Electoral Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeElectoral Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13422. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Electoral Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The New Zealand electoral system has a high level of integrity. One reason for this is that we have regular reviews of electoral laws and practices. These reviews ensure that lessons are learnt from previous elections. They also ensure that electoral law and practices are modernised to reflect evolving technology and changing social expectations. The Justice and Electoral Committee carries out an inquiry after every general election. This inquiry looks into how the election was conducted and the relevant statutory and regulatory framework. Recommendations are then made to the Government on improvements for future elections. The select committee undertook its inquiry between March 2012 and April this year. I thank the select committee for its hard work and deliberation.I would also like to thank all those who made submissions. The select committee received 49 written submissions and heard 16 oral submissions. On 30 April the select committee released its report. The report is thorough and includes recommendations on a range of electoral issues. I am pleased to see that there is a high degree of consensus amongst members. When the Government responded to the select committee report in July we set out our approach to the recommendations. One recommendation has already been addressed through recent changes to the Electoral Regulations. Seven recommendations do not require law changes and the Government will work with the Electoral Commission as appropriate to action these. The remaining recommendations require legislative change and the Government has carefully considered them. The Electoral Amendment Bill is a result of these deliberations.The bill implements 11 of the select committee’s recommendations which can be practically implemented in time for the next election. Recommendations that require more significant policy development have not been included in this bill and will be considered in the future. Having a select committee inquiry into each election allows for a multiparty approach to electoral reform. In this spirit I look forward to working constructively with other political parties on this bill. By implementing 11 of the select committee’s recommendations the Electoral Amendment Bill will update our electoral law and improve the already strong integrity of our electoral system. The bill will improve services to voters candidates and parties. It will improve efficiency through greater use of technology. The bill will simplify and clarify existing provisions of the Electoral Act.I would like to briefly touch on two specific changes that the bill makes. The bill provides for full online enrolment. New and existing electors will be able to enrol or update their details online usingRealMe the Government’s electronic identity verification service. Paper-based methods of enrolment will continue to be available for those who prefer to enrol in this way. By giving people the choice to enrol fully online this bill responds to New Zealanders’ expectations that they will be able to complete most of their transactions with Government electronically.Another important change enabled by this bill is the greater use ofEasyVote cards during the voting process.EasyVote cards are currently used to assist election day workers find voters’ page and line numbers in the electoral roll. This bill will enableEasyVote cards to be used as a record that an ordinary vote has been cast. It will also allow the cards to be used instead of a declaration form for special voters. This new use ofEasyVote cards will simplify and speed up the issuing of ordinary and special votes. It will also make the scrutinising of the rolls that occurs during the election countingprocess more accurate and efficient. In addition to implementing 11 of the select committee’s recommendations the bill also makes some other minor changes. These clarify current provisions and correct minor incorrect references in the Electoral Act. Some of these reflect recent minor changes to the Local Electoral Act 2001.This bill should be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The select committee process is very important and I encourage members of the public to make their views on the bill known to the select committee. I hope that the select committee will be able to report back by the end of this year. It is important that the Electoral Commission has enough time before the 2014 general election to implement changes. The changes made through this bill will have a positive impact on the administration of future elections. The bill will enhance the integrity of our electoral system and will ensure the law remains relevant for next year’s election and beyond. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill and I just say what a disappointment it is that barely a year before the next general election—possibly even less—we are now considering the barest and the smallest number of possible changes that could be considered and made to the Electoral Act. I think it shows a level of laziness in the Minister of Justice Judith Collins that I think we have not seen in a Minister of Justice for a long long time.A Minister of Justice who was very concerned about real change to electoral law would have got on to it more smartly and would have ensured that we have an electoral law that not only reflects the issues that arose out of the last election but reflects popular demand for real change in particular to our MMP system. A concerned Minister of Justice would have done so in a time frame that allowed good public debate and good public input at the parliamentary level so that we would be debating substantial changes in response to the growing public demand for change to our system.As it is at the moment what we have got in this bill are the barest of changes made to reflect only some of the concerns that arose out of the review conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee. There was of course another report prepared by the Electoral Commission which talked about other changes that might also be considered particularly in relation to MMP. So what have we got in this bill? Well we have got the giant leap forward towards electoral enrolment. I mean this is hardly leaping with great strides into a new age of electoral management. This is not a huge leap in terms of technology. It will create some efficiencies for some people and it will be much more convenient to that proportion of the population that is online but of course there will also be some who will want to continue to send in their paper forms and make their changes in a manual sort of way.So we have got electronic enrolment. We have got some technical changes about would you believe logo registrations. That is very important of course because we do not want party logos copying each other. Of course the silver fern has become a popular theme in some party logos and in Labour’s as well. It has become very popular. So we are now getting logo registration sorted out. That is very important when it comes to public demand for electoral law change. We have got a slightly changed penalty regime for general election candidates who either get their election returns in late or not at all. So the level of penalty has not changed but there is some modification to the way it is imposed.There is an interesting new change when it comes to party returns and in particular the requirement that any loans made to political parties whether in an election year or not are now the subject of a return to the Electoral Commission. We understand that in our election law arrangements where there are loans at concessionary rates from friendly people corporations or whatever these sorts of things should be disclosed as amatter of transparency in the conduct of elections. But there is an exemption in the bill for loans made by registered banks to political parties. It is understood that these would be at commercial rates—well the bill presumes that these would be at commercial rates—so there is a question about why any other loan on fully commercial terms would not also be exempt.I have to raise one concern that Labour has which is that although not objecting to the idea in principle of disclosing loans made there is an issue about just the level of detail required including reporting on the balance of any loan entered into from one year to the next. The question is whether that is necessary in terms of transparency for political parties when it comes to our election law arrangements.Then there is a very peculiar provision in this bill and it relates to what happens on election day. It is the law relating to promoting a party or influencing voters on election day. Up until now under section 197 of the existing Electoral Act it has been possible for cars doing election day work for a political party to be adorned with the party colours of that party. So it would be a red ribbon for Labour a green ribbon for the Greens and black and silver for New Zealand First perhaps—I do not know what Brendan Horan’s car will have if indeed he has one—and the National Party will no doubt have blue ribbons—Iain Lees-Galloway: Pink budgie smugglers.ANDREW LITTLE: It might be a pair of budgie smugglers dangling from his car aerial—we do not know but we will see it in the next election—or floating around Tauranga. That is the law at the moment. It seems to work quite satisfactorily. Party activists—and let us face it the Labour Party has a lot of them—as they go about doing their election day activities—Iain Lees-Galloway: Even more now.ANDREW LITTLE: Well they are streaming in by the thousands I am happy to report. They are streaming in by the thousands. The email traffic to every MP and every branch chair of the Labour Party has never been greater as people are lining up ready to participate in the great election rout of 2014. All those activists are keen to wear their party colours. There will be a clean out in New Plymouth. I can feel it now in my bones. All the activists will be turning up. They will want to wear their rosettes on election day as they are used to doing. But this law this bill says that they will not be allowed to and we know why—we know why. When I was party president I drove around the Auckland electorates one election and then I drove around the New Plymouth electorate in 2011. Not a single car was adorned with a blue thing on it. Not even the blue cars had blue things on them. There was not a single car with a blue ribbon a blue rosette or anything on it. But the Labour Party activists of New Plymouth and Taranaki were out in their numbers and there are going to be more of them.But this bill this National Party bill outlaws the wearing of rosettes and party ribbons on election day for those doing legitimate election activity by knocking on doors and doing those sorts of things. Why? Why would National do that? Because National members do not want people to see just how poorly organised and how lacking in support they are. They can get the big cheques from the corporates—it is very easy. You just do a deal with a casino. You do a deal with a telecommunications utility company. You can do all that but you cannot get the party activists out on election day wearing their rosettes.This bill overturns what has been a longstanding provision in our electoral law—that it is perfectly legitimate to wear your party colours on election day. That is very disappointing—very disappointing—and it should not be that way. It should not be that way—and it is only because the army of supporters that Labour has every election day gets out there and is an embarrassment to parties like the National Party.I want to comment on one other thing. [Interruption] Oh yes the growing numbers of jobless in New Plymouth are all lining up to join the Labour Party because they want their jobs back. They want their jobs back in New Plymouth. At Fletcher Construction 37 redundancies were announced just on the weekend. People are lining up to join the Labour Party because they know where their jobs are and that is with a thriving Labour Government doing good things with good businesses for good people.I want to make one comment before I resume my seat because members will be concerned about this. This bill was an opportunity to do something meaningful to meet the long-demanded change that the public of New Zealand have wanted and that is to change the threshold laws of MMP and to change the 5 percent threshold to 4 percent take away the one seat threshold and have a fair MMP system. The Electoral Commission recommended it and what did the lazy Minister of Justice do? She did nothing about it. She waited till the other political parties came to her and then she said that there is no consensus. There was only one party that was refusing to agree and that was her own. Her own party refused to agree to it. Then she said that there is no consensus. It is very disappointing.This was a bill to do something interesting and good for MMP and the New Zealand electoral system and that opportunity has been lost. Nevertheless we will support this bill and examine it closely at the select committee. We will have a look closely at the ribbon arrangements and the loan reporting arrangements and make sure that this is another piece of electoral law that is fit for New Zealand supported by New Zealand and good for the administration of New Zealand elections. And then when Labour gets elected we will change those MMP thresholds.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is always interesting following that member Andrew Little because his new leader has issued the caucus of the Labour Party a challenge and that is to get on the train. “Get on the train.” the new leader of the Labour Party says—get on the train. What I am interested to know is whether the train will have rosettes and ribbons on it or not and if so whether that member will be on the train because we were very unsure about what train he was on if any following that speech.It is a great pleasure to stand in support of this Electoral Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Judith Collins Minister of Justice. As chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee I had the great privilege and pleasure of guiding to fruition the work of our committee’s inquiry which was commenced by my predecessor the very capable and hard-working member for Hamilton East Tim Macindoe—Tim Macindoe: West.SCOTT SIMPSON: West. Are you West? Are you West or are you East?Tim Macindoe: West.SCOTT SIMPSON: Well you are the very good junior whip and at least we still have you as a junior whip so there you go. The work was started by Tim Macindoe in his time as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I have got to say that the committee’s work—certainly the portion that I was involved with—was very constructive. It was fulfilling. We heard from a number of submitters who I thought made particularly good points.But what was interesting to me is that really this process of having an inquiry after each general election conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee is a good process. It is a process that encourages participation and sound faith in our democratic institutions of our electoral system. New Zealand as far as I am aware is one of only nine countries in the world that has an unbroken democratic tradition going back more than 150 years and New Zealanders can be rightly proud of the basis upon which we conduct our elections. We sometimes fight those elections very passionately withvigour with great excitement and indeed with a lot of energy but as a nation we are accepting of the outcome. We do not get involved in all the corrupt activities that we see in some places in the world. We do not have violence. We do not have criminal activity. We can be pretty proud of the process.I was pleased as chairman of the select committee to receive a very prompt response from the Minister to our recommendations. I think this is a Minister who has moved very quickly to enact in this piece of legislation the 11 recommendations which are easily achieved so that they can be in place before the next election in 2014. They are all matters that will enhance and add value to our electoral system even those matters that the member Andrew Little was so scathing about which were to do with ribbons and rosettes and what have you which in places around the country have from time to time been used in an intimidatory fashion by some political parties. We will be able to ensure that the good people of South Auckland are not having busloads of KFC - bearing Labour Party supporters wearing ribbons and rosettes descending upon them and escorting them to the election booth.We will have a more enhanced electoral system as a result of this piece of legislation working its way through the House. I think that as the select committee considers the provisions of the bill we will find that we will make good progress. I am confident that the committee will continue to work hard. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Well what a bizarre speech that was from Scott Simpson. The Government the great nanny State National Party is going to stop somebody from having a black and white ribbon or a green ribbon or a red ribbon or even a blue ribbon on their car because it will frighten the electors. It will frighten the electors Scott Simpson said. That is so absurd a statement that it should be just a joke but actually it is not a joke. This Government is going to interfere in election day activities that have been going for 150 years with people allowed to wear proudly on their lapel a rosette to say which party they are supporting. Mr Simpson says that that will frighten the voters. Well apparently it will not terribly frighten the voters because this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill—Scott Simpson: It’ll intimidate them in South Auckland.Hon PHIL GOFF: “Intimidate” he says. This bill actually allows you to wear a rosette in the polling booth. If you are ascrutineer you can wear a rosette. If there was anywhere that the elector was going to be intimidated you might think that it would be in the polling booth. No it is OK to wear it in the polling booth but by God do not wear it out in the streets because the dogs will run off yapping the cats will flee and the people will hide behind their doors. That is bizarre that is absurd and I have never heard so much nonsense spoken in this House before on a matter that is actually very serious. This is an Electoral Amendment Bill. It should be seeking consensus. It is really important in a democracy that on the fundamentals of process and voting there is widespread agreement around the House. Yet for petty reasons which Mr Simpson can do no better than describe as being intimidating of the voters the National Party and solely the National Party wants to impose its will on the people in this House and the country stopping a practice that has done no harm for 150 years. It is 150 years Mr Simpson. You said that that was the period of unbroken democracy in New Zealand and yes we should be proud of that.But I have got to say that when I go out on election day—and even when it is not an election day—and I knock on a door it is really important that I am wearing something on my lapel that identifies me to the person who opens the door. They know who I am and they know why I am there. I am not there to persuade them how to vote on election day; I do not talk politics on election day—you cannot and properly you cannot. But you can go along and say: “Have you voted?”. But before I turn up on somebody’sdoorstep I want to be able to be identified to that person as to whom I represent and there is no harm absolutely no harm in that Mr Simpson. You have failed utterly to make the case out for a piece of absurdity in this bill and I hope that you are a little bit more open-minded about it when you chair the select committee that looks at it.I want to say that by and large Labour will be supporting this bill to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is important that it goes there. It makes relatively minor changes and those minor changes are I think designed to be quite helpful as the bill sets out. It is really important that you have changes that will improve services to voters candidates and parties and the bill tries to do that in a range of small but technical ways. It is about improving efficiency by allowing greater use of technology. Yes most people particularly younger people are doing things online. Let them do things online to the maximum extent. Do not do away with the paper-based enrolment system because some people like my father would be absolutely appalled if he had to open a computer and try to enter something on it. But those efficiency aspects are fine. Improving the integrity of the election process I think is something that is really important as well. And there is simplifying and clarifying the law making the law more internally more consistent. So those are the sorts of things that are common-sense things that have arisen out of the investigation into the 2011 general election and that you would expect to have in there.Using full online enrolment with electronic identity verification—yes that is good. A greater use ofEasyVote cards—I think that when all of us have taken people to the polls etc. their having theirEasyVote card means that they can go in it simplifies the process and it makes it easier.Tim Macindoe: You don’t take people to the polls.Hon PHIL GOFF: I do it quite frequently. Most recently I have got to say I did so in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and by God they were pleased to see me when I turned up at the door and said I was from the Labour Party. I do not think the National Party stood in that by-election. It apparently did not have the courage of its convictions. Those things are quite good but if you are frightened of ribbons then I guess you would be frightened to go into Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and confront real people there.But I have got to say that as well as the absurdity of banning ribbons and banning rosettes the thing that is really disappointing about this legislation is what the Government has not put in it. The Electoral Commission is an independent body and quite properly the Electoral Commission was told to do an analysis of the voting system if MMP was passed by the electorate and find ways to improve it. Well the electorate did pass the MMP system. I personally voted for it. I think it is much fairer. But there were worries and as I went around my electorate the worry that people most often raised with me was the coat-tailing system whereby if you win an electorate and you get 3 percent of the votes then you carry 3 percent of the other MPs in with you. The National Party is quite smart on some things—it lacks common sense generally—but it was smart in saying “We know how to rort the system. Nobody much likes the ACT Party. They’ll never get over the 5 percent threshold. But if we give them our most blue blue-ribbon seat”—Hon Members: Ribbons?Hon PHIL GOFF: Ribbons—oh my God they are illegal now I forgot. It said: “If we give them the chance to get in on a blue-ribbon seat like Epsom then we’ll get all these MPs that the country doesn’t really want—the electoral system by and large would not have in Parliament—but we can smuggle them in on the coat-tails of a man of no less integrity than John Banks.”What I looked at when I looked at the Electoral Commission was that it did not just recommend that that be abolished; it strongly recommended that it be abolished. TheChief Electoral Officer is a man who has been there for a long time by the name of RobertPeden. RobertPeden said that coat-tailing was “the biggest single concern” that people showed about the MMP system. So here is another example of a National Government trying to rort the system a National Government absolutely arrogant about what people wanted and did not want and a National Government that has ignored the views of the vast majority of New Zealanders who said they did not want a rort in the system that allows MPs to be coat-tailed into Parliament. They saw the cup of tea between Mr Key and Mr Banks and they did not like what they saw.What is more not only is it a rort to the system seen by the Electoral Commission which is independent as being a rort but also it is a system that is inherently unfair. Let us take the 2008 election. The ACT Party that year gained 3.65 percent of the vote. It would not normally have got any member of Parliament at 3.65 percent but it stood not Mr Banks but Mr Hide—or Dr Jekyll one or the other—in Epsom and the National Party gave the seat of Epsom to the ACT Party. The result was that it ended up in this House with five seats—five seats with 3.65 percent of the vote. New Zealand First on the other hand actually narrowly missed out on getting elected that year. It did not get to the 5 percent threshold; it got 4.07 percent of the vote. But it did not rort a deal with the National Party to get a seat and with more than 4 percent of the vote it got no MPs and the ACT Party with 3.65 percent of the vote got five MPs. I want the next Government speaker who stands up to take the call to tell me how that system is fair to tell this House why the Chief Electoral Officer is wrong in saying that New Zealanders do not want that. And we do not want it—it is not fair it is not right. We talk about having a non-corrupt system. That is as close to corruption as we get when the National Party ignores the wishes of the people and did not include that in this legislation.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou. I am pleased to take a short call on this Electoral Amendment Bill. I would echo the comments already made by other speakers about the importance of this process and the value of it—that each 3 years we investigate our electoral processes we evaluate them and we look for ways we might make them better. That is an entirely appropriate process and one that perhaps helps to reassure people about the integrity of our electoral system acknowledging that things do change over time and generally it is a good process. It is particularly important in the context of the decline in participation in voting that we have seen over the last several elections. At one time New Zealand despite not having any law that compels people to vote nevertheless had higher turnouts than many countries where there was a compulsion—where it was legally required that people voted. We have slipped a long way from that expectation about turnout and I think that is something we cannot simply put down to voter apathy. I think we have to think much more about the level of cynicism and the reason why people may have become disillusioned with the political process and seek to address those in a much more real and a much more honest and open way.Historically some of the people least likely to participate in general elections are young people and I think that the provisions in this bill to accommodate the electronic enrolment online enrolment will go some small way towards balancing that. The so-called digital natives are accustomed to doing most things online and enabling people to enrol for the first time or some subsequent time entirely online I think is a good thing. For quite some time people have been able to amend their enrolment details online. We see no reason why you would not extend that and I think that is one of the most positive steps in the bill.We still have another conversation to have perhaps about the desirability or indeed the possibility of online voting. That could be a more complex and arguably a morecontroversial step. But for the moment enabling enrolment to happen online is a good and positive thing and we do commend that aspect of the bill.The provisions around the disclosure of loans are we think also positive. Parties do take out loans to fund their campaigns and typically they repay them. Of course having the loophole existing that enabled a party to accept a loan and then have that loan written off but not recorded against its income for the election is we think undesirable. In a perfect world it would not happen and parties would declare honestly the money that they had received in by whatever means but of course recent history tells us that that level of integrity is not always in evidence. So we do see that those provisions in the bill are certainly worthwhile. Some of the detail may arguably be amended through the select committee process but the general principle of closing that very obvious and very unfortunate loophole is something that again we do support and think is a good thing to do.One of the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into the election proposed that the Electoral Commission should liaise with the Ministry of Education about incorporating ongoing and comprehensive civics education into the New Zealand school curriculum. Although I recognise that that is somewhat outside the ambit of this bill I would just like to put on record that we would wholeheartedly support that. We think that it is very strange that our young people can go through an entire education from age 5 to 16 17 or 18 and never be sat down and given some good basic information and education about how our electoral system works how our Parliament works and how our basic democratic systems and processes work. It seems a significant gap in our education system. I am aware of such things as the Kids Voting programme which popped up some years ago. It was a very positive programme that was well received. It exposed probably in excess of 100000 young people at schools to participating in a voting process and they learnt a fair bit along the way. But we see a time when we will think it should be taken as a given that we embed that education into our standard educational curriculum. Again it might go some way to empowering and enabling people to see the value and the importance of participating in our electoral processes every 3 years.The bill makes some minor changes to the business of Māori enrolment and the Māori electoral roll. We think that it is unfortunate that this bill does not go further. We do agree—it has long been Green Party policy—that Māori should not have to wait for a 5-yearly census cycle to move from one roll to the other—from the general roll to the Māori roll or the other way round. It is an opportunity missed perhaps that this bill does not engage with that. There is mention that the terms of reference did not enable it. I do think however that a stronger recommendation could have come through and I do think that it would have been an opportunity to enable people of Māori descent to have at least the option of moving one way or the other on the roll in conjunction with each 3-yearly electoral cycle. It seems perverse that it is only at every second election that in reality Māori have that option to go one way or the other. I think that the arguments proposed in the inquiry document were suggestions that it might create unequal electoral systems with some voters exerting more sway if you like. The proposition that changes in electoral boundaries could leave very high or very low numbers is I think very much overstated. I really do not believe that you would get sufficient movement in a roll in any given year in any given electoral cycle to have any significant impact on numbers within the elections. I do not see any way that it would skew the outcome. Even if somebody tactically set out to endeavour to do that I suspect that there would be either sufficient opposition or simply inertia to prevent any compromising of the integrity of that change. I do think that allowing Māori the right to move one way or theother each 3-yearly cycle would be something we would need to contemplate and aim to do at some future point hopefully not too far into the future.I would also say that in terms of what is lacking in this bill again there is a missed opportunity. It would have been nice to see included in this a repealing a reversal of the truly appalling change to the electoral law that was instigated by the gentleman now departed from this place—dare I say it the somewhat unlamented Mr Paul Quinn with his electoral disqualification of sentenced prisoners amendment. This would have been an excellent opportunity to put aside that entirely meaningless punitive and unhelpful piece of legislation that even its principal could not defend. No individual speaking on its behalf could give a substantive reason why we would deny every single sentenced prisoner the right to vote. It was a ridiculous piece of legislation. This would have been a very good opportunity to repeal it and to take that embarrassment off our books and it is unfortunate that that has not been included in this bill. The Attorney-General at the time that that bill went through the House noted that it would introduce irrational inconsistencies in the law. He found it unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Unfortunately we were saddled with it. I think this would have been a good opportunity to put it aside to remove it. That opportunity has been missed.On a brighter note there is some considerable value in this bill. Our very genuine disappointment I would have to say perhaps refers back to MrLittle’s comments earlier about how little time has been allowed to get the changes put in place. There is a lack of attention to the recommendations about accessibility that were very strongly and well made by the inquiry but that sadly have not been picked up by the drafters of this bill. We understand or we infer perhaps that there is not necessarily any objection to these accessibility provisions being picked up but that the issues of timing perhaps or even cost—I do not know—have meant that they are not included in this bill. My colleague will speak more to that later but for the moment the Greens are supportive of what this piece of legislation sets out to do. We will seek to make it even better during the select committee process but we do look forward to it going through the House. Kia ora.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a short call on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I suppose it is appropriate that we are celebrating 120 years of women’s suffrage and in particular Kate Sheppard who led the campaign for the opportunity for women to vote. This was world leading and it is a great opportunity because out of that came the principles to be accessible to give eligibility and to allow women to vote and the important aspect of this bill actually wants to take on those key principles.I was part of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I want to acknowledge all of the members in particular Charles Chauvel who was here at that time and also the Hon Lianne Dalziel. We had a very good working relationship on this bill. There were a couple of contentious issues that we debated. In particular I just want to point out the issue with regard to rosettes. There has been a lot of sort of hilarity about this—that we are anti-rosettes. Actually it is not about the rosettes and the ribbons. In actual fact—members may not be aware of this but I know that Mr Goff knows this—there is an exemption to the prohibition of electioneering on election day. The amendment in clause 35 of this bill means that the exemption is very narrow now; it is just about rosettes. It is a very narrow part of that clause—the exemption is just about wearing rosettes. There was common agreement from colleagues who were there.Look it was not a biggie. Let us just make sure that we cover that. As for the making of the rosettes the reality is that as a select committee we really did not have an issue with that so it was passed. It was agreed on and that was part of the report so we will go to the select committee with that as well. That was the issue about the rosettes OK?I was one of a number of MPs who went around the country and I suppose what was of particular concern to us in this review process was the low voter turnout especially for our young people. One thing we talked about was how we could improve access around this. I think that one of the main provisions around improving efficiency by allowing greater use of technology is absolutely important but I do take on Mr Goff’s point that there is another generation out there that still wants that manual process. They want to get up they want to do their civic duty they want to come down on a Saturday morning they want to go into a polling booth and they want to register. They actually want to physically do that. So as a select committee we took this on board. We know that it is not an either/or situation; it is a combination of the two. So the online registration is a part of that. There was also talk about the opportunity to pilot some of that and I know that Holly Walker was very much keen for us to do that and we are looking into that. That is an important part as well.Another provision of the bill is around improving services to voters and candidates. For example it will allow for greater use of theEasyVote card to simplify and improve the accuracy of issuing and recording votes. Although MrPeden talked about the fact that we can uphold the system as having some integrity there was some evidence albeit anecdotal to show that there are times when people have tried to rort the system. There were conversations for instance about the issue that happened in the Waitakere electorate and we know there was evidence there that goes to prove that the system is not perfect. It is a great system—however we do need to be vigilant. The amendments that we have made are to ensure that there is some vigilance around the integrity of the system.Lastly I just want to point out the other main provision and that is around improving the integrity of elections through simplifying and clarifying the law. We look forward to this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It will clarify that the High Court can direct the Electoral Commission to recalculate and to amend the allocation of list seats if there is a successful election petition as well. There are three good provisions and I look forward to a continuing discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think the provisions we have made are important they are correct and we have a unanimous consensus around this. I commend this first reading of the bill to the House. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this Electoral Amendment Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election did recommend several amendments to the Electoral Act. This bill will implement some of them but only some of them. It has been a collaborative process and was supported by I think some very good public submissions too.There are three areas of change that are promoted by the bill. Firstly it provides for the option of full online enrolment using electronic identity verification and that is a good step forward. Secondly it provides for the greater use ofEasyVote cards which will simplify and speed up the issuing of ballot papers and reduce special votes and that would be a good result. Thirdly the integrity of elections will be enhanced through amendments to rationalise and make transparent the provisions that regulate the electioneering disclosure of contributions and loans and the filing of election expenses.These are all very good things to achieve. But there have been some important recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee that are not to be implemented by this bill but that should have been. They concern the use of broadcasting of election programmes.If I look at the report of the committee I see on page 39 that it is noted that “The Electoral Commission noted that the statutory tests of what constitutes an ‘electionprogramme’ in … Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and an ‘election advertisement’ in section 3A of the Electoral Act are similar but have significant differences which cause difficulties when the commission considers broadcasting complaints. Both tests require an assessment of whether the programme or advertisement appears to encourage voters to vote or not vote for a party or candidate but they differ in the exemptions made … the Broadcasting Act states that nothing in the prohibition on paid election programmes ‘restricts the broadcasting in relation to an election of news or of comments or of current affairs programmes’ while the exemption in … the Electoral Act is not restricted to news or current affairs but applies to ‘the editorial content of a periodical a radio or television programme and a publication on a news media Internet site’… [several] submissions suggested removing the separate electoral broadcasting provisions from the Broadcasting Act and confining provisions regarding election advertising to the Electoral Act.” That is I think as it should be.The committee itself recommended that the Government align the statutory tests of an election programme in section 69 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and an election advertisement in section 3A of the Electoral Act 1993. Those matters are very necessary and they are urgent matters that should have been included in this bill. I cannot understand why they are not. I expect to receive an explanation from the Government as to why they are not in the bill but I have not heard one so far.Similarly on page 40 of the report it notes that there were submissions that “the Broadcasting Act’s full prohibitions regarding election programmes should not be limited to the election period and should apply consistently to both political parties and broadcasters.” The committee recommended to the Government that it “consider aligning the liability for breaching Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act so that provisions would apply to the broadcaster and any person who arranged for the broadcast of an election programme in contravention of the Act whether within or outside an election period.” Similarly that matter needs to be addressed in this legislation before the next election. It is urgent.Those are the primary things that should have been attended to but there are some good things achieved by the bill and they include a number of provisions of which I will mention a few. Section 197 of the Electoral Act which has been mentioned by other speakers concerns the wearing of ribbons streamers rosettes lapel badges and so on. The amendment to this in clause 35 of the bill would create a more restrictive regime for those and would really allow them to be worn only by scrutineers.New Zealand First thinks that is appropriate. It does not want to see electioneering on election day. Voters need some peace and quiet from all the razzmatazz of elections. After all they have had 3 months of it before then. There is a fine line between simple decorations or identifiers and actual attempts to influence voters. We think the balance has to be against those attempts to influence voters. It should go only as far as allowing scrutineers to be identified appropriately in polling booths. The exemption for scrutineers is justified but nothing else we feel.I want to turn to clause 40 because that provides for a candidate who fails to file a return to be liable to a fine of up to $40000 and a candidate who files a false return to be guilty of a corrupt practice and up to 2 years in prison could be the result or a fine not exceeding $100000. That shows the gravity of the offence—something that some people in the community need to take note of.I want to mention clauses 44 46 and 47 which clarify the position to ensure the aggregation of contributions to donations for the $1500 threshold and the $15000 threshold for contributions to donations in clause 48. That is good law and it is supported by New Zealand First members. Concerning loans to political parties we are glad to see the provisions in new sections 213 214A 214C and so on inserted byclause 50. Those sections provide that a party may enter into a loan only with the authorisation of the party secretary and only the party secretary may enter into a loan on behalf of the party for election purposes. Another section provides that a person who enters into an agreement or arrangement of some kind for the purpose of circumventing that section will also be guilty of an illegal practice.New section 214C imposes an obligation on the party secretary to file with the Electoral Commission each year a return of loans entered into during the year for an amount exceeding $50000 those entered into in any previous year with an unpaid balance exceeding $15000 and those entered into for the year for an amount that when aggregated with other loans yields an amount in excess of $15000 and so on. Those are very necessary and important provisions.But what I want to finish on is a major and glaring omission from the bill which is simply that there needs to be an end of the coat-tailing provision in the Electoral Act. We have seen many reasons for that over recent times. It is something that I feel the vast majority of people in this country want to see an end of. It is time that simply winning an electorate seat should not result in coat-tailing for whatever low percentage of the party vote is currently enabling a party to bring more members into Parliament. The provision should be one seat plus at least 5 percent or just 5 percent or more of the vote to get seats in Parliament. That is what people want. That should have been addressed.We know why it is not being addressed and that is because the National Party needs people like Banks and Dunne and wants to try to get as many additional MPs as possible; because this Government is prepared to have cups of tea and do whatever else is necessary to gerrymander the result of an election. That is a cynical manipulation of the system and shows that this Government has no genuine regard for democracy in New Zealand. It utterly refuses to look at this provision but it is high time that it did.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to stand and speak at the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and to follow from previous speakers. What impresses me about this bill is the amount and the high degree of consensus. I happen to come from the school of thought that says that when we are making changes in constitutional jurisdictional and electoral matters there should be that high degree of consensus. I am also one of those ones who was really fortunate and lucky enough to sit in on the Justice and Electoral Committee when it was actually doing the so-called hearing of submissions on the infamous Electoral Finance Act.The degree of memory lapse from members of the other side is astounding—Maggie Barry: Typical.Hon KATE WILKINSON: —but typical. Absolutely right it is typical. Actually I took the opportunity to read the minority report on that which we wrote several years ago. Just as an example members of that committee received a paper at 9.05 a.m. for discussion at 9.30 a.m. That was a total abuse of the democratic process. There was no opportunity to read the document before the discussion took place.We have heard criticisms of this bill because of what it does not contain. Again the short memory loss of the other side is astounding. We know that some parties may want a different threshold for MMP. That is fine. But there was no consensus reached on that. Actually on the other side of the coin some wanted a proper discussion on the closure of the electoral rolls. So not everybody got what they wanted. But what we have is a consensus. It is a compromise. I believe that for the public to have confidence in our system that consensus is vital and I am pleased to support it.I know that the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke talked about cynical manipulations and no genuine regard for democracy. Well if that was the case then with the numbers across the House the bill might have been in a different form. But theimportance and the emphasis must be on consensus in relation to electoral matters and I believe that we have got that across the House.I think it is trivial point-scoring to try to criticise either the process or the fact that this bill has the barest of changes. There has been some considerable discussion as Mr Little knows through the select committee process to actually achieve that consensus. Mr Little did not get the changes that he necessarily wanted. We might not have got the changes that we necessarily wanted either but that is the genuine nature of consensus.I do think that we have a bill here that is pragmatic that will improve the efficiency of voting will improve the services to voters candidates and parties and will improve the integrity of our election system. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I just want to comment on a few of the points made by the previous speaker the Hon Kate Wilkinson who made the point around coat-tailing and the lack of consensus in this Parliament as to whether that should be included in the Electoral Amendment Bill. Well there was not a consensus because it was the National Party that did not want to bring it in. There was only one party around this House that did not want to have anything to do with changing the law around coat-tailing and it was the National Party. Conveniently the National Party needs ACT in Parliament so to stay in power it needs that piece of the electoral law. I think it is rather rich from the member who just resumed her seat to say that there was not a consensus around that when every other party other than the National Party which did it for its own blind self interest wanted that part of the legislation changed.Never in my mind did I think that I would utter the word “kordéllaphobia” in the House. That is what Scott Simpson suffers from. Unfortunately Scott Simpson is scared of these. Scott Simpson hates ribbons or is scared of ribbons. When he wakes up—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!KRIS FAAFOI: When he wakes up in the middle of the night sweating it is because he hates ribbons. That is the truth because that is what that member said in one of the more ridiculous speeches I have heard in this Parliament. He said that this legislation is going to ban rosettes being worn by anyone—Moana Mackey: And ribbons.KRIS FAAFOI: —and ribbons—on election day because they are intimidatory. Well as Phil Goff has mentioned in his speech for years decades many more years than I have been alive it has been part of the election day ritual for members of parties right across this House to don one of these scary things. I hope Scott is not watching in his office. Turn away Scott if you are watching this speech in your office because you will not want to see this! He thinks that it is intimidatory to wear a ribbon on election day. I think that Phil Goff actually made a number of good points about why it is crucial to identify yourself if you are out and about—oh here he is. Scott Simpson is over here. He is hiding. He is ducking over there because he does not want to see the ribbon.Phil Goff made a number of good points around the wearing of ribbons on election day. I hope this is actually mentioned quite a lot in the Justice and Electoral Committee because it is very important that when you knock on someone’s door on election day to check if they have voted you identify yourself and why—Hon Judith Collins: Mind your own business.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh so that Minister does notdoorknock. When you are knocking on doors you identify yourself and where you are from. You cannot say: “Go out and vote for x y and z.” That is not allowed. But what you can do is say: “Excuse me sir or madam or young person have you voted today?” and that is a tradition and has happened for many many elections. It is very important that the person in the house where you are doorknocking knows where you are from because if you say something that you should not be saying then they know how to get hold of you. The flip side ofthe situation is what you could have—and it may be an unintended consequence—is someone from some other party could go around saying: “Hey I am from the Labour Party. Have you voted?”. If they say yes or no and they come back with some kind of rude remark what is going to be the recompense for that if they have not properly identified themselves? So I think this is a bit silly and probably evidence that the National Party actually cannot get people out on election day to knock on doors so that is why it certainly does not want that there.The Minister of Justice did say in her speech that our electoral system does have a lot of integrity and I would happen to agree with her. But I just also wanted to point out one thing that David Clendon said in his speech. It is good that we are improving the efficiency of our electoral system but I would also like to echo his comments about improving the effectiveness of our electoral system by making sure that we not only make it easier for people to get enrolled—and that is what this piece of legislation does by way of making it easier to enrol online—but also emphasise the importance of actually being enrolled on the electoral roll and why it is important to be on the roll and to make sure you vote. I am pretty sure that all the members of Parliament in this House will send that message out to the youngsters when they visit their schools in their electorate or outside of the electorates. I say to them to just make sure you are enrolled and you vote. I do not care how you vote; just make sure you have a say in this electoral system.As David Clendon said and I agree with him we have to do a much better job at engaging our youngsters in politics and in the decisions that get made in this House. Yes it is also a challenge to us to excite them to get them engaged in politics and in the decisions that we make but I think it is also very important that we tell them about the importance of being enrolled to vote. Certainly I think that the move that this bill does to make it easier for us not only to just update the system and print off a piece of paper and to send it in but to fully enrol and change your details online is certainly a good thing.Just talking about some of the details on election day which I think might be of interest to most of us in this House the bill changes the time at which the early vote can be counted. So to the people who are scrutineers and the people who go and do that I say that it used to be 3 p.m. but now they can get in there much earlier at 2 p.m. and go and get the early vote counted. So that is probably a bit boring for those who are listening to this debate at home but I can say that it is one of the things that make us here in the House excited having been through many many election days ourselves.Right so a number of other speakers have talked about what is not in this bill and I just wanted to end in the way that I started which is to talk about the coat-tailing rule. As Mr Goff said RobertPeden the Chief Electoral Officer of the Electoral Commission has said that the coat-tail rule was a serious concern for most New Zealanders because they do not like what they have seen in terms of I think it was the 2008 election was it Mr Goff when ACT got only 3.65 percent but Rodney Hide took the seat of Epsom. It was given to him by the National Party—and again in 2011 it was given to John Banks over a cup of tea—and that party brought in five MPs with 3.65 percent of the vote but our colleagues to our left over here from New Zealand First who got about 0.5 percent more of the party vote but no electorate seat did not get any MPs in Parliament at all. There was a consensus of all but one of the parties in this House to change that rule—to give the electoral law in our country more integrity as the Minister said—but there was a lack of support from that party across the House. So as Kate Wilkinson said yes there was not a consensus but that was only because one party did not want to agree to that.There are a number of other changes that I think have been mentioned in this debate. I think we still have a concern about the declaration of loans of over $15000 and why you have to declare loans that are not bank loans. I think that is one of the issues that is going to be raised in the select committee. I also wanted to raise the point that there are some common-sense things in this bill that we certainly will be supporting. I think that making it easier for physically and mentally disabled people to register with a representative is a very wise thing to do as is making it easier for them to register online. Just the general use of more technology in the registration of electors is a good thing and I think it will be a first step towards the greater use of technology at probably general elections. I am not sure how far away we are from that and maybe the Minister might be able to tell us during the Committee stage but if we are moving towards some kind of electronic voting to help make it easier for people to vote I certainly think that would be a good thing. It is certainly something that I think is going to be trialled in my area of Mana in some subsequent elections with the Porirua City Council. I think that is a good thing to try to encourage more younger people to vote and I think that it is a good thing that we are seeing more use being made of online technology to help people take part in the democratic process.So as the previous two speakers from this side of the House have said we will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee but I would just like to warn the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee that we will certainly be bringing up his “kordéllaphobia” during the select committee stage.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Being lectured by Labour members on electoral propriety and fairness is a bit like taking lessons in personal security from Jack the Ripper. Labour is the party that brought us the Electoral Finance Act supported by some of the other parties opposite and it has yet to apologise to the electorate for doing so. But I am very pleased to see this particular bill the Electoral Amendment Bill before the House tonight because as my colleague the member for Coromandel—not “Coromandel East”—and the current chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee was kind enough to point out I did actually chair the committee through the whole of last year when 90 percent of the work was done ably supported by the then deputy chair Dr Cam Calder. Both of us moved on to new roles at the start of this year as a result of which our names do not even appear in the report but I would like to think that we could claim a little bit of credit for getting it to this point and I want to acknowledge all the members of the committee who worked on the bill last year. They attacked the task intelligently and with vigour and I believe that a good job was done. So I thank all members across the House for that.Some excellent recommendations have come forward in this bill as a result of the work of the committee and these should streamline election day procedures and promote awareness of the importance of civics and voting amongst young people. It is particularly important that we encourage our young people to vote because all the evidence shows us that if they develop a history of voting as young people they will continue with that throughout their lives and it should also encourage a return to our historically high voter turnout. We can commend ourselves in New Zealand for the fact that we achieve that without having compulsory voting because we have just seen again in Australia that even though it has compulsory voting it does not get anywhere near to achieving that particular outcome.Some Opposition speakers tonight have criticised the recommendation to do away with streamers rosettes etc. but I just want to point out that election day must be absolutely fair. Members opposite can trivialise the reason for it but in fact it is very important that the day should be completely free of electioneering and politicalinfluence. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it has not been and I believe that this bill is a positive step to ensure that it is as fair andunintimidating as it can be.The other point I want to make is to just highlight the absolute nonsense that we have heard from a number of speakers including the Hon Phil Goff Kris Faafoi most recently David Clendon Andrew Little and unfortunately even Denis O’Rourke about the apparent consensus on issues that arose from the Electoral Commission’s review of MMP because anybody listening to this debate has been subjected to complete nonsense on that issue particularly on the issue of coat-tailing. As a result of the MMP review that was conducted it was necessary for the Government to work to see what sort of consensus there was amongst the parties on all of the issues that arose. I have highlighted on this document just how different all the parties’ positions were on a number of issues. Yes there was consensus on a few things. All the parties agreed that list candidates should be able to stand in by-elections. All of them agreed that it should be possible to be both a list and an electorate candidate and that the party list arrangements should be essentially as they are at the moment. But those were not really the controversial issues.The things that were of particular heat out in the community included whether the party vote threshold should be lowered whether the one seat electorate threshold should be abolished and whether the overhang should be abolished. If I hold this document up—I have highlighted it in colour so that hopefully people can see on TV what the different colours are—when the Labour Party tells us that it is only the National Party that is out of step in fact looking at the recommendation to abolish the one electorate seat threshold of the eight parties in the House at the moment Labour the Greens and New Zealand First were in the minority. They were the ones that wanted to abolish the one seat electoral threshold whereas National the Māori Party the Mana party the ACT Party and United Future all wanted to retain the status quo. So it is completely wrong for those speakers to suggest that they would have had consensus if only it was not for the nasty National Party. What they really mean is that consensus means: “See it and do it our way.” Well that is not good enough and that would not reflect the will of the people.On the issue of the overhang the Labour Party and the Māori Party wanted to abolish the overhang the New Zealand First Party had a slightly ambiguous position but wanted to look into it further and the National Party the Green Party the Mana party the ACT Party and United Future all had the same view.On the issue of lowering the party vote threshold the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the ACT Party went one way; Labour and the Greens went a second way; and the Māori Party the Mana party and United Future went a third way. So it is worthwhile just clarifying the fact that there was no consensus. Without consensus no change was possible. I will leave it at that.I do want to say again how delighted I am that this bill has come to the House. I thank all members of the committee for the work they have done to this point. I congratulate the Minister of Justice—and what a scurrilous attack she received from the Labour Opposition justice spokesperson earlier—on the hard work she has done in a short time in bringing this bill to the House. That is a very good achievement and I look forward to seeing it pass its way through so that we can have these changes in place ready for the next general election.I seek leave to table the document that I have prepared which highlights the differing parties’ positions on the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I understand that the next call is a split call. Moana Mackey—5 minutes.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Well we are very beholden to the Government whip Tim Macindoe for sitting up in his office with his crayons and colouring in a pretty document for us none of which changes the fact that the National Party absolutely did not want to get rid of the coat-tailing provisions. None of those members have been able to tell us why the coat-tailing provisions should remain in place given that the No. 1 issue under the MMP review for voters was that they wanted to see those provisions go. We did not hear anything from any of the National speakers as to why the biggest party in this Parliament the National Party which implemented the MMP review and then completely refused to listen to those who participated in that review did not deal with the single biggest issue for voters when it came to the tweaks that they wanted to see in a system that they largely liked and had voted to keep in place at the last election.There is much in this bill that is very good and much in this bill that is very sensible but unfortunately there are a number of things in this bill that are completely ridiculous. I do want to come back to the issue of the banning of rosettes ribbons and streamers on election day. As my colleague Andrew Little said this is not about not electioneering on election day because that is illegal. You cannot do that. So if the concern that members have is that people do not want electioneering on election day well you cannot do that under the law. But I would ask the National Party about early voting. If that is its big concern—that it is far too intimidating to have all those party colours there and that no one should be influenced in any single way—does that mean that National does not support early voting when people are voting right in the heat of the campaign period? Are those people being intimidated? Are those people somehow being influenced in a way that is inappropriate? Silence. Exactly—because they are not.I sat there wondering why it is that the National Party wants to ban ribbons on election day because it just seemed to be utterly ridiculous. What was the point? Then we had Scott Simpson the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee kindly give us the reason why. It is that ribbons are intimidating. It is that voters on election day will see a ribbon or a streamer and will be intimidated. Well it is nice to know the actual reason. That is completely ridiculous and just unbelievable.The reality is that National does not have the number of troops out on the ground on election day that the Labour Party has. It does not have the number of people going around turning out the vote reminding people that it is election day and asking them whether they are ready to vote. Also of course we assist people in getting to polling booths if they are unable to get there for themselves. People want to see when you turn up on the doorstep that you have a got a Labour rosette on. They know that you are the person that they have called to come and assist them to get to a polling booth. Well the National Party wants to take that away because it says that ribbons streamers and rosettes are intimidating. Well if they are so intimidating then why are we continuing to allow them at the polling booth? Surely if they are so intimidating that voters cannot be exposed to them on election day why are they still allowed in polling booths then?It highlights the absolute ridiculousness of this particular provision because we have early voting now. We are not allowed to electioneer on election day. If you look around the world in fact New Zealand is fairly unique in having the great restrictions that we place on election day. I am not saying that that is not a good thing but of course in Australia just across the Ditch it is full-on electioneering right up to the time that the polls actually close. Again I come back to the issue of early voting. As we go furtherdown that path and as more New Zealanders take the opportunity to vote early rather than on election day then I guess it just really highlights the ridiculousness of singling out one day over all the others.It was interesting to hear the Hon Judith Collins. She said that when you go on to someone’s doorstep you are intimidating them. Well I shudder to think what Judith Collins does on—Hon Judith Collins: I did not say that. Don’t lie.MOANA MACKEY: I am not lying Ms Collins. That is what you actually said. What you actually said in response to my colleague’s speech was that “You shouldn’t go on to the doorsteps—stop intimidating people.” Well I do not know what Judith Collins does on the doorsteps when she is out doorknocking—I shudder to think—but I can absolute reassure her that we do not intimidate people on the doorstep. People are pleased to see the Labour Party turn up on their doorstep particularly on election day to remind them that it is election day and to help them get to a polling booth if they want to vote. So I think that the Minister really should reflect on the comments she has made and if she regrets them now then I am quite happy for her to take them back—quite happy for her to take them back.There is much in this bill that is good. As colleagues have pointed out it is a shame that the provisions of the MMP review were not fully implemented—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but the member’s time has expired.MOJO MATHERS (Green): My colleague earlier spoke about how we are going to be supporting this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill. For us one of the highlights of this bill is the provision for online enrolment. Several speakers have talked before about how there is declining voter engagement and that it is really important to try to turn that round with a range of ploys. However there is a disappointment that perhaps the bill is not totally maximising its opportunities and I would like to talk about a particular group of people who are quite disenfranchised in general elections which is that of disabled people many of whom are not able to cast an independent vote. This is quite core to a democratic society because the right to be able to cast an independent vote is absolutely the core political right. Without that there is no mechanism for holding people to account. New Zealand has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that includes Article 29 section (a) which is about ensuring that political information is accessible and is provided in an accessible format including information on how to vote and it protects the right to vote by secret ballot for people with disabilities.At the moment in the current Electoral Act section 170 allows disabled people to vote with assistance if they need it. That is great but the very fact of having to disclose their vote to someone else is a breach of the right to a secret vote. What is more I have often heard from colleagues that they overhear when they are in the polling booth people disclosing their vote so they have not just disclosed their vote to the person who is going to mark the voting ballot for them they have disclosed their vote to whoever can hear in the same room. Clearly this is not a desirable outcome. This problem has been recognised overseas and in many other countries they have brought in a whole range of other methods to try to assist disabled people to have an independent vote. These have included transparent overlays voting templates touch screen kiosks telephone voting and internet voting. I would just like to point out here that out of all these options internet voting is the only voting that allows people who are deaf and blind to cast an independent vote because they can access that using Brailletexting technology from their computer.It is very disappointing that at this stage we will not have internet voting in place for the 2014 election. I understand however that phone dictation is being looked at by amending the regulation and we welcome that. But what I would like to note is that at the moment the regulating-making power that is provided for in subsection (6) of section 170 extends only to electors who are wholly or partially blind enabling them to vote by means of devices. That is a clear omission of a whole range of other voters and what I am working on is a Supplementary Order Paper that will extend regulation-making powers to other groups of disabled people and I really would hope that the Minister of Justice would permit this Supplementary Order Paper to go to select committee for consideration. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): In taking a brief call in this first reading debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill I would like to congratulate our very fine and very hard-working Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins and also Tim Macindoe the member for Hamilton West who chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee that undertook the review of the 2011 election.As the Minister and previous Government speakers have canvassed this bill implements 11 of the key recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election. These changes can be summarised in three main areas: they are updates to processes to both improve efficiency and take into account the possibilities offered by technological change they offer a tightening of rules to ensure fairness and integrity in our voting system and they offer minor technical fixes to our otherwise pretty robust existing electoral law—that is the law as implemented by the National-led Government in the last term prior to the 2011 election.Among the improvements that this bill introduces I particularly applaud the inclusion of a provision for full online enrolment using electronic identity verification through the Government’sRealMe system. It seems only sensible that in this era of the falling use of snail mail and increased uptake of online services enrolment to vote should be a process that can be completed electronically online. This will make it a much more convenient and efficient process for the end clients—that is the electors—and therefore we should see an increase in enrolment rates and the accuracy of the electoral roll. But it is also important that up-to-date safeguards and sureties against hacking data corruption identity theft and false registration should be deployed to protect the integrity of our electoral system. So it is good to see this as another practical implementation of theRealMe system.Provision for increased use ofEasyVote cards also seems pretty logical to me. These will now be able to be used as the official record for an ordinary vote having been issued and as evidence that a special voter is enrolled and eligible to vote. These changes make very good sense in terms of streamlining the voting process.Extensions to the time frame for filing party vote declarations to 90 days—as we know this can be a fairly time-consuming and bureaucratic process for our various party officials—also seems like a fair measure but this is balanced against tougher penalties for failing to meet the requirement to file expenses and donation returns within 15 days of the deadline. Late returns without reasonable excuse will now actually—contrary to what Mr Little said earlier—become a corrupt practice and therefore face much higher penalties than in the past. Treating loans to parties in a similar way to donations and making loans the subject of the same disclosure rules as donations also helps to strengthen the integrity of our already very sound system.As I learnt at the Transparency International New Zealand branch workshop yesterday at Te Papa which was also attended by the Hon Phil Goff our system is already perceived as being among the cleanest in the world. A high-integrity electoral system is one of the 13 key pillars that Transparency International identifies along withan uncorrupt Public Service impartial judiciary sound law enforcement authorities and an effective audit and review function among others that contribute to New Zealand being ranked as the No. 1 least corrupt country in the world in its survey.We are doing well but this legislation will help us stay ahead of the game and maintain our outstanding No. 1 ranking which is so important to our exporters because of the international reputation and high trust levels in our country our people and our products that this engenders. So for this reason among other reasons I happily commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.