Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill. Why? Well let's see how many ways we can count up in a short five minutes. I'm reminded when I read the title of this bill of places like the democratic republic of North Korea. Spoiler alert: it's not democratic and sometimes when someone protests too much it turns out that what is labelled on the tin is not what is within. That's very much the case with this so-called strengthening democracy amendment bill.It does a number of things—or would if it had support from any party in this House other than the one that proposed it. It says it [enables] voters of Māori descent"—that would be me—"to change roll type at any time." So what it says is I am absolutely sincerely committed to honouring my whakapapa today but I might change tomorrow. Well there's a reasonable amendment to be made that somebody should not have to wait for seven years until there's a specified date when they can change. A person should be able to choose to change on a particular day but they shouldn't be able to change continually at any time. That is insincere it's an insult to whakapapa and it undermines faith in the democratic system because people go on a particular roll perhaps for political reasons rather than identity reasons. That is completely wrong. It says "[extend] the voting age to 16 years." Now this could be reasonably debated by different people of different views. Once upon a time it was 21; now it's 18; perhaps it could be 16. But don't let anyone doubt that the Green Party believes this is a good thing because it would introduce around about 120000 more voters who pay almost no tax but enjoy getting Government benefits—in other words more Green voters. That's the only reason they want to do it and they say it will increase participation. Well that's actually not true. What it's found is that when people are allowed to vote younger they vote more the first time they're allowed but then they vote less on their second vote. All that this change would do is bring forward the timing of that vote. It says "[remove] the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last 3 years to maintain their voting rights." Well this might not be popular with some New Zealanders overseas but frankly if you're not a tax resident then no taxation without representation doesn't apply. Those of us who are here in New Zealand under the scourge of the IRD giving away a third to half our income every year we do have an interest and a say in where this country's going. So that's wrong too."Giving all people in prison the right that vote." OK so everyone has a bundle of rights. You can't move; you can't freely associate; you get locked in a six-by-four cell. The Green Party's happy that people should be in prison but they're not allowed to take away their right to vote. Well actually that's not right. If you lose all of those other rights maybe part of the punishment is losing the right to vote periodically as well. But if the Green Party is going to campaign on increasing the rights of convicted rapists and murderers the people who aren't currently able to vote then I guess that is up to them."Implementing the Electoral Commission's 2012 MMP Review recommendations." What they want to do is say that if you win an electorate seat you have to also win at least 4 percent of the vote to get your party's proportional share. I really do need another five minutes to go through the history of how MMP was designed in Germany and what the 1986 royal commission considered in terms of the population of—Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you Madam Speaker. That was a mischaracterisation of what the bill contains. People winning electorate seats would enter Parliament under the Act so that's wrong. He could correct it or we can move forward.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That's not a valid point of order but you could continue on your remaining—DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order. I seek leave for my speech to be extended by an extra 10 minutes so I can correct the record for the member's benefit.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is absolutely an invalid point of order. You've got 55 seconds to go.DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order Madam Speaker. I have every right to seek the leave of the House. Is there any reason why you wouldn't put that leave?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That leave is put to the House. Is there any objection to that? Yes. You have 55 seconds.DAVID SEYMOUR: People at home might ask "What is it that the left are afraid of that they wouldn't give him another 10 minutes to talk?" They don't like it up 'em. And finally we find that they wanted to put a legal cap on how much a New Zealand citizen should give to a population. And you know what? The Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act said that it is inconsistent with the bill of rights to limit someone's right to give their money that they've earned to a political party to campaign for their views. This is the party that talks about democracy but doesn't follow it and then—Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order. That was again an incorrect statement of the Attorney-General's statement. The Attorney-General said that the $35000 limit suggested may breach the right not putting a limit at all on political donations.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): It's not actually a valid point of order.Golriz Ghahraman: Sorry just a factual error.DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order Madam Speaker. In all seriousness I actually would like to seek leave for another minute because the clock's been running down while I've been needlessly and pointlessly—it was running down.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): When a point of order is taken the clock is stopped.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well it actually wasn't in this instance for quite a while.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I was watching. David Seymour—16 seconds.DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order. Well actually you're supposed to take a member at their word. I just told you that I was—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): And you are also supposed to take the Chair at her word that she's been watching the clock.DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker it's gone down another second while we've been having this point of order. It was 16 before and now it's 15.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I put leave to the House that David Seymour seeks another 10 minutes—DAVID SEYMOUR: No no no. No; just one minute now. I'm being reasonable.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): One minute. David Seymour seeks one minute. Is there any objections to that? There is an objection.DAVID SEYMOUR: I make the simple point that Golriz Ghahraman in introducing this bill said colonisation had undermined democracy. Golriz Ghahraman doesn't even understand that without colonisation there would be no democracy in New Zealand. That's how it got here; that's why she's wrong about everything—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up. Before I call Jamie Strange may I just remind members that when they're taking points of order those points of order should be valid and based on actual Speakers' rulings; not just that they don't agree with the statement or the part of the speech of the previous speaker."