Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): That says it all really—it sums it all up. That member Mark Mitchell has got nothing to say about the bill itself. I know it might be a little bit disturbing to hear this but I've learnt to grow to admire Dr Nick Smith a little bit actually. The fact that he can stand up with a straight face and start attacking this side of the House about what's not in the bill about the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) right—and he knows all the while he's saying one thing but at the back of his mind he knows that that's the only party that's been charged by the SFO—charged by the SFO. Not even investigated but they've been charged four people—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No I don't need any help. I'm going to deal with this and if he still has a point of order I will give it to him. The member before taking his call made a point of order about another matter and he is doing exactly the same thing. Mr Ball must come to the bill and speak to its content or his contribution will be ended.DARROCH BALL: Thank you Mr Speaker. One thing that Nick Smith said in his contribution—and he said it in the first reading too and I don't know why he's repeating it—he said New Zealand shouldn't be one of the countries that screws the scrum. We shouldn't be one of those out of principle right? Screws the scrum. He's saying that we're cheating over this side because why? Because we are getting more people to vote. We are enfranchising more people to vote. Nick Smith said—Hon David Bennett: No you're not; you're corrupt.DARROCH BALL: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member said an unparliamentary word and he needs to withdraw and apologise and if he does it again he needs to be kicked out.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon David Bennett fully knows the rules of this House. If he uses that word again—he knows which one—he'll be leaving the Chamber but he will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.DARROCH BALL: Thank you Mr Speaker. The National Party speakers so far but particularly Nick Smith have said that it's a matter of principle that they're not supporting this bill. What I don't understand is why—if it's a matter of principle that anything that goes through this House in regards to electoral laws should be bipartisan and have cross-party consultation—did that member and the rest of the select committee vote for the changes in the bill through the select committee process? Why?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because we're a constructive Opposition.DARROCH BALL: Well I thought it was a matter of principle Mr Smith. I thought it was a matter of principle Mr Smith. It seems amazing to me that that National Party speak with forked tongues when they stand up and they say that it's a matter of principle that they are not supporting this bill. They wax lyrical about the fact that they're not supporting this bill because it's a matter of principle but then what's amazing is that they have already supported the changes in the bill. They voted for it. It amazes me.Hon Ron Mark: And now they're going to vote against their vote.DARROCH BALL: And then they'll vote—that's right Minister Mark. In this reading—Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.DARROCH BALL: —they're going to vote against the proposals that they—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): When a member seeks a point of order the member speaking should sit down.Hon Mark Mitchell: The member appears to be ignoring your earlier ruling and his comments are completely irrelevant. They've got nothing to do with the bill at all.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And that's entirely my discretion as to when but I will take the opportunity to again remind Darroch Ball to speak to the bill. And if we don't hear anything about the bill I've probably only got one avenue to address that.DARROCH BALL: With the greatest of respect Mr Speaker I have been literally talking about—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah I'm not going to argue with you. You either speak to the bill now or your speech will be over.DARROCH BALL: So I want to go through—and I want to make it quite clear for the people that are watching this—why in the National Party's minority view they're voting against this bill. Let me say first of all it's like three pages long. The whole first page they get nothing to the substance of the bill apart from the third line from the bottom.The first thing they talk about—they whinge about; because that's what it comes across as: whinging—is lack of consultation. They're voting against 19000 people and it's going to be more than that because 19000 was last election. They're going to vote against tens of thousands of people from getting the vote—when it's in the bill of rights quite frankly that they have that right to vote. They're going to stop 20000-plus people from voting because they weren't consulted—because they weren't consulted. That's the number one reason why they're not voting for this bill.Hon Mark Mitchell: Stay on the bill.DARROCH BALL: You're not listening Mr Mitchell. I'm literally reading out your minority view. Did you know you had a minority view?The second reason before they get to any substance of it was the late timetable of the inquiry. This hasn't got to do with the bill. None of their reasons why they're voting against it have got anything to do with the bill it's because they're whinging about a lack of consultation and some late timetable in the committee.Then they get it. Then they get to their main reason on the second page mind you—on the second page mind you. National does not support allowing same-day enrolment [of] voting." As Mr Smith has said one of his reasons was—and I'll read it here: of the 2.6 million voters who were responsible enough to enrol 19000—or less than 1 percent right—they'll cause a 10-day delay—10-day delay. So they're going to stop someone's right to get in there and vote because of a 10-day delay—because of a 10-day delay.Not only that but they say 2.6 million votes. Here's the contradiction—here's the contradiction of what they're saying. A fortnight before election day everyone can go into an election booth and enrol on the same day that they vote—enrol on the same day that they vote. The percentage who did that before election day was 47 percent. Of all voters last election 47 percent did it before election day and they had the ability and the right to enrol on the same day. What the National Party want to do is take that away from the tens of thousands of people who want to do it on the same day.Now if they want to talk about fairness—because that's what they talk about here: fairness—then they need to have a look at their minority view and get it right Mr Mitchell—get it right instead of making stupid faces over the other side of the House. What they don't get is that it's not election day any more; it's election fortnight. You can't have 13 days with one rule and then election day with another because that ain't fair and it's taking away people's reason to vote.The funny thing is that the rest of the bill they support—the rest of the bill they support. Ten-day delay and they're whinging about not being consulted—that's why they want to take away people's right to vote and ability to vote in one of the best democracies in the country.We are supporting this bill because it is the right thing to do Mr Mitchell—and you should be too if you hadn't been so contradictory in your minority view."