SpeechDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support this bill. It really does not do a great deal to be honest but what it does do is worth having so we will support it. The bill is actually more notable for what it does not do than for what it does. It implements only 12 out of 28 recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee and does not implement a number of things sought by the Electoral Commission either. I want to mention only two of them and to ask the Minister in the chair Mark Mitchell some questions about them.The first is about the adequacy of the legislative provisions for dealing with emergencies. As we speak there are still some very serious fires happening in Christchurch. They have occurred recently in other parts of the country as well. What if election day had been today or yesterday? I think there would be people in parts of Christchurch who would not really have had an opportunity to vote. I know that the current legislation does have some provisions about that but the Electoral Commission raises concerns about it says that we need to review it and points to the seriousness of this. Today we have a good example with those fires of why it is serious and why it is urgent.So my question to the Minister is: why has so little been done about that and why has the Government not brought forward provisions in this legislation in this bill to address those very serious issues? I think the Government is just being lazy. It knows it needs to do this; it has not. It has chosen not to do it because it cannot be bothered and it has a responsibility to do it. I want to know why it has not been done. After all it has been nearly 3 years since the last election. That is quite a long period of time and we have had a number of emergencies since then.Take Kaikōura for example the earthquake there last year—only a few months ago. What would have happened to the people there if soon after that earthquake there had been an election or a by-election? Again I am saying that these provisions need review. It is not that there is no provision there; it is that they are outdated and they definitely need to be changed. The Electoral Commission has said so and New Zealand First is saying so. Why has it not been done?The second issue is this—and it is the one that has been raised by some other people. It has been raised also by the Electoral Commission. It is the increasing vulnerability to security risks of the technology underpinning New Zealand's electoral system. We all know that Russia during the United States' presidential election was accused of and almost0 certainly did hack into the American electoral system and possibly compromised it. Whether it did or not does not matter. The fact that these things can happen and are happening around the world demonstrates again that this is a serious risk for elections here in New Zealand.Again I ask the Government with the Electoral Commission having highlighted that years ago now and with 3 years having passed since the last election why has the Government not done a review of that so that it can assure New Zealanders that the New Zealand electoral system and its vulnerability in terms of technology supporting those elections—why has that not been reviewed? Why is the Government not now in a position to assure New Zealanders that we would be safe from some of the disadvantages that occur from the hacking and other skulduggery that occurs both possibly from within New Zealand and from outside it. The only actions that I can identify are in the upcoming intelligence legislation but that is really not targeted to this particular issue and I want to ask the Government why it has not done more about that by now.