Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Tēnā koe as well to Tim Macindoe who's just taken his seat. I'm very happy to have assisted in avoiding what could've been an international incident. Very proud—stoked—on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to be standing today in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. There's nothing quite like a piece of legislation like this which talks about the rights and freedoms in this country to really elevate the blood pressure and get both sides yelling at each other so here's hoping I can bring some profound earnestness to this debate.I want to just really clarify or actually dig into and fact-check the statement that's been made by a number of National Party MPs on this legislation or pertaining to this legislation because it goes broader; it's about enfranchisement of voters in this country. They've spoken about how in every single piece of legislation which impacts the ability of New Zealanders to vote they have utilised the constitutional precedent of extending the kind of olive wreath across the political aisle and seeking to build consensus. They however didn't do that when they disenfranchised prisoners and revoked their right to vote while they were in Government and did so on a slim governmental majority. So I just want to fact-check that because in that moment where they disenfranchised New Zealanders they didn't seek parliamentary consensus. What we're seeking to do here with the Electoral Amendment Bill is enfranchise more New Zealanders and they are disagreeing to that—so interesting contrast there.Just to clarify for those who may be attempting to follow the debate at home—it's probably been a bit difficult given all of the yelling back and forth but there are three key things that this legislation does. I really want to commend Minister Andrew Little for the work that he's done to get this moving because it is really exciting. It also notes on the point that I just raised earlier around prisoner voting rights—reading through the select committee report from the Justice Committee it's been highlighted by Government members that a number of submitters spoke about the need to re-enfranchise prisoners and it was Minister Little in working with our colleague in the Greens Golriz Ghahraman and New Zealand First who worked to reinstate prisoner voting rights for those who are serving a term of less than three years which I'd note actually went explicitly in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and the National Party knew that—on the advice of the Attorney-General when they decided to move to revoke it.Moving now to the content of the Electoral Amendment Bill there are three core things that this legislation does which you might not have derived from the screeching across the House. They are quite simple measures that I think will profoundly make a difference to people's ability to participate in our democracy. The first is to enable election day enrolment and that is to also require the extension of the period for return of the writ. That was the kind of back and forth that you heard from my colleague Darroch Ball who was making the point that it is quite an interesting if not bizarre position for the National Party to take that they don't quite agree with the trade-off that to empower approximately 19000 more New Zealanders the ability to vote—they're not quite happy to trade off another 10 days of certainty in the returning of those writs.So too there is the ability inherent in this legislation to enable supermarkets and malls to be used as voting places. That's a really exciting development and I'd note based on my read of the National Party view from the Justice Committee something that they actually agree with. So I think that thankfully there is some consensus on that point at least and that bodes well for our democracy that we want more places where people can engage.Then finally the third and final thing in this legislation—it's another thing which the National Party agree with based on their report—is to make provision for what is to occur in the advent of an emergency and what happens to the election and the voting and everything contained around those circumstances. That's something which the Nats agree with too.So the real argy-bargy is on the ability for people to enrol to vote on the same day. I just want to touch on what has been raised by the National Party in their view—not their minority view given that it is a split committee but in their view from the Justice Committee—because I wasn't quite able to discern what they were saying in their numerous contributions because indeed it seemed to spill over into other political issues of the day. There are three reasons that they have given in this Justice Committee report to opposing that ability for same-day enrolment and the first is—and I quote—[the] balancing of the objective of maximising participation with concluding the election efficiently." Fast-forwarding through that point (1) they say "We do not believe that 99 percent of voters who did enrol should face the cost and uncertainty of delay for less than 1 percent who did not bother to enrol." I think that's kind of lacking in empathy. There are a number of reasons that people face in their day-to-day lives. For both sides of this House who regularly talk about the day-to-day struggles that people are facing and how you know we should give people a little bit of slack to make decisions about their own lives and how we need to streamline processes I would've thought that the party that talks about being the one of consumer choice and freedoms would be on board with this move. So I find that a perverse or interesting rationale.The second is they're saying "There will be no incentive or need to enrol if people know … anyone can vote without enrolment." Again an interesting kind of tautology there but I think it doesn't quite fit the muster in terms of the trade-off that we're thinking about here. It's that 10-days extension for the 19000 extra New Zealanders having the ability to vote.The third point that they raise is also quite confusing. They say—and I quote—"(3) Candidates are required to register well in advance of the election so that voters have time to get to know them." That makes sense; I think that's something all of us can agree on. But then they go on to say—and I quote—"It is reasonable that candidates know who the enrolled voters are so they can communicate with them on their ideas values and policies." Interesting. I think that it's really critical that all of us in seeking to be elected into this place in Parliament and representing the people of this country go out there and talk to everybody not just those who are over the age of 18 but also to children which I know a number of us in this place do at school visits and otherwise.So I think really the Opposition's opposition to this legislation is nothing more than a bit of politicking kind of providing a platform for yelling. I think that we deserve a bit better than that; so the Green Party is proud to support this legislation and move on greater enfranchisement for the people in this country. Kia ora."