Walker Holly: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWalker Holly: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 11 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16497. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]HOLLY WALKER (Green):In what will be my final substantive contribution in the Committee stage debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill I would like to propose an alternative title for the bill and that is the “Electoral Fraud is a Red Herring Amendment Bill”. Fraud is indeed the excuse or the reason that has been given for the removal of the clauses related to the EasyVote card which we have largely been debating for most of this afternoon.I want to quote from the Justice and Electoral Committee report. The committee gave its rationale for the removal of those clauses. This is what it said: “We consider that the proposed provision for a new process known operationally as EasyVote Express”—i.e. the scannable EasyVote cards—“would in effect lower the threshold for casting a vote increasing the potential for fraud and harming the integrity of the voting process.” I just want to drill down into that a little bit more to see whether we can as a Committee begin to understand what that increased risk of electoral fraud supposedly is because it is my contention that it is in fact a red herring and that is why I am proposing an alternative title for this bill.Let us have a look at what voter fraud might actually mean in practice because we have been very short on practical examples in this debate. From my understanding of the possibilities for voter fraud and the concerns that may have underpinned the removal of these clauses the concern is that somebody may find or steal the EasyVote card belonging to another person and take it along and impersonate them at the polling booth which may increase the risk of electoral fraud. Well first of all I would say that that is equally as possible under the status quo where we have EasyVote cards that are not electronically scannable as it is if we make them electronically scannable. The risk of that happening neither increases nor decreases as a result of removing the clauses from this bill.Secondly I would say that it is pretty unlikely that that would happen. Most people do not leave their mail lying about in the street. They do not leave EasyVote cards on their front lawn or on the berm in front of their house for people to collect. But if somebody was so exercised and so desirous of committing electoral fraud that they were going to go and steal somebody’s EasyVote card out of their letterbox knowing that what they needed to do was look for an Electoral Commission - branded envelope with the orange guy on the front of it in the letterbox and steal it so that they could commit electoral fraud then they could do that.Actually they could also steal the enrolment confirmation letter that the Electoral Commission sends to every voter because it looks the same. It is in the same kind of envelope and it would provide exactly the same information that somebody who was hell-bent on committing electoral fraud by stealing an individual’s EasyVote card out of their letterbox would need to go down to the polling booth and commit that fraud.So the EasyVote card neither increases nor decreases the risk of somebody doing this incredibly bizarre and incredibly unlikely action of stealing an EasyVote card out of somebody’s letterbox. But let us say that they did do that and they got hold of somebody else’s EasyVote card and they took it along to the polling booth to try to commit fraud by voting in somebody else’s name. If the person in whose name they were attempting to vote had already voted that day then they would not be able to do that because the Electoral Commission—at least under what is proposed—would have scanned the EasyVote card and it would show up that that voter had already voted. So a question mark would immediately be raised through the electronic system that there was somebody who was coming to vote for a second time.Actually under the status quo where the card is not scannable that would not show up in the system until much later. So the people at the polling booth would have to allow that person to vote because they would not know that they had already voted at a different polling booth. So the proposal to make the card scannable which has now been deleted from the bill would actually decrease the chance of that happening.But let us say that someone manages to cast a vote in somebody else’s name and the true voter has voted already at a different polling booth. When the Electoral Commission staff collate the rolls at the end of the day they see that the same person has apparently voted twice. That flags for them that there is a problem there—either someone has erroneously voted twice or there is an instance of potential fraud. If they ring up the voter and ask: “Which polling booth did you vote at?” and the voter says: “At Pētone Central School” the Electoral Commission staff would then say: “That’s funny because somebody tried to vote in your name at Wilford School.” The voter would then say: “No it wasn’t me. I definitely voted at Pētone Central School.” and therefore the Electoral Commission is able to determine and cross out the vote that was erroneously cast. That is how it works at the moment.Making the EasyVote card scannable as the proposal was in the original version of this bill would in fact make it faster and easier for that to occur by making that an electronic process not a manual compilation later in the day so it actually decreases the risk of electoral fraud. It is nonsensical to me to remove that provision and that is why I am proposing the title “Electoral Fraud is a Red Herring Amendment Bill”—that would be the risk on which the decision to delete these clauses would be based.The other way that somebody could commit electoral fraud does not even involve the EasyVote card because you do not need the EasyVote card to vote at present. You can just go to the polling booth and give your name and address and they look you up on the roll. All the EasyVote card does is make it faster and easier for the staff in the polling place to do that. But if I was hell-bent on committing electoral fraud like all these thousands and legions of fraudulent voters who are apparently desirous of doing then all I would need to do is go and give an erroneous name and address of somebody I know who lives in the electorate and try to vote in their name.I could do that without an EasyVote card and perhaps more easily because I would not even have to erroneously pass something over. I could just say that yes my name is Joe Bloggs and I live at that address. If that was the name of a voter on the electoral roll I could vote in that person’s name. That is no different under the removal of these clauses from how it would be otherwise. The risk neither increases nor decreases with the use of an EasyVote card. Yet again we have that excuse of the potential of increased fraud being held up as an example.In fact the Electoral Commission gave very clear evidence on this when the select committee first did its inquiry into the 2011 general election. The Electoral Commission knows when this happens. It gets a flag because it sees that the same voter has apparently voted twice. It rings that voter up to find out where they voted and it discards the irrelevant vote. It prosecutes any cases of electoral fraud. It has very clear processes to do that and they work very well. So there is no need for this exaggerated fear about voter fraud that has resulted in the removal of a number of very useful clauses that would allow the EasyVote card to be scanned and used as a record that a vote has been cast.If we take a cynical view which I am increasingly inclined to do like my colleagues in the Labour Party you could argue that electoral fraud actually is a red herring here. It is not about electoral fraud. We have had very clear evidence that there is no increased risk of electoral fraud. Electoral fraud is not an activity that is undertaken on a widespread basis in New Zealand. When it is it is easily caught. The very few cases that we have had have been prosecuted. In fact this is about trying to reduce the use of a card that maximises people’s participation in our democracy.The EasyVote card streamlines the process of voting for many people particularly for those for whom English is a second language for those who have impairments and for those who may be new migrants. It makes the process less intimidating and much easier. And for the staff in the polling booth it makes the process faster and smoother and allows them to get through the very busy and important work on election day in a more efficient manner. And we are throwing all of those things out because of some beaten-up fear of increased voter fraud which is not borne out by any evidence of reality. In fact the risk of fraud is neither increased nor decreased by the use of the EasyVote card.So I think it is a real shame and I am increasingly inclined to take the view as my colleague Mr Lees-Galloway has that there is some ulterior motive at work here. If the Government was listening to reason and listening to common sense it would have allowed the bill to be amended and to revert back to the way it was when it was first drafted to ensure that the EasyVote card provisions which would enable the Electoral Commission to make the card scannable and use it as an electronic record of a vote cast were included. That is a sensible and smart modernisation of our electoral law and that is what should have happened.There would have been consensus across this Committee albeit that the select committee did not recommend it. Upon closer consideration in the Committee of the whole House which is the proper place for that to happen there would have been consensus to make those changes or to leave the bill as it was originally drafted to allow the Electoral Commission to make those changes. And it is a real shame that that has not happened. So my proposed title for the bill as it now stands is the “Electoral Fraud is a Red Herring Amendment Bill” and I invite listeners to consider the Government’s motives carefully.