Little Andrew: Electoral Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 04 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16305. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): As we have discussed before in relation to electoral bills and the laws governing the conduct of our elections they are very important. This is an area that requires the utmost integrity the utmost honesty and transparency. And it is very important that when this Committee considers the laws under which the citizens of this great country get to exercise their democratic rights we also get it right—that we ensure our electoral laws promote and encourage maximum participation amongst our citizens. So we see in this Electoral Amendment Bill what we ordinarily see with electoral bills like this following a review of the last general election. There is sometimes a tidy-up sometimes some corrections and sometimes even a little modernisation. That is the passage that this bill took.But more recently an issue has arisen that has become one of great sensitivity and this Committee at this point has the opportunity to correct that. So I want to cut right to the chase and deal with that new part of clause 24 that touches on the actions of a voter when they turn up to the polling booth to cast their vote and have to show who they are. The law at the moment says that you must present yourself to the polling clerk in order to get your ballot paper and cast your vote.Before the bill went through the Justice and Electoral Committee the original bill had an extensive range of provisions reflecting what has been the modern practicewhich has been to use the electoral confirmation card that electors in New Zealand are typically issued with—or had been typically issued with in the last few elections. The use of the electoral enrolment card however is not mandated by a statute. It has been introduced through an administrative feat. So there was I think on recommendation from the Law Commission a provision in the previous version of this bill to provide for the electoral enrolment card in the statute so that it was very clear that it was there that it could be used and what its role was.As the bill has come back and been revised that has all been expunged. It has been replaced by a provision in clause 24 that amends the existing section 167(2) of the Electoral Act that causes some anxiety to members on this side of the Chamber and indeed to many others because they have written to us about it. That provision is the requirement not only that electors confirm their particulars or their details but that they must verbally give or confirm their name. That has never been a requirement in our electoral law and the EasyVote card plays a very useful role for those for whom that is a difficult exercise—when English is their second language they have a name that is difficult to pronounce or they otherwise have a speech impediment that makes it difficult for them to verbally confirm their identity. By presenting the electoral enrolment card they can avoid any embarrassment or humiliation or difficulty that they might otherwise have.No case has been given for why the polling clerk now must insist on verbal confirmation of identity. Certainly no case was made at the select committee and no case with all due respect has been made since. I raised this publicly after this bill came back early this year and made the point about the electoral enrolment card. In fact the last time I made that point was in the second reading of this bill. The next day the then Minister in the chair slammed down the comments that were made and said no the electoral enrolment card was not going to be legislated away. But of course you cannot legislate away something that has not been legislated for. What you can do is legislate for things that were not previously in the legislation such as the requirement to give verbal confirmation.This issue is very important and there are ways to correct this that do not cut across the principles that are apparent on the face of the bill as it stands at the moment. There have been a number of Supplementary Order Papers put forward to deal with this issue. That shows the level of concern there is about this issue. But the overriding thing is this: we want to see and I think it is desirable for New Zealand voters to know that they are not required to go through extra hoops when they go to cast their vote—to pick up their ballot paper and go into the polling booth. If they bring their electoral enrolment card that should suffice to show the polling clerk that that is who they are. They can get the page and line number from the roll that can be crossed off and it is then very difficult if not impossible for that card to be used again at least not without causing the owner of it some considerable grief later on when the police come knocking on their door if they have attempted to use it again. So there is no requirement as a matter of principle for a verbal confirmation to be given.The Committee might be interested to know that I wrote to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice on this very issue 2 weeks ago possibly longer. After a little spat broke out I suggested that notwithstanding the views that we had both expressed publicly we should nevertheless deal with the issue—that voters should not be required to confirm their identity verbally and that the presentation of a card should be enough. This ever-studious Minister has failed to reply to the letter from me and my colleague Maryan Street. That is surprising because I have spoken to other members of the House who say that they have written to the Minister and she has replied to theircorrespondence if not in writing at least coincidentally verbally. But we have not had the courtesy of such a reply.But that is not surprising because as I have told this Chamber many times before we have in my view the laziest Minister of Justice that we have had in probably 40 years. A diligent Minister of Justice who was on top of her game would have noted this issue and thought “You know as a matter of principle we don’t have to require voters to confirm their identity verbally. We have a perfectly acceptable form of administration for this process in the issuance of the electoral enrolment card and that will suffice.” But that is not the Minister we have. That is not the Minister of Justice that we have today. She is quite happy to go off to Shanghai for cups of tea to promote her partner’s business but she will not reply to correspondence raising important constitutional issues in this country a country that she claims to be a Minister of.So it is on that basis that we are saying that a very sensible somewhat modest change could be made to this bill to accommodate that need and to ensure the electoral integrity that we have always enjoyed in this country. But most important is the fact that we have never required electors to go through unnecessary hoops and procedures to justify their right to vote. We can reinstate that in the bill and therefore come out of this exercise with electoral legislation that is of the same standing and status and that will command the same respect as our present Electoral Act. There is simply no need for anything other than the presentation of an electoral enrolment card. It is fine if people want to say who they are and fine if they want to do it verbally but they should not have to go through extra hoops.Supplementary Order Paper 417 in my name reinstates what was previously in the bill—that is to say clauses 24 to 27. Supplementary Order Paper 420 in Holly Walker’s name is more extensive than that. But even if this Committee were minded to take a more modest change that would achieve the objectives both of the Government and indeed of the Opposition then Maryan Street’s Supplementary Order Paper 416 would be a good one to support. It is a modest change. It clarifies and confirms the choice between verbal confirmation and presentation of the enrolment card. I would urge the Committee to support this sort of change in principle and to support one of those Supplementary Order Papers that allows that to be achieved.When it comes to people casting their vote in the ever-important exercise of our general elections we do not want and we do not need them to go through unnecessary hoops—hoops that could be embarrassing could be humiliating or could just be plain difficult—just in order to exercise their democratic right to cast a vote. So I urge the Committee to support these changes and then let us get on with this bill which is in all other respects a good bill. It does the sort of tidy-up job that we expect of an Electoral Amendment Bill but this change was snuck in at the last minute by a Minister who is not on top of her game and is more interested in going to Shanghai and having cups of tea on her way through.