Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The first point the National Opposition would want to make about this bill is the very poor precedent it sets around making electoral law changes. We're an unusual country: we don't have a constitution we don't have a second House. We should not have a system in a country that celebrates itself as being one of the best democracies in the world where the Government of the day by a slim majority can change the rules for the next election. And that is why we've had a longstanding precedent around the process for these sorts of changes: that they're done on a bipartisan basis. There were nine electoral amendment bills during the term of the Key-English Government. Every single one of the Government bills was consulted extensively with the Opposition. In fact there was very substantive compromise on many of those Government bills. This is actually the fourth electoral bill from this Minister of which there has been zero—no—consultation at all. We only actually found out about this bill as a consequence of questioning during the annual review of financial Estimates.Now the most substantive change in this part is about the issue of same-day voting and enrolment. The first point it's very clear is this: the Electoral Commission which I think is well respected across this Parliament said they did not support same-day voting and enrolment for election 2020. That is absolutely a matter of public record and I'm happy to table the minutes of the Justice Committee where they are word-for-word what the Electoral Commission said. And so the Minister of Justice I can only conclude for reasons of electoral advantage is going against the advice of the Electoral Commission.Here's the second part of sneakiness around the same-day enrolment and voting: when the Minister announced it in a press release he failed to mention that to be able to introduce same-day voting and enrolment the date of the election result would need to be delayed by 10 days. Now that's very significant. The whole country sits on edge from election night to when the final election results are announced. Extending that by 10 days is substantial.Now it is the compromise. The Electoral Commission has said to the Minister Look we can't do same-day voting and enrolment unless you give us another 10 days to sort the issues through and count the votes." It was sneaky and dishonest for the Minister to not mention that in his press release when he announced this bill underlying the bad faith that goes around that provision.Michael Wood: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member on his feet just reflected on the Minister through the use of the word "dishonest" and I believe that is out of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well yes but it would be for the Minister to take offence at that not for another member to take it. While we're talking about the Standing Orders also there's a Standing Order around eating in the House.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you Madam Chair. I would love the Minister in the chair Andrew Little to give an explanation as to why when he announced this provision he was not upfront with New Zealanders that the announcement of the election result would need to be delayed by a further 10 days for there to be able to be same-day enrolment and voting. That is what we now know was the advice that came from the Electoral Commission. That was in the bill. But of course the Minister did not wish to advise the public of that significant change to the way in which our elections would be conducted. There is a balance and the balance that needs to be found is in terms of members on this side of the House who want to maximise participation and we want to maximise the integrity of the vote and the timing of it. And here's the trade-off: should 3.4 million New Zealanders have to wait another 10 days for the election result because 19000 people couldn't be bothered getting themselves on to the roll? The Government has chosen to take the views of the 19000; we take the view of the 3.4 million New Zealanders who have done so.Then the second question is this and this is very effectively communicated in the advice from the Electoral Commission: the problem is that if you allow same-day enrolment and voting why would anybody bother to enrol? We're effectively changing the law with this bill that says there is no requirement now to enrol—don't bother. You can front up to the polling booth any time you like and whether you are enrolled or not you'll be allowed to vote. Their concern the concern of both officials and the Electoral Commission was that if you allow same-day voting and enrolment over time you remove any incentive for people to actually enrol and ensure that our overall electoral system works.There's a third part of the reason why we think it's reasonable for people to be required to enrol to vote. Madam Chair? Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I haven't rung the bell yet!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm just pre-empting you so that I can continue. [Bell rung] Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The third reason is that there's a requirement in the law that candidates are known at least 20 working days before the election. That's fair enough. Of course the voter has a right to know who the candidates are so they can go and check them out and make sure that they are reputable people listen to what they say test their policies. That's at the heart of democracy. But there's a quid pro quo: if the voters have a right to know who the candidates are don't the candidates have a right to be able to know who the enrolled voters are so that they can communicate with them and that they can present to them their policies ideas so that they can be persuaded to the merits to either vote for them or not?So in my view the reason the Government is advancing the measures around same-day voting and enrolment against the advice of the Electoral Commission is simply because they see that it's going to make it easier for them to win the next election. It is as crude and simple as that. It is not principles-based.Darroch Ball: That doesn't make any sense. Explain that a bit more. Explain how that works.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It was done without consultation and it was not—oh very simply. The member from New Zealand First who won't answer questions about what the foundation has been up to but very happy for him to take a call—Hon Members: Oh!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well members opposite I think he was listed as one of the bagmen and I think the media would love to know what he was up to with the New Zealand First—Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think—well I hope—that you were anticipating that I was about to call Dr Smith to order because I made it very clear in this debate that we are not talking donations. That is out of order.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that fully Madam Chair and I'd invite the New Zealand First member to rather than interject participate in the debate. If he'd like to answer some of those questions the whole of New Zealand would love to know—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): And I would not allow it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the answers to those.There are provisions in this bill that should have come through the proper process. Since 1946 the practice of the New Zealand Parliament is that we have an inquiry by the Justice Committee into the election. Following that inquiry where issues—many of the issues that are covered in this bill around flexibility around location of polling booths are then worked up through the select committee process and then provided for in a bill. National was perfectly up to cooperating in that process. We actually support the extra flexibility around polling booths particularly the changes of a greater use of supermarkets making some practical changes so that that's more convenient for voters. We think that's a good thing. In fact it was National that introduced the notion of polling booths being able to be held in supermarkets.We think the current law is rather puritanical in respect of the issue of alcohol outlets. In some of our back country communities actually the local pub is the centre of where people can most conveniently gather and providing the Electoral Commission applies some appropriate conditions we think it's perfectly proper that some of those country pubs may be the appropriate place for those communities and we support those amendments. Equally we want practical provisions around where there are civil emergencies of which we've had too many in recent times with the Kaikōura and the Christchurch earthquakes. We do want practical provisions in the law and we're pleased with the changes that were made at the select committee stage of this bill in which those provisions were improved.So our argument is not that this is a bad bill; it's that this has been a very poor process that we should not have the Government of the day cherry-picking the various electoral law changes that it thinks will give it some sort of advantage. It sets a particularly poor precedent when we're now on to our fourth bill in the term of this Parliament of which there has been zero consultation with the largest party in the Parliament about electoral law changes.I spoke to the Minister 2½ years ago and I said National was up to working cooperatively on sensible electoral law changes. He has not chosen to pick up the phone once. He has not chosen to have a single telephone conversation with me once. I simply say to the Minister in the chair: that door remains open. And I'll give him another commitment: if National is the Government which is a better chance than not after September a National Government will maintain the strong tradition that we did during the Key-English years treating electoral law with the respect that it deserves developing electoral law proposals on a cross-party basis because actually the democracy of New Zealand the integrity of our elections requires that we treat electoral law with that sort of respect so that New Zealand indeed can say that it is the proudest little democracy in the world."