Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I would like to speak on six different aspects of the bill that we find objectionable in this House all referring to the same-day enrolment provisions.But let me get out of the way first as others have said on the side—for the sake of the record—that there are positive changes in this bill that we do support. Accessibility to the act of voting as part of the democratic participation that we all believe in should be encouraged to the extent that that doesn't allow the manipulation of the system and the voting. So that much we can and do support so I state that clearly up front for the record. As for the provisions relating to same-day enrolment though it's important to note the following half-dozen points—six of the best if I may say. I'll be going through each of those in turn but just setting out fairly initially: first just to understand I'll be talking about the fact that these are very different things the act of enrolment versus the act of voting for a particular political party and particular candidates; second the fact that it's currently an offence not to be enrolled but that doesn't apply to the act of voting; third that no one should be a judge in their own matter so that will go to the applicability of these rules for the 2020 election that the Government of the day is setting in place perhaps for their own benefit; fourth the effects of uncertainty caused by delay of the election result being known; fifth the breaching of conventions in the electoral law space as relevant to this particular bill; and sixth and finally the failure of the analogy that's been made by the Green member Golriz Ghahraman in relation to how this might relate to trends or phenomena in the US that she's identified.So first then on the subject of enrolment on voting day they are two different things in our electoral system. Of course there's a connection whereby it's only by being enrolled that one can vote but enrolment is an act of participation in democracy. It's an act that legitimises a citizen or other person who's entitled to vote and as such it stands alone from the particular act of voting in which one is obviously exercising one's judgment or preference at a particular place and time.This can be seen clearly in what I've observed even in my relatively short period—the couple of elections that I've stood in: one unsuccessfully; one successfully ultimately—where candidates arrive at schools and give speeches at election time often as part of a debate panel. What I think is really positive is often on these occasions we have candidates from all parties emphasising to the young people the importance of being engaged the importance of participating and exercising that right to vote whoever they might vote for. Of course each of the candidates takes the opportunity to seek the party vote and the electorate vote for themselves but that's almost secondary to the very responsible message that's often given to young people simply to get involved to be enrolled and to vote and to participate in whatever way in terms of voting preference they might choose.This then takes me to my second point which I alluded to before in passing which is that it's an offence not to be enrolled in New Zealand but it's not an offence not to vote—whereas obviously in other countries that is the case. But here in New Zealand it's a choice that we have to turn up to the ballot box or not as we wish but to be enrolled is to be a participatory member of the democracy in which we live and it allows for example for voting in referenda and in local government elections and so on at times other than in general elections for the Parliament.So in fact implicitly counterintuitive as it might seem it is encouraging non-compliance with this law—this requirement that actually applies to us all all the time to be enrolled to be on the electoral roll—and so for a whole three years within a term other than election day itself this is something that we need to do.We have by my calculation roughly speaking 1094 days in which we can do that currently and one day in which we cannot. For the sake of spelling out my back-of-the-envelope calculation that would be exactly three years between elections not including leap years and so forth. So anyway the point is really that it's about 1000 days that you can enrol to vote and only one that you can't. So to be encouraging those who can't be bothered to enrol to vote on 1000 days why they should be able to rock up on the last day and complicate things for everyone else seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Government is proposing.My third point is about the fact that it's proposed these changes will come into effect for the 2020 election. So it's the Government of the day setting rules that will apply to itself in a way that enables them to—well I would characterise it as an unseemly rush by an unholy alliance. Others might quibble on the characterisation of that but—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for the House to adjourn for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 this evening.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CHRIS PENK: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I resume my call on the Electoral Amendment Bill. For your benefit Madam Speaker and any of those who weren't glued to their television immediately prior to the dinner break I'll just recap by saying briefly if I may that first of all we support most of the provisions of the bill—certainly those that make sensible amendments to allow greater accessibility and my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has outlined those leading the charge on this side of the House. There's some pretty sensible stuff around voting places and so forth. But what I did set out before the dinner break was some areas in which we have reservations to put it mildly regarding the enrolment on voting day provision. I touched briefly on the difference between the act of enrolment versus the act of voting—one being a democratic right and indeed responsibility as a matter of course for which there are a thousand days available roughly speaking between elections as opposed to the one day on which you can't currently enrol.I was just getting on to the matter of how a person shouldn't be the judge in their own cause. In this country we tend to like rugby analogies so we talk about the screwing of the scrum" but once upon a time I suppose you might have said in Latin: nemo iudex in causa sua—no one should be the judge in his or her own cause. So it is that we've got the Government of the day today this Government setting in place rules that will apply in seeking its own re-election effectively—the cynics might say—as well as setting out the rules of the game by which all players must play. My next point was around the uncertainty and the delay that will be generated following election day itself by the need for the processing of enrolments as well as the processing—that is the counting—of votes. So a further 10 days following the election we understand from official advice will be caused by such a move. The practical effects of that in terms of uncertainty and confidence of the nation have been spelt out including by the Hon Tim Macindoe to which I would add that anything that gives the public less confidence in MMP than it already enjoys in particular around the predictability or otherwise of election results is no good thing and we should tread very carefully lest we further erode confidence in our democratic institutions and systems. My final two points regard the breaching of electoral law conventions in the sense of having the Opposition buy-in. That's not just a convention for its own sake—it's sort of a constitutional nicety—but rather a very practical measure that's likely when observed to ensure that law going forward that operates to the benefit ultimately of all the people in the democracy and all the parties as well will be robust and remain in place for elections and generations to come rather than being the plaything of one Government of the day and leaving open the possibility that the next Government or the next Parliament I suppose in three years' time would have a different view altogether and so we would end up with a regime changing in respect of electoral law every three or six or nine years as the case may be. Finally on a slightly lighter note the Green Party speaker on the bill so far has talked about voter suppression tactics in the US rather darkly. But I'd say that the analogy with the United States of America is not apt. That is a country that thinks that baseball is an interesting sport thinks that Pop-Tarts are a nutritious or delicious food—I'd probably take issue with even the "food" bit let alone the "delicious" bit—and that the word "aluminium" has only four syllables. So we can't rely on looking overseas to the US for trends in informing our own electoral conventions. We have those already. We have a good democracy. We shouldn't trifle with it in this way Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran."