Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill Part 1. I intend to request a reasonably fine examination of the part—fine" in the sense of a fine-tooth comb not necessarily fine in any other sense. I'll do my best.The particular matters we're talking about and I'll just say this by way of a prelude—not an apology exactly but by way of explanation for the detail with which I'll be interrogating the provisions which is to say that the area of electoral law is so important that the detail really matters and can be contentious. It's almost like a meta-law: it's the law that enables people to come to this place to make other laws.Passing then to the detail of what I'd like to raise with the committee of the whole House in clause 6 amending section 88 of the Electoral Act we see the bill talking about applications received after issue of writ. That's the scenario where newly under this bill we will have a situation whereby people can enrol to be electors and also cast their vote essentially on polling day as well as up to that time. But I note that in replacement section 88(1)(a) that's not the case on polling day from a person outside New Zealand. Bearing in mind that we're talking about someone who is eligible to vote in the election notwithstanding that they are outside New Zealand I wonder what the thinking is behind the policy whereby we would preclude those who are outside New Zealand from enrolling to vote but we would say at the same time that none the less if they were already enrolled to vote they could cast their vote from outside New Zealand.If I've misunderstood that point then obviously I'd be grateful for the clarification or indeed correction but I would certainly be grateful to know the reasoning behind that if my question is sort of founded on a correct assumption. On a related point the polling day that's referred to in that same provision—I just want clarity if I may as to whether the polling day is measured as the calendar day for example Saturday 19 September 2020 as it will be on this occasion or perhaps it'll be the time that the polls are open on that day whether that be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or whatever is standard. I don't know off the top of my head but no doubt the officials or someone else with access to Google will be able to find out what is standard in that regard. It's probably an obvious enough point that we're talking about New Zealand standard time when we talk about the polling day although I will note if we're discussing the situation of voters or would-be voters from outside New Zealand that it's our time zone and not the same calendar day but for example in the United States some full day behind almost that that would apply. Remaining within that same subsection—but just looking probably more out of interest than anything—we've got "a person" and then we've got "any person" in those paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively. I don't think that's probably intended to be a meaningful distinction but if anyone can tell me otherwise then again I'll be grateful for the information. Moving then to the next aspect of clause 6 and its subclause 3. What we've got there is the replacement of section 88(3)(c) within the Act and that's the scenario basically where "the person may … (i) be issued with a ballot paper" or a special vote ballot paper according to the circumstances that are set out. I'm just interested—again perhaps from a linguistic perspective as much as anything—that it says that they "may" be issued with a ballot paper. Elsewhere we have the active voice used—it talks about for example in the provision I was discussing before that it's the Electoral Commission that may or may not do certain things and here we've just got that the person "may … (i) be issued with". I presume it would be the Electoral Commission that would be doing the issuing but the construction of that sentence doesn't specify exactly who would be doing that. So I don't know if that's a deliberate piece of drafting or if it's just intended that it might be—perhaps it could be issued by any one of a number of different authorities. Finally within this contribution—but actually I wouldn't mind continuing; I've got a couple more other similarly interesting points. In subsection 4—again within this section 88 of what is currently the Act—we hear that if a person who is present in New Zealand applies on polling day for registration then certain things apply. So my question is why a person would need to be present in New Zealand for that to apply? It's a similar point that I was making in relation to applying to be on the electoral roll from overseas. I wonder why it is that a person must be physically present in New Zealand when after all one can transmit a vote remotely. Then actually again a similar point to that raised before—we've got that in that circumstance the Electoral Commission "(a) may issue the person with a special [voting] paper;" but "must" if they subsequently determine that the person is qualified to be registered etc. "enter the name on the electoral roll." I would have thought that it would be a matter of compulsion in both cases so that the Electoral Commission if these various situations apply should issue the special vote ballot paper and then enter the name on the electoral roll. So I would have thought that the word "must" would be appropriate in both cases and not in just one of those. But again happy to be corrected or given some guidance from the chair or elsewhere in the Chamber and that would be helpful indeed. While I'm on my feet and with some time remaining—Kieran McAnulty: Oh not more. CHRIS PENK: —and to the delight of Kieran McAnulty as always. He's ducking down I wasn't sure if you were in fact ducking down or just—no I won't. At clause 8 we were looking at the amendment of section 99 within the Act "Notice of alterations to roll". We see there that the name of a person can be removed or entered on the roll; different situations in which that would be entirely reasonable. We see then that that notification of that must be delivered to the person immediately either personally or sent by post. I wonder how strictly the Minister of Justice would envisage the word "immediately" to be interpreted. That's a pretty high standard in this day especially of non-immediate post or I should say not regular daily post necessarily. I suppose in the context of electoral law talking about the time that someone can register to vote and have a vote counted perhaps if there's some sort of final date by which that might be advised. So "immediately" in that context might mean by the date of the return of the writ or the date of the announcement of provisional results or whatever. So any guidance that can be given from the chair on that aspect would also be gratefully received. Heading back a bit further up in Part 1 looking at clause 5 that's the amendment of section 83 within the Act that's the "Application for registration". Again we've got the Electoral Commission being given discretion to treat a special vote declaration as an application for registration. Notwithstanding the fine reputation that the Electoral Commission have—and certainly not casting doubt on their use of such discretion—it seems to me that it's entirely unnecessary for them to be given that discretion. We would hope that the criteria that are set out at 3A(a) and (b)—that they would simply follow through and do those things that are prescribed in that. A couple of questions regarding that in the remaining minute and a half—the form that's approved by the Electoral Commission for use as an application for registration I envisage presumably that this would be a form approved in advance but actually it doesn't specify that. I presume again but don't know—and the officials may know if the Minister himself doesn't readily—whether it would be standard to have that approved form published in advance on a website so that it's available to all to know as opposed to a situation whereby a person might complete their declaration in a form that's not approved but subsequently is deemed to be acceptable. Then finally looking at the formal requirements for the declaration to be made certain details need to be filled in. That's fine; we can look at the cross references for that and then that form must be signed. Whether it must also be signed by a witness is not clear from this particular provision. It might be clear elsewhere it might not. Indeed that's probably knowable by a bit of research but not having done that—and in any case thinking that in the committee stage it's helpful to have clarity in these matters for the benefit of those who will be applying the system later on—I request the Minister to turn his mind to that. If there's any advice he can give the committee of the whole House in that respect as well it would also be very gratefully received."