Smith Nick; Tolley AnneHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The first concern that National has around this bill is it is the fourth time that the Government has advanced an electoral bill without any consultation with the Opposition.Hon Nathan Guy: Well that's hopeless.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I agree with my colleague Nathan Guy. It's not just hopeless; it's actually quite serious in a country where we have no constitution. We do not have an Upper House like most democracies and so it's been well accepted in this Parliament that electoral laws should be developed on a cross-party basis.Hon Andrew Little: The member knows that's not true. Prisoner voting—prisoner voting.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge Mr Little that the current Electoral Act passed in the Parliament by 1993 was 400 clauses under a National Government in which there was a complete consensus of the Parliament. So it proves that with goodwill and a competent Minister you can get over 400 pieces of law agreed on a cross-party basis. In the last Government the John Key - English Government we had nine electoral bills from the Government. Every single one of them had cross-party support and yet this is the fourth electoral bill from this Government being rammed through by a thin majority without any consultation and that is a real black mark against Minister of Justice Andrew Little.But here's the second part: there's been a very sound parliamentary convention around the Justice Committee inquiries. Actually it started back in the 1940s after Labour cheated on the 1946 election. There's a huge controversy about the boundary changes in the law. So as it developed after each election there would be an inquiry work would occur in the Justice Committee on changes to electoral law and a bill would be introduced.The changes in this bill completely ran roughshod over that select committee process. The Justice Committee had a big discussion about issues of supermarket voting about extending issues around overseas voters and making it more convenient. That wasn't good enough for the Minister. He simply said I'll do what the hell I like. Our Cabinet will do what it likes. We'll just cut National and ACT out and introduce the bill." before that process was complete.Now the Minister complains that the select committee process went for too long and here I want to set out why it went for too long. The first thing was it was the latest select committee inquiry into an election to ever begin. They sat round for 10 months and did nothing. Now that can only rest with the Government and the Labour chair of the committee that didn't get on with the business. Then six months later the Government and the Minister decided that he wanted to extend the terms of reference and then we had the fiasco over Labour then not just blocking witnesses like Anne-Marie Brady with whom I think many people will maybe agree or disagree but they would not question her academic credentials. It was extraordinary that members opposite did not want to hear her evidence.Then we had the extraordinary situation—the biggest question over the election in 2017 is the New Zealand First Foundation. We received a letter from the president and the treasurer of New Zealand First who wanted to be heard by the committee and Labour members voted against them being heard. That was the very sad disappointing and delayed conduct of that select committee inquiry that rests entirely with Labour members.Now the most contentious issue in this bill is the issue of same-day enrolment and voting. National has repeatedly asked a question of the Government that they have not been able to answer and it's this: why would anybody bother enrolling if you no longer have to enrol to be able to vote? The incentive that is being created is: don't bother enrolling. You can turn up any old time and vote and enrol at the same time. That's not just me raising that concern; the Electoral Commission has raised that concern and their fear with this change in the law is that over time we'll get less and less people enrolling and that ultimately will undermine the integrity of our electoral system.Then the Minister completely dismisses the issue of the count of the vote the writ on the final election result being delayed by 10 days. He gave a rant a moment ago and says nobody sits up at night worrying about the writ. No they don't but I'll tell you what they do worry about: they worry about who's going to form the Government—enormous media interest.I remember watching for 100 days the nonsense that went on the last time New Zealand First controlled the balance of power. There was huge unease across New Zealand that the functioning of Government—I'll tell you why it matters: the Government of New Zealand spends $1.3 billion every week $1.3 billion every week and that money belongs to New Zealanders. We think our job as Government and parliamentarians is to be on the job looking after the interests of New Zealanders making sure we're getting value for money and being on the job. What the bill does is by delaying the outcome of the election by 10 days it means for another 10 days elected representatives are twiddling their thumbs not getting on with the business of running the country while we wait for an election outcome. We make no apologies for saying it is a detrimental measure that it is going to take an extra 10 days for a Government to be able to be formed and for we politicians to get on with the important business of running the country. There is no question that the 10-day extension to the election outcome is consequential to the Government's change to allow same-day voting.Now the Minister has tried to excuse all this behaviour and said "I wrote to the select committee last December saying that I wanted to introduce this bill." What he doesn't say is that there was no mention in that letter of the issue of same-day enrolment and voting the most important provision in this bill.Here's the second part—and this is where the Minister's been sneaky—when he issued the press release announcing this bill there was no mention of the 10-day delay in the election outcome.Hon Mark Mitchell: Oh that's tricky.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It's being tricky eh? It's not telling the full story not telling the trade-off and nor has the Minister acknowledged the advice of the Electoral Commission right at the beginning of the select committee inquiry where they advised against same-day enrolment and voting for the 2020 election.Members have just got to say this: why do we think—and I'm one of those that's got huge respect for the Electoral Commission. I take real issue with the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand attacking the Electoral Commission and questioning their impartiality and their integrity. Having the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand doing that speaks volumes about New Zealand First and the Deputy Prime Minister not about the integrity and good work of the Electoral Commission.So why is it that the Government is going against the advice of the Electoral Commission? It's very simple: they're trying to screw the scrum so they might get an electoral advantage. That is at the core. Well why did Labour pass the bill taking away the right of members of Parliament to sit here without being fired by their leader the waka-hopping legislation? Why did New Zealand First do that? It's because the New Zealand First Party is such a Mickey Mouse outfit that he's terrified his MPs will leave. He wants to have them in a straitjacket. If any one of them dared stand up—it's just another example of bad electoral law being driven by narrow political interests rather than actually acting in the interests of improving our democracy.Now I'm more than relaxed about the minor changes that we supported at select committee around the supermarket voting around making it easy for our Defence Force personnel to be able to vote making changes that will make sensible provisions in the event that we have a civil defence emergency in the middle of an election. They are all quite reasonable. I openly acknowledge this is not the most obnoxious of the electoral reform bills that has been passed by this Government but I do say that our democracy is one of the most precious important things that New Zealand has. It's what makes our country a cut above most in the world. We're very proud that we are the fourth-oldest continuous democracy in the world and our view is that electoral law needs to be treated with far more respect and far more care than by this Minister and by this Government. I just say to the Minister—DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired."