Little Andrew: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I want to note and I think largely agree with what the Minister of Justice said by way of principle when considering legislation covering our electoral laws. That is to note that not only of course are they vital to the operation of our democracy but as current MPs we are merely the custodians of those rules and of the law. Therefore it is vital that when we are considering the electoral laws and the laws governing people’s right to vote and participate in our democracy we proceed in a suitably sober and measured way so that we do not see big lurches in our electoral law and so that significant changes are subject to widespread public debate to referenda and to other measures as necessary. We do that because this is a vital constitutional area. Any changes as I said should avoid unnecessary controversy—and it is true that there have been controversial changes made to our electoral laws in the past—but above all they should ensure that measures enhance and promote voting and participation in the democratic process.So we come at these proposed changes with that in mind as indeed the Justice and Electoral Committee did. As the Minister noted by and large that is the consensus approach that the committee takes. So we welcome the bill and we will support it with the exception of one very vital aspect which I will come to. As the Minister said these are mostly sensible changes. They follow the scheduled and usual review by the select committee of the most recent general election. The select committee did that and came up with its recommendations.It is especially good to see the abandonment of the provision in the original bill that would have meant that the use of ribbons and rosettes everywhere but in voting booths would be banned. It means that those who are undertaking their party activities and interacting with voters will be able to wear the colour of their party so that voters know they are on official election business on that day even though they are volunteers. That is a very important part of identifying that there are people who have duties to perform on election day to support their party. It is not overt—at least it is not an over-the-top display of colours. It is a subtle reminder that there are people who are out there doing what comes naturally on election day and that is aiding parties seeking to maximise their vote. The original attempt to ban that in the original bill was of course a very petty action but it has not survived the select committee process and that is a good thing.It is also a good thing that the rules about the disclosure of contributions particularly those contributions made by way of loans to political parties have been clarified. That is an important measure and an uncontroversial measure. It makes no sense to allow political parties to take advantage of a loan whether they are in an election year or at any other time and for that to not be disclosed when in fact a significant benefit is obtained from that assistance at least with cash flow at the time. Of course it does raise a question about when we are going to pass a law that would mean there would be greater transparency for devices such as theWaitematā Trust for example which has a very significant role to play albeit on the part of the National Party and no other political party. But maybe that will come in another day.The aspect of this bill that is more disturbing even though it has been through the select committee process and even though consensus has largely been achieved is the removal from the original bill of those provisions that would have enhanced and expanded the use of the EasyVote card. I think that that change is a little more sinister. As I said before one of the objectives of changes that we make to our electoral law every time we make them should be to enhance democracy. It should be to assist voters and to assist citizens to participate in their democracy and never more so than in a general election when the issue of who will be the Government is very much at stake. The EasyVote card did this. The EasyVote card has played a very good role in the last few elections. It has enabled people to get confirmation that they are enrolled and to provide the details in an easy form that they can take into their voting booth and take to the returning officer there or the clerk who can then very easily find their name on the roll and the page and the line number and their name can be struck out. They can be given their ballot papers. It was a very quick and efficient way of doing that.The truth is that there are some voters for whom turning up to the voting booth—particularly if they have a difficult name particularly if they have English as a second language or particularly if they have a thick accent. Not every citizen is like Chris Auchinvole who has managed to expunge his deep-seated Glaswegian accent so that he is more or less understandable most times that he speaks in the House. Many voters—people who are entitled to vote—are not able to change the accent with which they speak and often turning up to a returning officer and having to say their name can cause confusion and can cause difficulty for both. For those who have speech impediments the EasyVote card was a very easy way for them to cast their vote. The removal of it is a retrograde step.But of course it is not just about the removal of the EasyVote card. If we compare the bill with the language of the existing Electoral Act section 167(2) simply says: “The elector must give any particulars that are necessary for finding the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is a very broad provision and it provided and allowed for the EasyVote card. The question then has to be asked why clause 24 of the bill which amends section 167(2) of the Electoral Act now says this: “An elector who applies to vote must (a) verbally give or verbally confirm his or her name; and (b) give or confirm any other particulars that may be necessary to find the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is against other provisions that have been deleted from the original bill that allowed the use of the EasyVote card. The fact is that the bill now expressly says that a voter must provide verbal confirmation of who they are and that is a retrograde step.We do this against a background of knowing that this is the 50th anniversary of the passage of the citizens’ rights legislation in the United States where states are required to avoid measures that are an obstacle to casting a vote in their election processes. They are meant to avoid provisions that demand identification and various particular hoops that voters have to go through. This takes us very close to or certainly down that path that requires voters to go through various hoops—unnecessary hoops I might add in the light of the success of the EasyVote card in previous elections—when it comes to casting their votes.I am foreshadowing that we will be proposing some amendments by way of Supplementary Order Papers to deal with that provision because that seems to be an unnecessary part of this bill. It is a bill that provides many sensible changes and that otherwise has the support of this House and otherwise has achieved consensus. That is a retrograde measure and we look at it askance. We look at it very seriously and I would hope that perhaps through some sober debate and mature debate even at this stage in the House we can achieve agreement on that so that we have—and we can demonstrate and we can boast to the rest of the world that we have—a model way of developing ourelectoral laws and citizens’ electoral rights so that they are not disadvantaged when it comes to participating in this great democracy.