persons whose names have been entered (under section 88(3) of the Act) on the electoral roll for the district after writ day and before the close of registration.”

What this amendment proposes is to replace that term “As soon as practicable” with a specified time frame, and that’s in order to give a bit more certainty. The proposal to replace the term “As soon as practicable” would be with “within five days after the close of registration, the Electoral Commission must send to the Returning Officer a list of those persons whose names have been entered [under the Act] on the electoral roll for the district after writ day and before the close of registration.”

It’s a pretty simple amendment, but we think that there’s an opportunity here—we’re going into the Electoral Act and making a whole bunch of changes—to have some certainty. We know the Minister really likes tight time frames—he’s made those changes up the front of the bill in relation to the 13 days where registration to vote can no longer occur. If we’re giving sort of specified time frames, and if he’s interested in increasing timeliness—we know that increasing timeliness was one of the factors in the regulatory impact statement, and he gave instructions to the Ministry of Justice officials to say that timeliness was one of the priorities. If those things are in other parts of the bill, we think it’s only reasonable that we should look for other good opportunities to do a good tidy-up while we’re in here and doing this work to make our law better.

Having that change under regulation 12 in clause 142 would give a specified time frame, and that time frame would, in fact, be within five days. “As soon as practicable” is great, but it might be quite different from one person to another, so I’m interested to hear the Minister’s view on having that amendment.

Mr Chair, thank you. In relation to the questions around clause 138, I believe that amendments are necessary because the Juries Act covers the details that were raised.

In relation to what Mr Xu-Nan referred to—it may be because we finished at 1.45 a.m. last night after three hours of voting—I struggled to follow what he was talking about. The only point I would make is that the Electoral Commission may collect occupation use to use up old forms, but they won’t be sharing that data. I think that covers what I think he was talking about. In terms of the last amendment around replacing regulation 12(1) of the Juries Act with “Within five days”, we think the current phrase “As soon as practicable” is sufficient. “Within five days” is unlikely to be workable in many circumstances.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, that actually does answer the question I have—and thanks to the fabulous officials, of course, as well, for providing the Minister with that advice.

Moving on to “Amendments to Electoral Regulations 1996”—so this is the substantial part of Part 2. I do note that some of these are genuinely needed. Clause 141, for example, revoking regulation 4B—that’s something that’s non-existent since 2017, so the tidy-up, I acknowledge, is necessary.

I want to focus on clause 144, “Regulation 18 amended (Party lists)”. In this case, the intention of this is to increase what each political party is able to have as part of the party list, which is currently capped at 65—I did not know that; it’s a very interesting piece of information. Upping it to 120—that makes sense. We have 120 members.

Tom Rutherford: Number 70.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Number 70—how did you manage to get on the list, if the cap is 65?

Tom Rutherford: It’s the mailable that’s capped at 65.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, thank you. You know, the whole point of the committee stage is for us to understand. I don’t mind being proven wrong; I don’t mind learning. If other members have an issue with learning, then that’s a separate issue.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That is the purpose. Hold a sec—that is the purpose, but I do want that debate to come through the Chair. Folks can take a call.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry—sorry, Mr Chair, but I do thank Mr Rutherford for that piece of information, which I did not know.

But, anyway, in terms of this, if we’re going to be upping it from 65 to 120, I wondered—and this is something we saw when we were having our committee stage on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill with the Hon Chris Bishop, is that he tends to have a habit of, like, “Well, let’s just go a bit further so we won’t have to come back and redo things again.”

In this case, wouldn’t it be better to up the number from 120 to another number to account for things like overhang? Because, for example, currently we have 123 MPs in Parliament because of that overhang. I do want to check, on clause 144, if the Minister would consider my amendment—not by a lot, just to account for overhang—to increase the number from 120 to 125.

Well, that’s an interesting suggestion from the member. I think, in most circumstances, 120 should cover it. I don’t think we’ve seen a circumstance in the history of MMP when any particular party has got 120 seats or anything close by, but we were concerned that limiting it to 65 wasn’t sufficient to handle circumstances where there is a blow-out in support for one particular party or not.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my first opportunity to participate in this committee stage, so thank you for allowing me to take the opportunity. I wish it was on a bill that was making some positive changes for New Zealand, but, unfortunately, it’s a terrible bill, as you’ve heard from my colleagues in previous rounds, that will really limit the number of people that can participate in our democracy. They should be ashamed.

The clause that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister was in Part 2, in relation to hospital votes. I was just reading through this particular clause and just had a few questions around how this particular clause is going to function within this Act.

The question I had is—this is a relatively substantive part of the bill, but I imagine if one was to have the time to do a close analysis with the existing Electoral Act that there would be some similarities. I wanted to ask him, with the inclusion of regulation 23, what are the main substantive changes? I’ve had a bit of a look at the Electoral Commission’s website. I’ve had a chance to do that—it seems like quite a simple procedure for having a hospital vote. I also wanted to ask him about here—clause 23(1)(b) of the regulation, when we talk about a special vote here, it’s underlined. Is that on purpose or is that just an error? It’s not something you usually see that much, so it could even be a printing error. I also am aware that the Minister has put in a number of late amendments and so I wanted to know if a number of those late amendments are affected—if regulation 23 in relation to hospital votes is affected by that.

The other thing I wanted to ask was—it seems that a hospital is one of the areas where these votes can take place; the other thing is a maternity facility or institution, quite widely defined. I wondered if perhaps calling it a hospital vote meant that it was limiting, as the title, exactly the types of institutions that it could apply to. This is important, because we know that when people are incapacitated or in an institution or having a baby, they do deserve the right to participate in our democracy. This particular provision is extensive. It’s possibly affected by the Minister’s relatively recent amendments, and so I would like to know the effect of this and, essentially, whether the Minister was intending to substantively change the procedures in relation to the people who have every right to participate in our democracy when they are, for whatever reason, not able to access a polling booth because they are in a hospital, maternity facility, or other institution.

My advice is that it’s a technical amendment, primarily making clear that it’s possible to cast an ordinary vote in hospital as well as a special vote.

Thank you, Mr Chair. One part of the Minister’s answer did leave out the reference to maternity homes—so that is clause 145. My question is really whether the change in the definition expands the places where people will be able to cast a special vote or whether it’s simply a modernisation of the term, and whether that’s in reference to other legislation that uses the language “maternity facility” as opposed to “maternity home”?

My other question is in relation to clause 146. This is quite a substantial clause that sets out the requirements of having a facility to cast those special votes in a hospital. I would propose to the Minister that there could be a very useful accountability paragraph attached, where we state that they must notify the Electoral Commission as soon as practicable and within 24 hours if they have received information or acted in a way that’s in breach of the regulation.

The regulation sets out things like when they’re assisting a person to cast their vote, that they must refrain from looking at or becoming acquainted with the elector’s vote; they can’t attempt to influence them; they can’t assist them in terms of their actual voting or interfere with the vote. But there’s no provision that says what happens if it is discovered that there is either a purposeful breach of those rules or an inadvertent breach of those rules. I think it would be useful to have some legislative direction. Just those two questions to the Minister.

The change from “maternity home” to “maternity facility” is purely and simply a modernisation of the language recommended by the drafters. In terms of the amendment to Part 2, clause 146, in relation to adding a paragraph (d) to clause 23(4), we don’t think that’s necessary. That change purely carries over the existing provisions into the new piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, I think it’s wise for us to spend a little bit of time on clause 146, “Regulation 23 replaced (Hospital votes)”, because I think this is one of the more substantial parts of Part 2. I want to start by focusing on the hospital votes bit, and there are other things I want to check with the Minister of Justice later on, but I want to kind of keep them tight and focused.

The first question. There’s a lot of quality-of-life changes to this part compared to the existing regulation 23. But one of my first questions is—there are certain parts of that, in terms of the process itself for how electors in hospitals, in terms of hospital votes, should be casting their vote. As far as I can see over here, subclause (4) of replacement regulation 23, for example, does say that when they’re issued with the ballot paper, “any other person present”, but it doesn’t actually talk about how and what the elector potentially needs to do, which is in the current existing regulations. I do have some amendments on this part, which is just going to retain some of the process-based elements. Potentially, the Minister could say that it’s no longer needed as well, but I do think that they do make a valid point in the existing regulation 23. These are my amendments 1.30.08 and 1.30.09.

I just want to follow up on what Vanushi Walters was mentioning in terms of accountability for the hospital vote, and there’s something that I’ve also noticed was quite interesting. This is relating to my amendment paper 1.30.10, and this is to do with clause 5(b) of replacement regulation 23: “deliver into the possession of the Returning Officer the hospital vote and all parcels refer to in paragraph (a).” The reason I want to pick up on this point, and this is the same as Vanushi Walters, is the accountability mechanism. If we’re seeing other parts of the regulation, such as regulation 24, or even going over the page to the new regulation 28A, inserted by clause 150, you will see that there’s a specific requirement for security when it comes to that potential ballot paper. In the other ones, you will see that the ballot papers need to be delivered into the possession of the returning officer in a sealed or locked ballot box and, if applicable, its key and all parcels mentioned in paragraph (a).

My amendment is just to say that if we’re going to be adding additional accountability measures, then we should also consider the security measures, which is to amend clause 5(b) of replacement regulation 23—I know my amendment is lifting directly out of new regulation 28A, but, hey, if we’re making improvements to the current regulation 23, we might as well go all the way—to say that this should be delivered “into the possession of the Returning Officer the hospital votes in a sealed or locked ballot box and, if applicable, its key and all parcels mentioned in paragraph (a).” I just want to check if the Minister would consider that particular amendment, also consistent with what Vanushi Walters was asking for previously.

I can assure the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that I have considered that amendment. I have considered it and I’ve decided not to accept it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do think that that’s a real shame in terms of clause 146. There were those other two amendments that I’d put forward, one that kind of tidies up or is the tail end of what I previously spoke to, which is adding the words “or through their negligence permit”. It’s just because, at the moment, the way clause 146 reads is that the people who are assisting in those hospital facilities shouldn’t actively go in and try to interfere with the vote, but it’s possible that also, through one’s negligence, one could permit that information to be disclosed or an individual’s vote to be messed with, for want of a better term. I just think it’s a nice rounding-off of ensuring that there’s appropriate accountability.

I did also propose an amendment to Part 2, clause 146, to replace regulation 23, to add “insert ‘with urgency’ at new regulation 23(1)(5)(b) between the word ‘deliver’ and the word ‘into’.” Again, it’s just ensuring that there’s direction. Most of these smaller amendments are about timeliness and ensuring that, through the various pipelines of getting people’s votes from their voting booth to a place of counting, we’re ensuring speedy direction. This is extremely important, because these are all the pipelines that will help the special votes be counted more quickly. It may seem irrelevant or administrative, but, in truth, these details do have a significant impact on whether the vote is counted in a timely way.

I’ve just also made a note next to clause 150, which is the parcels of rolls and ordinary ballot papers issued to advance voters—so the parcelling up of, if you like, categories of votes by an Issuing Officer. This is just a question out of curiosity: are those parcels then audited or checked? It just seems to me a lot of discretion for an individual to be packaging up what are ballots that won’t be counted, ballots that will be counted, etc. I’m just wondering, firstly, whether they are reviewed by anyone else after the initial parcelling, and, if they’re not, whether it would have been useful for us to include something explicit about a check on the parcelling system within Part 2? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to start by following up on a previous question. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister is not intending to accept my amendment at 1.30.10, but I do want to check with the Minister, then, as to what are the security and privacy settings when it comes to a hospital vote if they’re not being secured or if there is no mention of it being secured when it comes to delivery to the Returning Officer under regulation 23(5)(b), in clause 146. That’s fine, but if there is an existing mechanism, I acknowledge that, but I do want to hear from the Minister on what that existing mechanism is for security and privacy.

I move to my next amendment, and this is something I noticed when I was looking at the Electoral Regulations 1996. It does specify hospital votes as its own thing, again acknowledging what Camilla Belich mentioned previously in terms of the ability for people to cast their votes in those sorts of settings and particularly in a hospital setting. But it made me wonder: what about other things that people are also going to be doing without—for example, having the need to have that special ability to be able to cast their votes? Yesterday we talked a little bit—as far as I see; I may be wrong, but the Minister may be able to enlighten us—about whether there is anything in the regulations pertaining to things like aged-care facilities and retirement villages, but I want to focus on one particular amendment of mine, and this is the amendment at 1.30.07. This amendment is about allowing for, or having in the regulations, the fact that embassies should also be conducted in a similar format so that special voting is made available to New Zealanders overseas.

The reason I put forward this particular amendment is that that is actually one of the things we heard when we were discussing it with New Zealanders who have just recently come back, or over the last few years, from various parts of the world, for work or for business or for whatever reason, and one of the things they have consistently mentioned is how hard it was to cast their vote while being overseas. It is very ad hoc in terms of the availability of voting booths, etc., in both embassies and consulates.

I acknowledge that some people may be able to enrol online, but the ability to cast a vote is something that is very ad hoc at this stage. I do want to check whether the Minister would consider the amendment or a variation if the Minister wants to introduce his own amendment on this. I’m more than happy to consider that as well, around the availability of embassies and consulates and to make that concrete within the Electoral Regulations 1996 to allow for overseas New Zealanders to more easily cast their votes.

Thank you, Mr Chair. A lot of these provisions carry on existing provisions that align with the rest of the regulations. In terms of the hospital votes, regulation 23 generally covers mobile voting in facilities such as hospitals and care homes—regulation 23.

In terms of overseas voters, they’re covered in different parts of the regulations, in relation to the question that was asked there.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m looking at clause 151, which is a very broadly drafted power in terms of the Electoral Commission’s powers to determine whether a person casting a special vote is qualified to vote. I’m just questioning whether the power is just drafted a little bit too broadly. Currently, it says—well, the amendment clause says, “In regulation 35, replace ‘The Electoral Commission’ with ‘At any time after receiving a special vote and declaration form in respect of the vote, the Electoral Commission’.”. “At any time after receiving a special vote and declaration” is extremely broad. I’ve just proposed an amendment, which is replacing “at any time after receiving a special vote and declaration form in respect of the vote” with “at any time after receiving a special vote in declaration form in respect of the vote, but prior to the return of the writ”.

Now, I’ve proposed that language—which is more in line with some of the amendments that I proposed in Part 1, which would have brought the special voting period closer to polling day—understanding that the Minister, if he was willing to look at this idea, might want to play with that a bit, because it wouldn’t necessarily be prior to the writ; he might want to have it prior to X days before polling day—and it’s currently 13 days, of course. But just being a little bit more specific about the Electoral Commission’s powers in terms of being able to determine whether a person is casting a special vote, I think, would be quite useful. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We don’t support that amendment. We don’t think it’s necessary, because it’s already clear in the legislation that special votes must be processed before the return of the writ, and that’s the appropriate thing to do.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a question in relation to clause 154, “Regulation 65 amended (Scrutineers’ lists of persons who have voted)”. It says in there, in subclause (4): “In this regulation, polling place includes an advance polling place.” Now, when I looked into that, it says that it’s “being a person [who] under section 80(1)(d) (as substituted by the amendment Act) would otherwise apply.” I’m just not clear on what that’s providing. If you could say how that impacts on voting and whether that’s making it clearer, it would be good to have that understanding.

The other question I had was around parcels of rolls and ordinary ballot papers issued to advance voters—that was the new regulation 28A, inserted under clause 150. It says, on that, “At any time before 2 pm on polling day, an Issuing Officer for a district in which ordinary ballot papers have been issued to advance voters under [the provided section]” has to make those parcels up. I would just like to understand from the Minister what kind of framework or stipulations are there to ensure security of that information. You’ve got one person there—I understand it’s one person; it would be good to know—who is, basically, doing all of that process that’s stipulated under 28A and then being required to “deliver [it] into the possession of the Returning Officer”.

Any information there on how the certified copies of the main roll, the supplementary rolls, the counterfoils of ballot papers that have been issued to voters, and any of the spoilt ballot papers and voting papers—is that one person who does all of that work, and is there any provision to stipulate that when they’re handed over to the Returning Officer, they’ve been managed appropriately?

Just on the first part, the rationale for this change is to bring together those provisions that currently duplicate the same requirements for advance votes and those votes cast on election day. The changes aren’t directly related to the proposal to set the advance voting period, but, because we’re now formalising the advance voting period, they make the provisions for advance votes more accurate and streamlined, which is appropriate, given the formalisation.

Thank you. I’m interested, looking at this timing about 2 p.m., in whether there was any consideration given to much greater alignment between local government rules and central government rules. For example, the voting closes at 7 p.m. for central government in the general election, but for councils—I’m not sure it’s legislative; I presume it is, because they all close at noon. Then you’ve got these alignments also, potentially, for how special votes and ordinary votes are counted and managed and how the electoral offices are charged with managing those things. There are wider issues about alignment, about being able to enrol the day before in local government but, obviously, not any more in central government. Ignoring the increasing divergence between the two is just a matter of central government not really—I’m going to have to put it politely—giving sufficient attention to local government.

I think that the question my colleague Celia Wade-Brown is asking about clause 150, new regulation 28A, is an important one. I’ll be really interested to hear the advice of the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, on that. I also want to thank the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, regarding his response to my questions on overseas New Zealanders but also in terms of other areas and groups that potentially need assistance when it comes to voting. But I’m still waiting to hear from the Minister regarding if there’s a variation between replacement regulation 23(5)(b), inserted by clause 146; regulation 24; and new regulation 28A, inserted by clause 150—what are the security and privacy measures when it comes to subclause (5)(b)?

But my question to the Minister is around new regulation 28A. I want to check—and this is the point that my colleague Celia Wade-Brown made—that in general elections, the polling day finishes at 7 p.m., yet over here it says, “At any time before 2 pm … an Issuing Officer”. We’re already starting to put, I guess, advance—is this something that’s of a standard practice, and why has 2 p.m. been just carried over from existing regulations, and were there any other times considered as part of that? That’s five hours before the voting finishes, I’m assuming, as it says, “At any time before 2 pm”. It would imply that 2 p.m. is the deadline, in which case, why is 2 p.m. the deadline and not 7 p.m.? I just want to check with the Minister on how I should be reading that particular clause.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just had a question in relation to clause 151, which amends regulation 35. The specific question I had was in relation to clause 151(2), which actually refers back to section 176(4) of the primary piece of legislation, the Electoral Act. I went back and I looked at section 176(4), and 176(4) is actually quite an important process in this bill. It, essentially, allows a vote to be disallowed through a prescriptive process, which is mentioned here in clause 151(2). In section 176(4), one of the provisions is that when a vote is disallowed, the voting paper must be opened in front of any—I think the wording is—scrutineers or any other persons present. Now, the question I wanted to ask the Minister is: because, in this bill, the powers of disallowance are arguably increased by this bill, therefore should the requirement in relation to those who witness a disallowance be strengthened as well under the primary clause, which in this instance is section 176(4)? It appears to me that there isn’t a requirement, if there isn’t someone present, to have that witness. That could be wrong, and I’d quite like the Minister to get some advice on that. Because of these greater powers and, likely, a larger number of disallowances that would be made, I ask whether this particular clause in Part 2, clause 151(2), could be amended to allow for the requirement of at least one other person to witness the disallowance of a vote.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address two points from Celia Wade-Brown and Lawrence Xu-Nan. I’m not sure local councils would agree that insufficient attention has been given to local government over recent weeks. I think they’ve got enough attention for the Christmas period, and they’ll be excited about what lies ahead for them, I’m sure.

Just to Mr Xu-Nan’s point around why the time is set for 2 p.m., well, it’s all to do with the preliminary count. If the time was extended out to 7 p.m., as the latest point at which the Issuing Officer could undertake those steps, it would no longer really be a preliminary count. It would just be the count. It’s to do with the preliminary count for those advanced votes.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am looking at a couple of clauses now. Clause 153—this is kind of where parcels of spoilt ballots and voting papers and other papers need to be sent. The change is quite small, but I think it raises an interesting question about speed of the count of the vote, as well. It replaces the “Electoral Commission at Wellington” with “head office of the Electoral Commission”.

The small questions are whether that has shifted to Auckland or otherwise. The bigger questions are around whether the Minister has considered that ballots could be counted at the place where they are cast. It is something we discussed in select committee and, certainly, that has the potential to speed up the count of the vote, because, currently, for example, with overseas votes, they’re sent back to New Zealand; in New Zealand, they’re sent back to the electorate in which the person is voting. There’s a very big question about our ability to count votes—both effective ballots as well as spoilt ballots—and speed up the count of the votes. Those are two questions for clause 153.

I’m then also looking at the revocation in clause 156. This is a revocation of the Electoral (Expenditure Limit) Order 2025. I’ve got it up on my phone and I’m just reading through it. This limits the expenditure in relation to election advertisements published during any regulated period. That order increased the amount from $16,300 to $16,700 and, for general elections, increased it from $33,900 to $34,800. For by-elections, the increase was from $67,800 to $69,500—so there were a lot of increases in the order itself. I’m just trying to trace back to what it’s replaced by and whether it’s replaced by anything in this bill, or whether a separate order has been made independently of what we’ve been considering this week and, therefore, this is now redundant or it will soon be? If the Minister is able to answer those two questions, I would be very grateful.

I’ll take them in reverse, because the advice is coming thick and fast. Clause 156 revokes the order because it is now incorporated into Part 1, Subpart 8 of the bill. It’s in the bill itself.

Then to the question around the operationalising of head offices, head offices were requested by the Electoral Commission to reflect operational practices. That’s just the best way that they can undertake the process they need to undertake.

To Camilla Belich’s point around earlier validation and qualification, the timing is to enable that earlier validation and qualification where possible, but it still undertakes the normal processes that were followed under previous elections. The thought is that there is no need for additional scrutiny if it’s the same processes that are being followed. It’s just being more enabling of earlier qualification where possible.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was wanting to pick up on what the Minister mentioned previously in terms of the operational practices for the Electoral Commission—this is clause 153. What the Minister said was really interesting because, for me, “head office” has a very specific meaning. I mean, I understand “operational practices”, but the current head office is indeed in Wellington. Can I just check with the Minister on a point of clarification, if the Minister could answer: does that mean that the Electoral Commission is considering moving their head office to other parts of the country or is this just more of a precautionary measure? I would assume that the head office—like Andy Foster mentioned, there will be an outrage if the head office moved to anywhere else other than Wellington. I don’t really see why we want to change the wording for this particular section.

I am unaware of any intentions for the Electoral Commission to move the head office, although I pitched to move it to the “Riveria of the South”, down in Timaru, which would be more than welcome.

I will just refer to another point that hasn’t been covered—I think it was from Vanushi Walters. It was a question around why aren’t votes counted at the place where they are cast. Well, that would cause significant operational difficulties because, of course, a lot of polling booths are in places where vote counting would be inappropriate, for example. There are some polling booths in public spaces. I cast my vote in The Warehouse in Timaru, and it would be somewhat difficult to count votes in a public place like that. They are counted in one area because it is for operational efficacy and efficiencies, and for scrutiny reasons, and safety reasons.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that response. I do have to say that I love the Minister’s engagement on this section. I think my final question for the Minister is—sorry, I’m going slightly back to clause 151, “Regulation 35 amended”. I want to check with the Minister on my reading of clause 151(3), because I’m not entirely sure why that new subclause needs to be inserted and what it hopes to achieve. I don’t think the explanatory note, unfortunately, in this particular instance, gives a very full explanation of that new subclause, so I wondered if the Minister wouldn’t mind just elaborating on what that new subclause is intending to achieve.

I’ll get a quick bit of advice to help me elaborate, but I can clarify that the Electoral Commission, unfortunately, has no plans to move its headquarters either to Auckland or to Timaru. It’s just for consistency of language.

Mr Chair, sorry, we just want to seek your guidance while the Minister’s getting some advice. While that happens, we’re happy to move on, etc., but we just want to flag to the Chair that it’s OK for the Minister, upon getting advice, to come back to us in a later section.

It’s always possible that he could do it in the title and commencement if that is satisfactory to the committee.

I’ve just remembered what the advice was that was in my head. Subclause (3), of course, enables earlier processing, but that can’t finish until it’s practicable to do so, so it just outlines that part of the process.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 138, section 9(4) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 138, section 9, to insert subsections (4A) and (4B) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 140 be agreed to.

Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 474 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Vanushi Walters’ amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 492 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 142, replacing regulation 12(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 142, regulation 12 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 143 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 144, regulation 18(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 144, regulation 19, to insert subclause (6A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 146, regulation 23, to insert subclause (3A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 146, regulation 23, to insert subclause (4A) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 146, inserting new regulation 23(4)(d) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 146, inserting new regulation 23(4)(c) be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 146, inserting “with urgency” into new regulation 23(5)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 146, regulation 23, to replace subclause (5)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 150, new regulation 28A be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 151(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 152(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 152(3) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 152(4) be agreed to.

We come now to the schedules. The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 and the amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 493 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, new clause 7(b), to commence on “31 December 2025” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, new clause 7(b), to commence on “a date set by Order in Council” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 to delete new clause 9(1) be agreed to.

Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 474 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 478 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 479 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

We are at Schedule 2. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Schedule 2 be agreed to.