Street Maryan: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 11 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16476. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):When we left off the debate on this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill—it was interrupted by the close of business last Tuesday night—I wanted to make a couple of points about the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table in respect of this bill. When the bill first came to the Justice and Electoral Committee it had in it substantial clauses—between clauses 24 and 38—that really put into the law what was until then and is still now an administrative practice. It was an administrative practice that we have come to know as the EasyVote card. The clauses were about the enrolment confirmation card popularly known as the EasyVote card and they allowed for the administration of that to be written into the legislation. Instead of being just an administrative convention or a practice the clauses actually gave a purpose to the EasyVote card—the enrolment confirmation card as it is referred to—in the struck out parts of this legislation.There are three Supplementary Order Papers in front of us at the moment. The one in the name of Holly Walker seeks to reinstate clauses 24 to 28 31 to 34 37 and 38. So Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper 420 simply seeks to reinstate those struck out clauses. Our further consideration of this bill and of the Supplementary Order Papers that have come up have caused us to think it would be a good idea to do what the Minister of Justice originally intended. We would like to know why the Minister is now not supporting a Supplementary Order Paper that basically reinstates her original proposal. I do not know why that is. I cannot imagine that the Minister of Justice Judith Collins is routinely rolled by her caucus on any matter but if that is the case then I would appreciate it if she advised the Committee of that or at least if one of her colleagues got up and explained to the rest of the Committee—particularly those colleagues who are on the Justice and Electoral Committee—why the select committee struck out the things that the Minister originally intended. It was for a range of reasons which elude me now.On reflection we considered that clauses 24 to 36 relating to the enrolment confirmation card should be retained. I would like to see Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper pass. I have a feeling—more than that I have had an indication from the Minister—that that is unlikely to happen. I regret that because the Labour Party now finds itself in the position of wanting to oppose this bill. Having supported it because these kinds of measures ought to be multipartisan and ought to be supported—these kinds of proposals around electoral law ought to be presented and passed in this House in a multiparty way. But if this continues to be excised from the original text and Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper is not approved by this Committee then the Labour Party has now reserved unto itself the right to vote against this legislation. That is a shame. The rest of the bill is OK. The rest of the bill is fine particularly now that the silly bits about rosettes and streamers have been taken out of it because there was no good reason for having those there in the first place.Anything that puts an easy way for people to vote into the law and makes it more certain ought to be encouraged by this Committee. It ought to be encouraged. I cannot think of a reason—unless it is something that serves the National Party’s interests only—why the EasyVote card or the enrolment confirmation card process should not be written into the legislation. It is convenient. There was no evidence given at the select committee in my recollection of any wholesale fraud. There were one or two instances of fraud around the use of EasyVote cards but the system caught them. It worked. Those instances that have happened on behalf of both the Labour Party and the National Party were caught in the process so wholesale fraud cannot be a reason for the deletion of these clauses.If that Supplementary Order Paper of Holly Walker’s goes too far then I suggest that Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 417 which tries to reinstate only clauses 24 to 27—again the Minister’s original intention but not as far-reaching as all the clauses that Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper covers—should be accepted. If that is not acceptable to the members opposite then please tell us why. Why is it that the enrolment confirmation card cannot be cemented in law? It is an administrative practice it is true and it will continue to be an administrative practice because there is nothing in the original legislation that this bill amends that refers to it. It is an administrative practice but why not cement it in the law and make it a legal right that people have an EasyVote card that they can present to a returning officer or polling clerk who then takes it from them so that it cannot be used again and there is no mistake about who that person is? It covers off issues of disability. It covers off issues of ethnicity of people with English as a second language of names not being able to be understood or interpreted correctly by a polling clerk. It covers off all of those issues and I cannot understand why this should be deleted and not reinstated.If Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper is defeated by this Committee and if Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper is defeated by this Committee I commend my own Supplementary Order Paper 416 to the Committee which simply allows by the amendment of clause 24 for somebody to verbally give or confirm their name or present an enrolment confirmation card. So they can say who they are or give over an EasyVote card. At the moment the bill says they have to do both and that begins to present a barrier. That begins to present a barrier for people with all kinds of disabilities and for people whose names are difficult for polling clerks to understand—that kind of reason. It would make absolute sense for this to became an “or” and not an “and” because the bill as it stands says that electors have got to verbally confirm their name and give such other information as is necessary to find their name on the roll. Those two things and those two things combined can be a disincentive and can disadvantage voters.