Lees-Galloway Iain: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 11 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16493. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):This has been quite an extensive—well not as extensive as some of us would have liked in the Committee of the whole House and that is because there are a number of issues that have been raised with this legislation the Electoral Amendment Bill. Given that there is concern on this side of the Chamber that this bill does some things that we think are detrimental to our electoral law but also misses out a number of things that we think would make important improvements to our electoral law that the public desperately want Parliament to actually get on with doing I think a very appropriate name for this legislation would be the “Suppression of Democracy Bill” because it suppresses democracy in a number of different ways. First is the obvious which is that by removing the legislative requirement that the voter identification card—the EasyVote card is what most people would know it as—in combination with this new requirement which again came out of nowhere that a person must verbally confirm their identity to the person in the polling booth those two things combined is a very very dangerous situation for a lot of people who will find it more difficult to identify themselves when they get to the polling booth.It is known around the world that voter identification cards like the EasyVote card that we have in New Zealand are a facilitator of higher voter turnout. They know that in Canada research has been produced in recent days to counter its Conservative Government’s argument that the use of voter identification cards in Canada should also be suppressed and that changes should be made over there as well to the way a voter identifies themselves when they present themselves at the polling booth. Frankly the legislation that the Canadian Conservative Party is proposing is considerably worse than what the National Government is proposing here in New Zealand. What I think the National Government has done is it has seen what the Government is doing in Canada and it has tried to do some catch-up with some of the changes that have been made as this legislation has been making its way through Parliament. There has been much more public outcry in Canada about what its Conservative Government is doing and in fact an extensive filibuster by Opposition members in Canada where they have a system that allows for much more extensive filibusters than what we can do here in New Zealand such is the concern about the detrimental impacts on democracy and voter turnout of the legislation that the Canadians are promoting.I think what the National Government has done here in New Zealand is it has looked at that and thought: “You know what? There are a few ideas that we can take out of that and there are some ways that we can use the changes that are being made to electoral law here in New Zealand to suppress turnout and suppress democracy.” We know—it is just a known fact—that all around the world the progressive parties the parties of the left do better when there is a higher turnout and the conservative parties do better when there is a lower turnout when more people feel they cannot go to the polling booth or they do not want to participate in the election or when they show up at the polling booth some reason is found that their vote does not count. This is always done in the name of eliminating electoral fraud. Every time some party uses the excuse that by opening up the electoral process so that more people can participate it potentially opens up opportunities for electoral fraud the argument that is used against that is that electoral fraud is almost non-existent. That is certainly the case here in New Zealand. There is no documented evidence of electoral fraud occurring at the polling booth. When somebody shows up with their voter identification card or without it there is absolutely no example from any member of the Government or any example that I have been able to find in researching this legislation of electoral fraud at the polling booth occurring in New Zealand. So what is the problem? What exactly is the problem that the Government thinks it is solving by removing the legislative requirement for the EasyVote card to exist and by requiring voters to identify themselves verbally?That may not seem like such a big deal but we know that one of the most marginalised groups in New Zealand one of the demographics that is most likely not to engage in our electoral processes is new migrants—usually people for whom English is a second language. When those people are asked to identify themselves verbally it is absolutely possible that the name they have and the way they pronounce their name may not be entirely obvious to the person checking their name against the roll. That person may find it extremely difficult to find that person on the roll and that may be used as a barrier to that person being able to vote. But just the act of actually having to engage verbally rather than presenting your EasyVote card that has been provided to you in order to facilitate you casting your vote may be off-putting—in fact it probably will be off-putting—for a lot of new migrants who struggle to engage in everyday activities in New Zealand because of the language barriers they have.I think particularly of the former refugee communities that I have in Palmerston North and I know that other members represent those kinds of communities right across the country. The older generations in particular who have spent many many years of their lives in refugee camps have not had the opportunity for education and certainly have not had the opportunity to learn English whilst they have been living in those refugee camps. Their knowledge of English is extremely limited but I can tell you this. They are desperate to vote but they do not want any barriers put up in front of them. I wonder why exactly it is that the National Party seems so hell-bent on putting barriers up in front of people.I do see this as a “Voter Turnout Reduction Bill”. I do see it as a “Suppression of Democracy Bill”. I think actually frankly what we have discovered—because this is going on around the world—is that this is just another Crosby/Textor special. It has advised the parties of the right around the world of another way they can rig elections and rort the elections in their favour. But the biggest rort of course is the thing that is missing from this legislation and that is the abolition of the coat-tailing provisions. Seventy-one percent of New Zealanders want the coat-tailing provisions to go. There was no good reason for them to have been put into our electoral law in the first place.Hon Maurice Williamson: I’ve got two words for you: Jim Anderton.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member brings up Jim Anderton. You could have put a small thermonuclear weapon under Wigram and you still would not have got rid of Jim Anderton. There was no coat-tailing involved in that. The people of Wigram loved Jim Anderton and they kept returning him. That was the situation in Wigram Maurice Williamson so please do not try to compare John Banks with the situation down in Wigram with Jim Anderton. No that is not a valid analogy to make at all.What is happening right now is that the National Party is making deals with the likes of ACT. Peter Dunne did not used to have to rely on a deal with the National Party but now he does. And of course we do not know what is going to happen with Colin Craig. Maybe Murray is going to have to give up his seat to Colin Craig to make sure National gets itself over the line. New Zealanders are sick of this. You gave them the review then you listened to what everybody had to say but you did not like it so you said: “No we’re not going to continue on with that.” even though the vast majority of New Zealanders wanted the change to happen and the National Government promised them that when the review happened changes would be made to MMP. That is what New Zealand expected. That is what New Zealand was promised. But because of its own self-interest the National Party has failed to deliver on the promise it made before the last election.I do hope that this Parliament gets the opportunity later this year to consider the bill in my name that would get rid of the coat-tailing provisions. I do hope that we get far enough through the members’ orders of the day in order to debate that before the election because I want to hear why the National Party thinks that it is the right thing to do to block the logical change that New Zealanders are asking for. We have a party vote threshold. If parties can get to that threshold they can be represented with list MPs in the House. That is what New Zealanders want to see happen. That is what is missing from this legislation. The reason it is missing is that the National Party wants to rort the electoral system in its own interests which is the same reason it is trying to suppress voter turnout with the changes that were made—