Lees-Galloway Iain: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Labour supports the Electoral Amendment Bill 2013 or 2014 as it will be now even though we share some of the misgivings expressed by Denis O’Rourke the member from New Zealand First. I will come back to that shortly. To just briefly touch on our views on what is in this bill the bill primarily focuses on implementing the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election which will help future elections run smoothly and adapt to changes in technology such as online enrolment which is something we think is a positive step.We are very supportive of the adoption of rules around giving loans to fund political parties and of bringing those rules in line with the rules that cover donations. That means that parties will have to disclose the details of every loan exceeding $15000 a year. It is a little odd though that that rule does not extend to loans that political parties may raise from a bank. It may seem like that is quite an innocuous thing to do for a political party to take a loan from a bank. There is no suggestion at all that there is anything improper about a political party raising a loan from a bank. But what really is the difference between raising a loan from a corporate as opposed to raising a loan from an individual is that it seems strange to have rules requiring political parties to declare loans from individuals but not to declare loans from corporates. I would compare this with what members have to do with our pecuniary interests. We are required to declare mortgages that we have with the bank. My mortgage with Westpac is on the public record. There is no suggestion at all that Westpac expects any kickbacks from me as a member of Parliament because it gave me—Hon Maryan Street: They raise a lot of interest.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It does raise a lot of interest off me as it does with other members of the House as well. There is no suggestion of improper practice. But for the sake of completion for the sake of ensuring that everybody is treated fairly and with the same set of rules members have to declare loans that they have with banks—money that they owe to banks. Equally I think political parties should have to declare money that they owe to banks as well. It just seems like the sensible thing to do.We have talked about our concerns with the EasyVote card. I think what we have seen here today in its own quiet way is the parliamentary process in practice. The whole point of having a first reading a select committee hearing a second reading a Committee stage and a third reading is that we go through the issues over and over again and sometimes we bring fresh eyes to an issue and become alert to concerns that may not have previously been raised. That is what has happened in this instance where the Labour Party has taken another look at the issue of not widening the use of the EasyVote card and the issue of requiring people to make a verbal statement when they present their EasyVote card. We see this as potentially being something that will present a barrier to people participating in elections.In no way do we suggest that there is any great conspiracy here to stop people participating but we think that could be an unintended consequence of that move. We so often hear of genuine conspiracies in the United States—in particular from the political right changing the rules to put barriers up to people participating in the electoral process. It is often done in the name of reducing electoral fraud. There is no evidence of electoral fraud widespread or narrowly focused in New Zealand. I think it is a spurious argument to suggest that these measures will create a situation where electoral fraud can be entered into. So we do ask that Parliament look at this. We ask that we all work together to build a consensus given the new information and the new perspective that the Labour Party is offering.A number of members who have spoken before me have noted that there are aspects of electoral law that need changing that are not included in this legislation. The aspect that we would like to see included in this is a proper consideration of the recommendations of the Electoral Commission’s review of MMP. What we need to do is build a consensus. I agree with Judith Collins when she says that the best way to progress electoral law is by consensus. After the MMP review recommendations were published Judith Collins wrote to all political party leaders seeking their views on those recommendations. The political party leaders wrote back expecting that she would use that information as a starting point to build a consensus around how we should take those recommendations forward. However Judith Collins stopped at that point. She blocked any progress on introducing reforms that New Zealanders want to see—in particular the abolishment of the one-seat threshold the coat-tailing provision that allows political parties to do stitch-ups and to do dodgy deals in order to enhance the number of votes that their coalition can gain in Parliament. New Zealanders are sick of it and they want to see it end.Labour responded to Judith Collins’ refusal to seek consensus by introducing our own legislation. Our legislation proposes to implement three of the recommendations of the MMP review. Today I wish to extend this offer to all political parties: should you vote in favour of Labour’s Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill at its first reading we will seek that the select committee consider all recommendations of the MMP review—all 10 recommendations seven of which require legislative change. That is our offer to all political parties in order to seek consensus around these issues.There is very clear consensus out in the public. Seventy-one percent of New Zealanders want to see the end of the coat-tailing provisions. Just 13 percent support their retention. New Zealanders have spoken. The consensus is clear. Parliament risks appearing both arrogant and out of touch if its members do not listen to what New Zealanders want so we must work together to reach a consensus. If we take our bill to the select committee and open it up so that all 10 recommendations of the Electoral Commission’s review can be considered then all political parties can get around thatselect committee table listen again to what the public has to say and work together to reach a consensus that is in the interests of a robust electoral process that has integrity. The situation we have at the moment is not good enough. We have political parties blocking the will of the people in order to pursue their own self-interests. That is not the way to make electoral law. There is no consensus around the status quo. There is a consensus amongst the public that the one-seat threshold has to go.Today Labour is offering a way forward. There are recommendations that have come out of that review that we do not agree with but we want to put them on the table and we want to work with the other parties. That was the opportunity that Judith Collins did not give us and did not give New Zealanders. It is an opportunity that broke a promise frankly. New Zealanders voted in the MMP referendum believing that if they voted to retain MMP then the changes at the margins that they sought would be pursued. That is what the National Government told them was going to happen when it established the referendum and that is what it told New Zealanders was going to happen when it held the review. It broke that promise when it blocked any progress on implementing those recommendations. There is a way forward. Labour wants to work with all political parties in the best interests of New Zealanders and in the interests of an electoral system that has integrity.