Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7455] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to support the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I was pleased to listen to my colleague the Hon David Parker advising the House of a consultative process that involved engagement with the Opposition and I thank the Government for that process. I think it is important that we discuss matters such as electoral law reform as far as we can in order to obtain agreement. As the previous speaker Chester Borrows said this matter has been the subject of review at select committee for a number of years now and a merging of the functions of the three agencies—or three arms as it were—that are now involved in our electoral system has been recommended. 
In saying that we support this bill I want to make it absolutely clear that it is no reflection on the three agencies that will form the new Electoral Commission nor indeed on the individuals who have shown incredible leadership in those areas over a large number of years. In fact New Zealand has been very well served by all three agencies in terms of integrity and also dedication to the oversight of free and fair elections. I think in a place like New Zealand we sometimes take for granted the holding of free and fair elections. In other countries people are prepared to die for the right to vote. That probably would not be seen in any aspect of elections in New Zealand. I think some people find it hard to get out of bed and drag themselves down to the polling booth on election day whereas in other countries people have fought for the right to vote and to have those votes freely and fairly given and counted. As my colleague the Hon David Parker has said we have a well-deserved reputation in New Zealand for holding corruption-free elections and this goes to public confidence in the process. When people go to vote they know that their vote will be received in confidence and that they can have confidence that the result will be a fair reflection of the votes cast on the day. What happens after the votes are cast and the count is done when the various machinations occur for the forming of a new Government may not necessarily go to public confidence in the process but I think the process produces a much fairer system than any other system we have had in this country before. 
When I look around this Parliament and I see people representing different ethnicities I often reflect that when I first came to Parliament in 1990 there was not one MP from another ethnicity in this Parliament. We had Maori MPs and European MPs. I think one Pasifika MP made it into Parliament prior to the 1996 election—Taito Phillip Field in 1993—and that was it. There was no one else. Now we have two Chinese MPs a Korean MP and two Indian MPs one of Sikh origin and one from Fiji which is a tremendous advance. We also have a Muslim MP from Pakistan so we have tremendous diversity in this Parliament under MMP that we simply did not have before. The number of women in Parliament has increased since we have had MMP from a quarter of the Parliament to a third of the Parliament. However sadly with the loss of Sue Bradford tomorrow I think we slip to just below a third hopefully for a very short period of time. I think it is important that we have a system that reflects the integrity of the vote; we have that not only with our electoral system but also with MMP as well. 
Obviously there are benefits to be obtained from merging the three functions into a single agency. I quite like the way in which the Government has adopted this merger as a two-tier approach. The bill we are discussing today sets up the commission with two of the agencies before the next election so by the time we get to the 2011 election the two agencies the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office will be merged into a single Electoral Commission which will be in place to conduct the next general election. After that election the Electoral Enrolment Centre will come into the commission as well. I think that that stepped approach is quite sensible because it gives the different agencies an opportunity to establish themselves in their roles before they are called upon to perform their function under the new regime. So I am very very pleased with the approach that has been adopted. 
I also commend the Government. I do not do this very often so I will make this point because I have criticised regulatory impact statements on many occasions since National was elected. Here is the regulatory impact statement— 
Paul Quinn 
: Did you produce one? I can’t recall you producing one. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I congratulate the Government on an excellent regulatory impact statement. 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh leadership! Excellent. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am happy for the member to interject across the House to say that the Government is showing leadership in this regard. It is about time. It has had a Minister for Regulatory Reform since the general election yet here is one of the very few regulatory impact statements that meets my standard—that meets the test I want it to meet. 
The Government has measured the status quo against two other alternatives. One was a new Electoral Commissioner within the Ministry of Justice and the other was a new Electoral Commissioner created as an Officer of Parliament. Going through the regulatory impact analysis process which I think is excellent the Government has managed to identify the concerns and the benefits around each of those alternatives. I commend the Government for this very very good process. The reason the status quo is not preferred—and I think it is important to place this on the record—is that firstly it would continue the unnecessary overlap of roles and duplication of administrative costs; secondly it would provide for disjointed decision-making on electoral matters; and thirdly it would limit technological development for use in future elections. I think the third bullet point is the most important because I am sure we will see a change in the way we vote in the future as technology develops. It will enable us to utilise different technologies that exist now and will exist in a better form in the future. Those technologies will not only ensure the integrity of the vote but also will enable us to ensure greater convenience. That is one thing I would like to see because I get frustrated when I see people who think they have cast a valid vote—they have actually gone down to the ballot box on election day—but who discover afterwards that their vote did not count because they were not enrolled on the electoral roll the day before that vote was cast. I like to think that we will have the technology to enable somebody to enrol and vote on the same day. In my view there is absolutely no barrier to that occurring and the sooner we can put that technology in place the better it will be. I do not think we have to have an absolute prohibition on enrolling on election day as we do at the moment with the roll closing the day before the general election. So I am very very pleased to see that something is put in place to ensure that we can take advantage of technological development. 
The last point I make is to comment on the points made by my colleague the Hon David Parker about the need for the transparency of donations to political parties. In the last inquiry into the 2008 general election questions were put to Mr Henry and I think it is worth remembering them. He was asked: “do you think there is a need for transparency of donations to political parties?”; he replied: “Yes.” He was asked: “Do you think we need to do better in respect of the transparency of donations?”; he replied: “Yes I do. I think that in the new regime we need to look very carefully at how we might look through to the true donors.” That is what this bill is about. The public has a right to know who is funding the election campaigns. It is very very important that we address the issues raised in these reports as they come up. With that one exception I commend the bill to the House.