Turei Metiria: Electoral Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 04 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16312. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): This is just a short call on behalf of Holly Walker who is managing this Electoral Amendment Bill for the Greens. I just want to advise the Committee and the public that the Green Party generally supports this bill. We were active and constructive contributors to the select committee inquiry in 2011 that provided the recommendations for the basis of this bill and we certainly commit to working for consensus to modernise and improve the electoral arrangements.We have two concerns about this bill that has come back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. One of them is that it has come back without the clauses to modernise the use of the EasyVote card and with a new rule requiring voters to verbally identify themselves when they vote. My colleague Holly Walker has a Supplementary Order Paper 420 to reinstate the clauses around the EasyVote card and I do ask that members carefully consider that change.It is worth outlining some of the history here. Members will be familiar with the EasyVote card that was used at the last election. It is not an ID card; it is a tool designed to make voting easier. It includes the name and address of the voter and the page and the line number on which the voter’s name appears on the electoral roll. That makes it easier for the voting place staff to issue the ballot papers. Voters take the little card to the polling booth. They hand it to the staff member who is able to more quickly find them on the electoral roll and issue their voting papers. Those cards are then collected and destroyed. If a voter turns up without such a card the staff can still manually find them on the electoral roll. They do not need ID to vote. They do not need the EasyVote card to vote but it does help the process.The Electoral Commission has said that it would like to use the EasyVote card as a record that someone has cast their vote. It would like to add ascannable code to the EasyVote card so that voters’ names can be electronically crossed off the master roll instead of being manually collated and then crossed off later. This the Electoral Commission has said would improve the speed and accuracy of electoral administration and make things considerably easier for the Electoral Commission and its staff on election day.This matter was raised in 2011 and the Electoral Commission has recommended changes to Part 6 of the Electoral Act to allow forscannable EasyVote cards. The committee agreed I understand to these recommendations and the changes and they were originally included in the bill but they have been removed by that same select committee that originally agreed to them.Holly Walker was not present for the select committee discussions but she understands that members may have become concerned that somehow the provisions would make it easier to use the EasyVote card and therefore easier to commit electoral fraud. It is very unclear as to what the basis for that was or the evidence for it.Andrew Little: It was never justified.METIRIA TUREI: That is right. The committee’s report says that “We consider that the proposed provision for a new process known operationally as EasyVote Express would … lower the threshold for casting a vote increasing the potential for fraud” but there was no real evidence provided to the select committee as to how that would work.Electoral fraud is serious. We need to be concerned about that but there is nothing about the proposals from the Electoral Commission that would increase the risk of electoral fraud so it is hard to understand why these provisions have been taken out. We have been very concerned that the clauses have been removed on the basis of a misapprehension about increased risk—one not borne out by reality—and that deleting these clauses has meant a missed opportunity to streamline the election day process and it will disrupt the Electoral Commission’s own planning for the 2014 election. We think that is a shame and therefore we have Supplementary Order Paper 420 to reinstate those clauses.We also would then ask members of the Committee to reconsider the provision new clause 24 that requires voters to verbally confirm their identity in the polling booth. We know from some years’ experience now how easy it is to dismiss or misunderstand the needs of voters who have disabilities and how difficult it is for voters with disabilities to access the electoral system. This provision requiring verbal confirmation of their identity will for many New Zealanders with significant disabilities mean it could exclude them from voting and could make it impossible for them to vote. For many many voters with speech impairments or with hearing impairments it will be difficult nigh impossible to comply with this legal requirement.There was a flippant comment made that people in this situation—with a disability like this who are unable to verbally confirm their identity—would somehow be able touse some kind of gesture to make it clear that it is them. What kind of gesture might be considered to be both adequate and respectful in those circumstances one wonders? But most important there is a significant number of New Zealanders with serious disabilities for whom it would make it impossible for them to comply with the law whether verbally or by some gesture and therefore those New Zealanders will be excluded from voting under this law. They physically will not be able to vote.It cannot be the intention of the select committee or the Minister or the Government to deliberately and knowingly exclude a significant number of New Zealanders with disabilities from being able to vote in the polling booths. For these reasons the Greens are supporting Maryan Street’s Supplementary Order Paper 416 to amend the provision and to fix the situation I understand because it simply cannot be the will of this Parliament to deliberately exclude members of the public who have disabilities.My colleague Mojo Mathers also has Supplementary Order Paper 412 on this bill which would extend the regulation-making power of the Electoral Act in section 170(6) to “make provision for electors who are wholly or partially blind” to also apply to electors who are unable to read or write or who have severe difficulty reading or writing to be able to vote without assistance. Currently the wording of the Act makes provisions only for electors who are wholly or partially blind. It does not extend these provisions to other voters who are unable to vote without assistance. This issue was drawn to the attention of the select committee I understand by the Human Rights Commission if I have got that right which was very concerned about the inconsistency here.The right to vote without assistance to vote in elections independently and to have access to the secret ballot that every other voter has access to is considered to be one of the most fundamental of all human rights in an open democracy such as ours where the secret ballot is at the core of our voting system. It is protected by article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Section 170 of the Electoral Act does allow voters with disabilities to vote with assistance if needed but this requires the disabled voter to disclose their voting preference to someone else which is a breach of their right to a secret vote. That is a right that every other New Zealander has. So this Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Mojo Mathers would make provision for electors to vote without assistance and therefore allow them the right to a secret vote like everyone else. This is a fundamental right that everyone deserves whether they do or do not have a disability.I urge Parliament members of this Committee and the Government in particular to support these Supplementary Order Papers to make these changes. It has been important for this Parliament and for the public to note with the election of Mojo Mathers as the first New Zealand deaf parliamentarian and one with a serious disability the extent to which people with disabilities are excluded from our democracy our Parliament and our electoral system simply by oversight—by not understanding the realities of those who live with disabilities every day. We do not want to be in a situation where in a progressive 21st century Parliament we are in the situation of making it difficult or indeed impossible for people with disabilities to engage in our democratic process—quite the opposite. We should be opening our process to be as inclusive as possible. We have access to all the information we need to understand the needs of voters with disabilities. We should be responding to those needs as a Parliament. Thank you.