Street Maryan: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15937. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill. I wish to reflect on the contributions of the two previous speakers Andrew Little and Scott Simpson. I am more than happy to pay another tribute to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Scott Simpson who does operate as a very fair and effective chairman of the select committee. The account he gave in his speech just before he resumed his seat was absolutely accurate. There was a high degree of consensus around the proposals in this bill. In fact the way was cleared for the progress of the bill by the agreement of the National Party to remove the provisions relating to streamers and rosettes on election day. That was a stumbling block and it did not need to be there. There was no persuasive factor ever in that permissive provision of the original legislation. In fact if anything identification of those who are approaching people on election day is a good thing. So the National Party wisely decided that discretion was the better part of valour in that instance. With the removal of those clauses which the previous speaker Mr Scott Simpson has alluded to we saw our way clear to agreeing to the provisions in this bill.However can I say to the chair of the select committee that it is also part of the process that in the course of parties considering and reconsidering final reports some of the shadows to which he referred to emerge may not have been apparent in the first instance. So for example I participated as a Labour Party representative in the select committee debate around the application of the EasyVote card. We talked about whether or not there was the potential for fraudulent use of the EasyVote card. There is no doubt that we saw it as part of our duty as the select committee to ensure that the processes around voting remain absolutely clean and clear and retain the integrity for which our electoral system is famous internationally. That consideration is the one that really dominated the debate if I remember the debate in the select committee accurately. That is the one that dominated the debate.So the suggestion that people come and verbally identify themselves was seen to be a higher threshold of integrity because it would be harder—as the argument went from the members of the committee—for a voter to come up into the polling booth approach an electoral officer and say that they were somebody whom they were not. That presumption underpinned this provision—that it is actually harder for human beings to get up and lie about who they are and then go down the road to another polling booth and lie again about who they are than it is to take an EasyVote card present it take it back again and give it to somebody else in your family or somebody down the road to use and the fraud would not be discovered until some time later.So I accept that the intention and the application of the select committee were to preserve the integrity of the voting system. However I must say this to members of the select committee opposite: sometimes things shift in further discussion and debate amongst colleagues. That is what has happened for us in the Labour Party. Closer scrutiny—even closer scrutiny—of this gave rise to concerns that I think are legitimate and could be addressed by a Supplementary Order Paper if we were able to work this through in a bipartisan or multipartisan way towards an improvement. The provision that is now being inserted into the bill—that is to go up and verbally identify oneself—does actually present or potentially could present an additional barrier to a voter by ethnicity by not understanding an instruction in English or by disability. That barriercould prevent people from exercising their citizenship and their right to vote. So it is a legitimate concern.I acknowledge to the chair of the select committee that this is different from the result of the discussion as we arrived at it in the select committee. I acknowledge that. But that is part of the richness of being able to go back and have colleagues say “Hold on a minute—have you missed something here?”. If I have missed something here then it is my fault and the fault of Labour members on that select committee. But I would urge Parliament to consider the strength of the argument that if we can agree to a Supplementary Order Paper that ensures that the EasyVote card and the treatment of it in this amended legislation is not abandoned and that the replacement of it is not used as a barrier to people voting then perhaps we can still arrive at a consensus position on what the best form of protection is for the system of voting.So the primary concern of the select committee was to preserve the integrity of the voting process and protect it from any fraud. Whether or not there has been any fraud is a moot point and I am not sure that we as a select committee were ever presented with evidence that there was fraud. In that event let us then look again as a Parliament to see whether the provisions that exist in the bill now make it harder for people to participate in a vote rather than easier or make it harder for citizens to exercise their right to vote rather than easier. We should make it as easy as possible for all New Zealand citizens and those entitled to vote to do that—to vote. But we should also make sure that we preserve the integrity of the system and maintain that it is as impervious to fraud as possible. Although there might appear to be a contradiction here I do not believe there is.I think there have been some legitimate concerns raised by colleagues—in my caucus in particular—that ought to be aired in this Parliament and it is not beyond our collective wit to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion that delivers ease in the casting of a vote and the protection of the integrity of the process. I would ask members opposite when we get to the Committee stage to consider the Supplementary Order Paper that will come forward from Labour and to apply themselves in the same spirit in which the select committee conducted itself to achieve the best resolution and the best improvements of our electoral system that are available to us.I hope I have clarified some of that issue around the EasyVote card. We do not want to see it done away with. We do not want to see it replaced by something that makes it harder for people to vote. We absolutely support recommendations and provisions in legislation that prevent fraud but we have to find that balance and it is not beyond our competence to do so. Thank you.