Goff Phil: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 11 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16483. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Can I endorse the comments made by my colleague Chris Hipkins because what we see in the Electoral Amendment Bill are provisions that are designed to bring more openness and integrity and transparency to the making of donations yet either the bill fails to guarantee this or National has failed to live up to the requirements under the old legislation let alone under the new legislation that is being introduced. The point of the Committee debate is to have the Minister in the chair answer questions. So questions have been raised by Chris Hipkins and I would invite Craig Foss to answer those questions. They are valid questions. They are integral to the bill that is before the Committee which is designed to bring honesty and integrity around the question of donations to parties. But there are two other questions that I would like Mr Foss to address specifically. They are quite straightforward.The first question Mr Foss is why does this bill which came into the House with specific provisions that would provide statutory underpinning for the EasyVote card that were endorsed by the Justice and Electoral Committee which did the inquiry into the 2008 election and that were endorsed by the Minister of Justice in her first reading speech—why were those provisions relating to the EasyVote card removed from this bill on the instructions of the Minister or of Cabinet to the National members of the select committee? We have had no answer to that question. The EasyVote card according to the inquiry done by the Justice and Electoral Committee had considerably improved the efficiency of election day processes. It said that there was no risk that this would facilitate dual voting because there were safeguards against dual voting. So it cannot possibly be an argument that the EasyVote provisions have been removed because they would facilitate electoral fraud.The committee made it clear that we should make the changes in this electoral bill that were recommended in the bill as introduced to this House. Then the Minister endorsed it herself. She said it was “Another important change”. That is what she called it in the first reading debate. She said that “Another important change enabled by this bill is the greater use of EasyVote cards during the voting process.” Then the Minister Judith Collins set about explaining why the EasyVote card was so important. It was a record that the ordinary vote had been cast. It allowed the cards to be used as a declaration for special votes. She said: “This new use of EasyVote cards will simplify and speed up the issuing of ordinary and special votes.” The Minister of Justice was quite straightforward when she came into the House—we needed these provisions. The provisions have gone Minister so I ask Minister Foss why those provisions have been taken out because no clear explanation has been given.In the absence of a clear explanation we must assume that the Republican Tea Party faction has started to infiltrate the thinking of the National Party. The EasyVote card as the Minister said in the first reading debate makes it easier for people to participate and it improves the efficiency of the system. Does the National Party not want more people to participate? Does the National Party realise that more people participating counts against the self-interest of that party? Is the National Party putting the self-interest of its electoral benefit ahead of the right of people and the encouragement and promotion of people to perform their civic duty of casting a vote? If that is not the explanation Minister Foss what is the explanation? Throughout the Committee stage of this House the Minister has not risen to give an explanation on that point. What is the point of having a Committee stage like this if valid questions are raised that the Minister refuses to answer?There is another question I would like the Minister to address when he takes the call and that is the question of why this bill omits any provisions relating to coat-tailing of MPs into this House by a party that fails to reach the 5 percent threshold but does get one member elected from a seat. When we introduced the MMP system in this House we set a threshold of 5 percent for a reason—that you needed to achieve that level of support to be represented in the House. Included in that was that if you had one member of Parliament elected from an electorate seat then they could get the proportion of votes that their party overall achieved translated into further MPs. That might have been well intended but what the initiators of the MMP system never imagined was that one party would rort that system to get people into this House with greater numbers than can be justified.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about Jim Anderton?Hon PHIL GOFF: I ask Nick Smith why it is so right that the ACT Party in 2008 got five members of Parliament elected on 3.65 percent of the vote and the New Zealand First Party which got more than that with 4.05 percent of the vote got no members. That destroys the principle of proportionality. That undermines the electoral system. In the referendum at the last election 58 percent of New Zealanders voted for a continuation of MMP but they voted for a continuation of MMP on the assumption that the Prime Minister would keep his word have a review of the electoral system and act on the recommendations of that review. So I ask the Minister when the independent Electoral Commission recommended that the coat-tailing provision be removed because it was rorting the system why the National Party has ignored that advice from the independent Electoral Commission.Why has it ignored constant public opinion that has consistently said that this ought to be removed? When it polled people time and again people said that the one thing that they thought was wrong about MMP was the coat-tailing provisions. Why is the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to remove coat-tailing not included in this bill? It is a fair question. It deserves an answer. I challenge the Minister in the chair not to sit there silent with his head bowed but to get up and answer the questions that are validly asked. It also rorts this parliamentary system when we have a Committee of the whole House—where the point is to go through clause by clause and to have the Minister answer questions validly raised—and when the Minister stays stuck in his seat. My challenge to the Minister is to answer those questions.How does he prevent the rort that is going on with electoral donations? These provisions in the bill do not seem to be enough to stop what the Waitematā Trust has been doing—for example giving $1.25 million each election to the National Party with no identification of the people who benefit from National Party policies being direct recipients of what is effectively a bribe by way of an election donation. It should be transparent; it should be clean.Why have the EasyVote card provisions been removed from this bill when the Minister of Justice herself said it would strengthen the democratic process? I ask why the Government has refused to act on public opinion and the independent Electoral Commission’s advice that coat-tailing should be removed and with it the likes of Rodney Hide and John Banks who take their place in this House only because they were gifted their seat by the National Party—the National Party that has rorted the system in order to maintain itself in power. It is that straightforward. It is that dirty. Those coat-tailing provisions should have been removed and Nick Smith should take the call if the Minister in the chair remains silent and he should explain why those provisions have not been included in this bill.Why does the National Party want to rort the system? Why does the National Party want to stop the EasyVote card provisions designed to encourage New Zealanders to get out and do what they ought to do which is to cast a vote to participate in the democracy to have a stake in the democracy? EasyVote card provisions were included in this bill as introduced. The National Government overrode the select committee system and instructed the National members on the Justice and Electoral Committee to take those provisions out and not a word of explanation or justification to this House was made about why they did that. Electoral law reform is special. It should be aimed to get consensus—