Electoral Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. Clause 1: “Title. This Act is the Electoral Amendment Act”. It amends the Electoral Act.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Ha, ha!

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Ha, ha! It is what it does, right? I can foreshadow that we won’t be entertaining any amendments to the title out of the sheer basis that titles should be clear as to what they do and explain to the public and not trifle with the process of the Parliament. It amends the Electoral Act. It’s pretty standard.

Clause 2 is the commencement clause. This tells the public which date the Act comes into force. Now, there are three paragraphs here in subclause (2)—(a), (b), and (c)—where there is a delayed commencement date. The Act comes into force the day after it receives Royal assent. There are three provisions which delay that, slightly, to 1 January 2026. They are provisions relating to party registrations, political donations, and promoter statements. They will come into force on 1 January 2026. That is to give those people involved in party administration clarity as to when their obligations begin. I think all parties who hold party secretaries will be supportive of this to give their administrators and their party secretaries the certainty that on 1 January 2026, that will be when their obligations come into force around new provisions for party registrations, political donations, promoter statements. It will make sure that it is clear that from 1 January 2026, that is when the obligations apply. That is why we have made that date very clear. I would hope that all parties, to support their own party administrators, would support those provisions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m afraid I don’t share the Minister’s view of the simplicity of, particularly, the commencement date of this bill. Given some of the complexities involved that have been traversed a little in the previous sections, they nevertheless have quite profound impacts on people’s voting rights, and also clarity, which is something he has brought up. I do know that my colleague Vanushi Walters will be speaking at some length about that.

I want to turn to the title and commencement, because the Minister has also spoken about the title being very clear. In fact, what we believe and, certainly, what I think is that this bill is very much about the restoration of the ban on prisoner voting. If we’re going to be clear about the title, then we need to replace clause 1 with “This Act is the Electoral (Restoration of Ban on Prisoner Voting) Amendment Act 2025.”, which has been suggested as a written amendment. I don’t have the date stamp, but I can provide it to the Clerk afterwards.

I think it’s important for us to remember that prisoner voting rights have always been controversial in this country. Briefly, historically, there have been periods when prisoners have not been able to vote. Between 1975 and 1977, they could, but otherwise they have generally been excluded. I don’t think there has been the appreciation until recently of some of the jurisprudential factors that are really important to electoral rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) when it comes to prisoner voting. Given that so many of the impacts—

Hon Members: Title.

INGRID LEARY: —of what happen in politics are particularly around putting people into prison, limiting their rights, and then not giving them any say over how that situation occurred, I would just remind the Government members—who seem very animated and engaged in this debate, which is great to see—that this is about changing the title so that we do make the restoration of the ban on prisoner voting very explicit.

We did, of course, have the Taylor litigation, which declared in 2010 that the ban was inconsistent with the right to vote in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the Waitangi Tribunal has highlighted the disproportionate impact on Māori. We have not had an adequate response from any of the Ministers sitting in the chair in relation to the questions raised about that, and so I think this is a good opportunity for the Minister to give us his views on disproportionality, which has come up under the section 12 BORA analysis. In particular, we’ve not heard any answer about that, and so this is an opportunity, and that, again, is highlighted in the title that we are suggesting, so that he can speak to that.

In 2020, the law was changed to restore voting rights for people serving less than three years. That was our Government’s way of finding a middle way that we felt was acceptable to all New Zealanders so that imprisonment for crimes that were not deemed to be around violence and that were low-level would not disenfranchise people who ought to have a say over policies that directly impact on their families—remembering that we are in a post-colonial environment and remembering that we do have extremes of poverty in our country at the moment.

However, that, again, was reversed by this Government in this legislation, and yet the distraction, really, is that this seems to be about what one of the previous Ministers in the chair has rather sanctimoniously called “sending the right message”. But then hidden in it, and not even available in the title, is the restoration of the ban on prisoner voting. Why don’t we just make that explicit? If that is an ideological position this Government wants to take, so be it, but they need to be clear about it.

I would like to ask the Minister why he is abandoning the longstanding and carefully balanced approach in the Electoral Act, where perhaps we could look at restoring or maintaining the voting rights of those who have sentences that are less than three years. I would like to ask the Minister how he considers that this legislation is consistent with the Taylor judgment. What does it say about his Government’s respect for constitutional history, given that it is reimposing a regime whose legal defects have already been exposed for more than a decade, and will he consider just being open and explicit about what they are wanting to do, which is to restore the ban on prisoner rights?

It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment at length about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance or proportionality, because this is a debate on title and commencement. We’ve traversed those grounds quite thoroughly in Part 1, but if the member is interested in the views of the Justice Committee, previous reports including those throughout the election inquiry and other amendments to justice legislation which touch on proportionality made some very insightful comments in the select committee commentary around the appropriateness of proportionality, so I’d direct her there, but that’s not for this debate.

In terms of the member’s suggestion to amend the title to focus on a specific policy aspect of the bill, well, of course, this bill amends a number of policies in the Electoral Act, and so it would be inappropriate, in our view, to focus on one specific policy area, because that wouldn’t give a clear indication to the public about what this bill does. This bill amends the Electoral Act under a number of policy areas, and to say one specific policy area would, I think, not be an accurate description of the title of the Act, so we won’t be supporting that.

Members, the first speaker was indulged somewhat, as often the first speaker is. There’s always a fine line between contextualising a proposed change and making it the subject of, perhaps, something more of a general debate speech. The following speakers will be expected to be a little bit more explicit.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I also would like to draw the committee’s attention to Speakers’ ruling 127/3. It’s a longstanding Speakers’ ruling in our Parliament in terms of our ability to also summarise some of the debates in the title debate. I think that is a really important one here, considering this is a bill, and one of the few bills we’ve seen this term, that has a section 7 report from the Attorney-General, so it is extra important that we are able to summarise some of these conversations.

But I want to start with commencement date on this particular issue. For the members on the other side of the Chamber, they can also get their Speakers’ Rulings out from their cabinet and just have a look at that particular Speakers’ ruling as well, for those who are interested.

But going to the commencement date, I do think that after the discussions we’ve had during this committee of the whole House stage, it might be prudent to not consider implementing something as controversial and substantial as this, with overwhelming opposition from the public, until the election—after that. Indeed, we see something like that in the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill and also in the Referendums Framework Bill, that a lot of that won’t take place until election 2029. My suggestion is that we actually delay it a little bit and look at it for the 2029 election, as opposed to the 2026 election—that’s one of my amendments.

Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, I do want to focus on the title. We have a number of amendments on the title of this bill that potentially speak more to the context of this bill, or different particular sections of this bill, as referred to in various subparts of Part 1. We do have Amendment Papers on this, but I think it is important to check with the Minister.

Now, one of the things that the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, mentioned during the committee stage, and this ties into the title of this bill, was about the fact that we will then continuously be making it easier and easier for people to vote, or include more and more people’s ability to vote, and a different Government will come here and they’ll want to—and it’s very hard to claw some of that back.

I want to remind the committee what it would be like if this conversation we’re having this very day—technically, we’re still on the same day in Parliament—were taking place in 1893, or indeed if we were in 1896. This is to say that we’re now going to bring back the ability for people to vote early because, you know, they should just simply be responsible for it. We’re going to ban prisoners from voting, despite the fact that it’s the international standard and that’s what is expected internationally, and that’s what is expected in the Attorney-General’s report. It is almost like saying, “Oh, well we gave women the right to vote in 1893. However, we decided that’s not going to be the case. We want to take that back.”

This is the same thing when it comes to the naturalisation of Chinese people here in Aotearoa, that Chinese people were denied naturalisation between 1908 and 1952, ergo many weren’t eligible to vote. It’s like saying that a certain population in Aotearoa New Zealand—for example, when we are talking about making the voting age 16, the Supreme Court ruling that says that we should be lowering the age of voting because it’s inconsistent with our interpretation of the Human Rights Act.

I do want to check if the Minister would consider the title the “Electoral (Further Limitation on New Zealanders’ Ability to Vote) Amendment Bill”, because this is what we’re seeing here. We’re seeing that this is a Government—as my colleague Celia Wade-Brown has mentioned, and also the Asian Legal Network has mentioned, this is temporal gerrymandering. This is not something that has any ounce of evidence in it. We have heard from the Minister, during the committee stage, that “Oh, people talk about a lot of things.”, but no one is ever able to put evidence down on paper to say that this is something that the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney-General, the Human Rights Commission, or any other organisation said is a good thing.

I do want to check if the Minister would consider the title “Electoral (Temporal Gerrymandering) Amendment Bill”, or even “Electoral (Lack of Evidence) Amendment Bill”, “Electoral (Tampering with Elections) Amendment Bill”, or “Electoral (Head in the Sand) Amendment Bill”. I think all of that, in terms of the discussion that we’ve had during the entire Justice Committee stage, suggests that this bill should not be passed.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I suspect I discerned a couple of questions right towards the end there. Just on and around the delaying of the implementation: we’re not in favour of delaying implementation of the bill. People need certainty about what their election laws are going to be leading into the election, and the Electoral Commission needs a sufficient amount of time to prepare for the substantive changes that are being made to the bill. We won’t be delaying implementation. The bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent but for those sections that are outlined for 1 January 2026.

Just in terms of further amendments to the title: as I mentioned before, we’re not in favour of highlighting specific policy changes in the title of the bill. We think it’s more appropriate to give a broad title that tells people what the bill does, which is that it amends the Electoral Act. As much as I would love to, for instance, maybe suggest an amendment around “Those Ranked Number 69 on the List Should Have Their Names in Bold, Bright Letters on the Voting Papers Amendment Act”, I don’t think that would be appropriate either. We won’t be entertaining changes to the title that highlight specific policy areas. We think it’s much more appropriate and sensible for it to be a broad description of what the bill does.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just start by thanking the Minister for rising and speaking to the title and commencement at the start of this part. That doesn’t always happen, but I do think that it is an extremely important flag to the public as to what the bill is about. Interestingly, when I was looking at part of the history of electoral reforms in this area—the change in 2019-2020 to being able to vote on the same day—I really struggled to find the appropriate bill, because there is a lot of electoral amendment reform in our history. This idea that we can name it quite simply and people will know what it’s about—in this particular area, that’s actually not true.

In the last Parliament, there were a number of different amendments that were proposed, and some of them contained bracketed titles, and that’s incredibly helpful. The one I eventually found was not; it was just titled the Electoral Amendment Act—I think number 162 was in there somewhere. There is a benefit to this for the public. I know, for us as parliamentarians, I went to Hansard eventually, because I just couldn’t find what I was looking for. They helped me find it. For members of the public, having that bracketed heading is extremely useful.

I’ve suggested a few, which are accurate on the basis of fact, so I’ve suggested replacing clause 1 with “This Act is the Electoral Amendment (Unjustified Limit on Section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act) Act 2025.”—accurate because the Government’s Attorney-General has made that determination. I’ve suggested “This Act is the Electoral Amendment (No Compelling Justification to Limit the Right to Vote) Act 2025.”—accurate because that’s a statement that’s supported by the Government’s Attorney-General. There are some very sound proposals there which would be much better flags for the public.

I would also just like to make this a point of concern and then, perhaps, another suggestion about the title. Several times this week, Ministers have made a statement that property rights are central to a modern democracy. Now, that’s actually not true if we’re thinking about what the central principle of a modern democracy is—it’s actually voting rights. Voting rights are central to a modern democracy. There are other considerations in terms of the rights at play. Voting rights sit at their centre.

Now, this isn’t a bill that does put voting rights at the centre of that bill, and so I think, in terms of the title change, which Government members are asking for, is “The Inappropriate Elevation of Property Rights” would be more accurate, and there are a few of them looking a bit confused. The reason is that if you are a fixed abode, you are much less likely to be impacted by the changes that this bill is bringing through the pipeline. If you own your home, people are much less likely to be discounted because they fall off the dormant roll and don’t realise that they need to re-enrol before a particular time—so it’s extremely accurate, and I would hope that the Minister is considering that.

Another question for the Minister is whether he considered the likely headlines that will result from this bill when it passes and, perhaps, try and incorporate some of the spirit of those likely headlines within a title? Things I’ve got as likely headlines are “Anger across the country as mass number of specials are discounted” or “Lawyers engaged as angry voters seek to hold their franchise” or “Greatest number of excluded votes are from those who would have been first-time voters” or “Women offenders unfairly disenfranchised: eligible for home detention but no facilities available” or “The curse of the dormant roll drop-off: professionals confused and angry at how they lost the right to vote in 2026”, and this one that I’d suggest from Transparency International: “New Zealand rankings plummet in response to voting debacle”. Perhaps some of those likely headlines could draw some inspiration for a change to the vote.

My final suggestion is that there is some workability with those headlines. Please recommit this bill, as he will do others, no doubt, in this sitting block. I believe that the title needs to be reworked. This bill can be fixed, but there are substantial portions that need to be taken out.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not quite sure where we got to in the end with suggesting whether or not parties should vote for legislation based on headlines that will come out in the media. I’m not quite sure that that upholds the spirit of democracy.

The member asked and answered her own question when she was talking about the amendments to the title of the bill, when she said that some electoral amendment Acts are labelled as such because they amend the Electoral Act, and other bills have specific descriptors in the title because they do one specific policy thing, and one example would be bracketed Acts which change the Māori electoral option. The member explained perfectly well why specific policy points would be inappropriate for a bill like this and, I think, offered no greater explanation as to why the title should be the Electoral Amendment Act than what she has just offered.

Of course, for anyone out there in “Public Land” who is watching this, who is interested in how to find which Act amended the electoral legislation prior to the 2026 election, they just need to find the Act which is named the Electoral Amendment Act with the date that falls between the 2026 election and the election before that. That will indicate which Act has amended the law prior to that election.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to speak to the amendment that’s been put forward on the Table, and that is a very good proposal that I think would add significant clarity to this bill. Quite often, we do hear from this Government that something is about something, and then when you drill into it a little bit further, you find out there’s actually quite a bit more to it. We think that because this bill affects such a fundamental right of New Zealanders, which is your right to vote, that needs to be put right up front in the title. While the Government might be circumventing democracy by preventing people registering in the early voting period, we think they should at least be upfront about the fact that they’re doing that. By inserting in the title “Electoral (Making it Harder for People to Have Their Say) Amendment Act 2025”, that would make it really clear to some of the people in my electorate who will be directly impacted by this legislative change that will be going through the committee stage today.

Why it is harder for people to have their say is because we know in places in the Hutt Valley where we’ve looked at the data—for example, Wainuiōmata has a really high proportion of people who do their registering to vote in that early voting period. We know that it is younger people who are first becoming aware of it, and my real concern is that this bill will make a detrimental change to people’s lifelong voting habits.

We know, on very good research, that if you want a New Zealander to vote for the length of their life, to keep voting in every election, one of the biggest determining factors for encouraging that positive democratic habit is to get them voting when they’re first eligible, when they’re 18 years old. If someone votes in that first election when they’re first eligible, the likelihood of them voting in every single continuous election significantly increases. If we miss that first election, it’s less likely that they will be engaged in our democratic process.

We here in Labour believe our society, our country, is better off when everybody votes. We want all voices around the table. We think that makes a closer, more tight-knit community, because people are engaged and they care about their communities, they care about what’s happening, they engage in the political process. We want to make that upfront, so that people know that this Government is actually making it harder for people to have their say.

What is a real problem for me, in the position that this Government is taking, is that there’s such a sense of self-importance or entitlement—that there is a group of people who actually think that they have views and ideas that somehow are more important than others in our community. We think that everybody, even if they’ve moved house, even if they’re struggling with the cost of living and they’ve had to be having to deal with more immediate life issues like feeding their kids, getting shoes on their feet, getting them to school—those are the issues that are predominantly impacting a lot of working New Zealanders. They’re not going to be watching this debate and figuring out that Paul Goldsmith has just changed the law and made it even more difficult to enrol to vote. They’re too worried about putting food on the table and being able to pay their bills and making sure that they’re not being fired from their job after all the job losses that we’ve seen locally—particularly in the Wellington region, I’ve seen.

Those are the kinds of pressures that are on people in New Zealand right now, and so for the fact that they’re preoccupied with the cost of living and dealing with those things, they should not be doubly penalised by then preventing them from enrolling in the early voting period. We believe it is incumbent upon this Government, if they’re going to do this kind of shady stuff that tilts the playing field in their direction, then let’s at least be upfront. Let’s get the ad on the box right. Let’s say upfront that this bill changes the law by making it harder for people to have their say, and I think that if we put that upfront, then at least we might even increase the chances of early enrolment. If we make a big point of this now, let’s really try and increase that engagement. It could help the Government’s communication strategy, because it’s a bold one. They’re going to try and communicate to all voters that they’ve made this change that disproportionately favours their odds, so why don’t we just be honest with Kiwis and say this Government’s not that interested in democracy. We’ve just changed the law by making it harder for you to vote.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking the engagement from the Minister of Justice. The previous Minister who was in the chair made some comments in relationship to the title. It relates to four of my amendments, which do not seek to trifle with title but simply to enable the layperson to understand what this bill is about.

The comments from the Minister in relationship to the title—and just keeping it broad—prevent, in my view, the layperson from understanding what the changes are genuinely about, unless the Government is doing a communications campaign around these changes. My changes to the proposed title in my amendments tabled at 10 a.m. range from, for example, “Electoral (Reducing Eligibility to Vote and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” to “Electoral (Further Bans to Persons Voting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, “Electoral (Tightening of Enrolment Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, and “Electoral (Shifting of Enrolment Date to Before Voting Starts and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. The reason why I’m proposing these is to enable more people who may be looking at a range of legislation to actually understand what these changes are about.

If the Minister does not believe that this is a good, useful way of enabling members of the public to engage with legislation—because I don’t think most people will just open up a bill that’s called the Electoral Amendment Bill and then read through quite a substantive piece of legislation to find out what it’s about. The title is what enables them to do that, and so I’m seeking an understanding that the Minister would be agreeable to this.

In relation to the commencement date, because this comes straight after Royal assent, has the Minister considered any allocation of resources and, if so, how much will go to any communications campaigns that will enable members of the public to understand the changes that are occurring as part of this bill? If so, how much resource, if any, is going to be allocated to help people understand the changes that have occurred as part of this bill, because they’re quite substantive changes? I think a lot of members of the public will still believe that, based on the previous election’s sort of procedures, they can change their enrolment date on the day, for example.

The Minister, in his comments, alluded to the fact that media headlines are not necessarily the best way to acquire information about a piece of legislation. So far, what I have seen is mostly this bill being debated in the media, and not through more accessible forms of communications campaigns that may actually reach some of the people who may be the most likely to not be able to enrol. These are probably people who may be working in multiple jobs and for whom English is a second language, or disabled people, and so I’m seeking the Minister’s engagement—since the commencement date is quite quick—on what resources, if any, will be allocated to ensure that many members of the public are aware of the changes.

I ask whether these resources will include outreach within the prison population, as well—whether, for example, he’ll be working with the Department of Corrections to ensure that people in prisons are able to understand the changes of eligibility. Otherwise, if we don’t have any sort of resources and engagement around this matter, the perverse outcome will be that people will just try to enrol—where they’re in prison, for example—and they may have thought that they would have been able to.

Effectively, this is just loading time and resources into a system that will just simply tell them, “Actually, you’re not eligible.”, or you’ll have people showing up to try and enrol after voting starts, believing, based on the previous year’s election procedures, that they could have been able to. I’m genuinely seeking good-faith engagement in relation to whether a better title would enable people to better engage, and I’m seeking engagement from the Minister as to what level of resources, if any, will be allocated after the commencement date to ensure that people actually understand what these changes are. If he will not allocate any resources, I recommend that he delay the commencement date so that those resources can be allocated and discussed.

In terms of the title comments in relation to clarifying the message in terms of encouraging people to be enrolled, as per the legislative requirements to be enrolled, it’s compulsory to be enrolled. I don’t agree with changes to the title of the bill. The “Electoral Amendment Act”, I think, is clear about what it refers to.

In terms of the matter raised about the commencement, we want to get the commencement of the bill as soon as possible because there are many changes that this bill makes, including arrangements such as automatic enrolment and making that easier; changing the rules around not necessarily having to use postage, which people no longer use to the same extent; changing the thresholds for inflation for donations—a whole bunch of things that need to happen sooner rather than later.

In terms of the question in relation to funding available for advertising campaigns, at the last election the Electoral Commission spent about $12 million on advertising campaigns ahead of that election. They have that budget and more for the current term, and it is the basic expectation of the Electoral Commission to be using advertising spending to have a clear campaign about encouraging people to get enrolled. The purpose—and we’ve discussed this at enormous length in the debate on Part 1—of the changes that were made around the enrolment cut-off is that we will now have a simple and plain message, which is “Get enrolled”, rather than having a mixed message that we’ve had for a number of times, which was “Get enrolled, but, by the way, you don’t need to; you can rock up on election day and enrol at that point”. I think it will be an easier matter for the Electoral Commission to send a clear message to all New Zealanders to get enrolled.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “late counting of special votes response” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “restoration of ban on prisoner voting” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “limitations on late enrolment” into the title be agreed to.

Celia Wade-Brown’s seven tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.

Vanushi Walters’ four tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Disqualifications for Registration and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Elector Registration and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Adjustment of Expenditure Limits and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Offences and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Advance Polling and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Elector Registration Details and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Reducing Eligibility to Vote and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “(Further Ban to Prisoner Voting and Other Matters)” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Tightening of Enrolment Deadlines and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “Shifting of Enrolment Date to Before Voting Starts and Other Matters” into the title be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to 1 January 2027 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to 1 July 2027 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to 31 December 2025 be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to 1 January 2027 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement date to one year after a date set by Order in Council is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Electoral Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.