Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this
I move, That the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.
This bill amends the Electoral Act in three significant respects. First, the bill completes the legislative changes required to establish a single integrated electoral agency with overarching responsibility for electoral administration. Previously, three electoral agencies were responsible for carrying out electoral administration. Although by and large they have delivered a quality service, several reviews have highlighted flaws in the system and have supported change. The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Act 2010 transferred the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and former Electoral Commission to a new Electoral Commission. This bill completes the second stage of the reform. It transfers the functions of the Chief Registrar of Electors, including responsibility for the electoral roll, from the chief executive of New Zealand Post Ltd to the new Electoral Commission on 1 October 2012. Having a single entity with overarching responsibility will enable us to have a more integrated and efficient electoral administration.
Second, this bill will give effect to three recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee following its inquiry into the 2008 general election. Electors’ immigration status will be able to be checked at the same time as their enrolment applications are processed, rather than after they are enrolled. This will help to ensure that only New Zealand citizens or permanent residents can register as electors. The change will improve the integrity of the roll and, as a consequence, the validity of the vote. The bill also allows information on applicants for new and renewed New Zealand passports to be provided to the registrar of electors for enrolment purposes. Access to passport information will help to maintain the accuracy of the roll and maximise enrolments. In addition, the bill will permit the destruction of paper enrolment records that are securely stored electronically, to reduce storage and administration costs.
Finally, this bill will give electors the ability to re-enrol and update their details online, without having to complete and sign a written form. This is the first step in a process that will eventually allow electors to use the Internet to enrol. Taking advantage of the Internet will make it as simple as possible for people to participate in elections.
I would like to commend the electoral agencies involved in this structural reform for their hard work and professionalism during the transition. They have been working on the integration of the agencies at the same time as running a by-election. During this time they have ensured that business as usual, including major preparation for next year’s election, continues on track. I am sure that this bill will contribute to public confidence in our system, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this
I rise to support the referral of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where, obviously, we will subject it to some scrutiny. Labour is generally supportive of the bill we have before us, given that it will give effect to the new Electoral Commission as the second part of what has been a two-stage reform of electoral administration. We do appreciate the way in which the Minister of Justice has been relatively consultative on these matters, and I look forward to the additional appointments to the Electoral Commission.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
I shall enjoy taking the entire 9 minutes on addressing the support that Labour has for the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). I also say to the Government that we will be scrutinising this legislation very carefully at the select committee, as we always do with electoral law reform in respect of any changes that may have constitutional ramifications. We will certainly work through this bill as we did with its predecessor bill, the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill, which enacted the original stage one of this two-stage process.
Just before the dinner adjournment, I was addressing the question of appointments to the Electoral Commission. As members will be aware, we have appointed two members to the new commission in order to get it up and running to take effect from 1 October this year. It has taken effect and it is already in play. There is a third appointment to be made, and I took the opportunity at the end of the last session to inquire of the Minister as to how progress was going on the third appointment. I am hoping that that will not be too far away now.
The new commission is in place, but this legislation will not take practical effect until after the next general election. It is designed to bring the third of the three independent entities that are being merged in this process into the new Electoral Commission. The third role is that of the Chief Registrar of Electors. The reason that this provision was delayed and not included in the original legislation is that in order to properly run a general election, which we have next year—we have not only a general election but also a referendum running alongside it—it is really important to allow considerable lead-in time for the transferring of that role. There simply has not been time in this calendar year to transfer the Chief Registrar of Electors’ responsibility for the electoral role to the new Electoral Commission in time for the 2011 general election. The transfer of responsibility will happen on 1 October 2012, which I suspect will be just over a year after the next general election. There are those who think the next general election will be just under a year from now, but there is probably only one person in this House who knows precisely what that date may be. He probably has not worked that out yet himself, because he will have to lick his finger, put it in the air, see how the polls are going, and see which way the wind is blowing before he makes that call. I think it makes good sense to hold over the transfer of the Chief Registrar of Electors’ responsibility so that a considerable amount of lead-in time is allowed.
The second thing that this bill does is allow for some amendments that arose from the inquiry into the 2008 general election, which was conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is good to see recommendations from our select committee review process being implemented. I have sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee at some stage in a previous part of my 20 years in Parliament. We did one of those inquiries and made a number of recommendations, but, unfortunately, they were not picked up by the Government of the day. When they are picked up, I think it proves that parliamentarians can play a very useful role in looking in a non-partisan way, dispassionately, at the processes that may give rise to opportunities to strengthen the law. In this case, it makes really good sense to use the Department of Labour’s immigration information to check as a preliminary step whether an applicant for enrolment is qualified to be enrolled. That is a good use of the process of select committee inquiries in bringing about a simple change in the law that will streamline the whole process and add integrity to the role.
The third thing that this legislation does is begin to set up an e-environment for our elections, and I think that will excite those who are interested in such matters. It starts with stage one, which is online re-enrolment and updating. This bill, if it is passed in its current form, will enable voters who are already on the electoral role to re-enrol or to communicate any changes about their enrolment details via the Internet. The Minister of Justice pointed out in his comments in the introductory address that the igovt log-on service is the basis for that re-enrolment. It is stage one of a two-stage process that will ultimately give electors the option of full online enrolment. I support the concept. I think it is important that we become relevant to the new age, as it were, of electronic media. If we are to encourage a generation that really knows only electronic media as the means of communication, we need to come up to speed with the way they now do business with each other and communicate with each other. If we want to engage young people in the electoral process, then we have to find a way of enabling them to at least register their enrolment online in a way that is secure.
As I said, the first step is covered by the igovt log-on service, which is being developed by the Department of Internal Affairs. In respect of the second stage, there has to be a much higher level of security around giving somebody the ability to enrol fully online from start to finish. The igovt log-on service is not sufficiently strong or robust to give the degree of security we need. The reason we need that security is that our electoral rolls must have integrity. Nothing is more important than people being able to exercise their right to vote. It is actually a legal requirement to be on the roll—unless one is a victim of Paul Quinn’s bill. Essentially, one has to be on the electoral roll because it is a legal requirement to be on the electoral roll. It is the basis for one’s right to exercise one’s duty to vote. So I think the Government is going down the right track of seeking to secure a much, much more robust system for verification. The explanatory note outlines that the Department of Internal Affairs is developing the igovt identity verification service, the IVS, which requires users to verify their identity online, in real time. It will probably not be: “Give us your email address and we’ll send you a little code that you can put in.”; it will obviously be a much more strengthened process than that.
I am certainly looking forward to the submissions that will come in on this bill. I know that there is a lot of interest in seeing an expansion of electronic media use in terms of our electoral system. I think it helps to make it much more relevant to young people. For that reason, I hope that when the bill is reported back, we can see some progress in that regard.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this
It is my privilege and honour to participate in the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). The purpose of the bill is to amend the Electoral Act 1993 to establish electoral reforms. On 1 October 2010 the offices of the Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Commission were abolished and their functions were transferred to the new Electoral Commission. The second stage of the reform is the transfer on 1 October 2012 of the Chief Registrar of Electors’ responsibility for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission. The purpose of presenting this bill in stages is to minimise disruption to the 2011 general election.
This bill also includes amendments resulting from the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2008 general election. Democracy is a political system in which electoral representation governs according to the constitutional laws of the land. There have been cases where this process has been challenged. We have to ensure that the democratic process is safeguarded at any cost.
One of the main recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee was to ensure that an elector’s immigration status could be tested at the time that an enrolment application is processed. There have been several cases of people who have deceived the Electoral Commission with regard to their immigration status. To enable the Electoral Commission to carry out these checks, the Department of Internal Affairs has been given the authority to provide information to the Chief Registrar of Electors during the issuing of new passports or the renewal of passports. This change will be implemented from 1 October 2012.
To assist the public and to bring them into the present day with new technology, this bill gives voters the option to re-enrol and to amend their enrolment details online. It will also enable applicants to verify their identity online in real time. The Justice and Electoral Committee also recommended that paper enrolment records be destroyed once they have been electronically secured and stored. The amendment will enhance the enrolment service and reduce electoral administration costs.
The amalgamation of electoral agencies is part of the reform initiated by this Government, with the support of other parties. This bill is essential not only to ensure the reliability and competence of the electoral system but also to streamline the enrolment process and accomplish a reduction in overheads. I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill during the select committee process.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
I am pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). As I think Lianne Dalziel and the Minister of Justice said, this is the second bill in a two-stage reform of electoral administration, serving to establish the new combined body to be known as the Electoral Commission. Members may remember from the debate on the first bill in this reform process that my colleagues on this side of the House spoke in support of the new Electoral Commission. The basis for that support is a belief that the current system is not as efficient as it might be, and that the one proposed will be a more effective regulator of the electoral process. The quality of the proposed authority will be incredibly important.
The very nature of changes to Acts such as the Electoral Act is such that they can have very serious constitutional ramifications in terms of the way in which our country runs. Although we support this bill on its introduction, obviously we will have to subject it to very close scrutiny at the Justice and Electoral Committee and give serious consideration to all the submissions received.
At this point in my speech I will pay tribute to the work that has already been done by the Electoral Legislation Committee in the process that I mentioned before, which this bill is effectively the second part of, because bills on the new electoral finance laws and the first referendum on MMP have also been considered by that committee. I think it is appropriate to record that that committee has worked on a multiparty basis to try to achieve consensus on matters that will, hopefully, mean we have greater integrity in our electoral law. I remember speaking on the earlier legislation and lamenting the fact that there was initially a refusal to provide for spending caps in it on so-called parallel campaigners, or third parties, so it is good to see that the committee has come back with a workable compromise on that issue.
The committee has reported the new electoral finance and referenda legislation back to the House with a provision for a $300,000 spending limit on third parties in the 3 months prior to an election. That is an appropriate thing to have done; it reflects the fact that the committee has worked well. The Minister of Justice has shown that he is working in an appropriate spirit on the electoral legislation by his accepting that recommendation and bringing the report back to the House with wide support. Clearly, the decision to allow for a cap on third-party spending will go a long way towards quelling concerns that money could have an overt influence over future elections and that we were moving towards the Americanisation of our political system.
I think we can be hopeful, given the careful scrutiny and the eventual consensus that has been reached to date by the special Electoral Legislation Committee, that we will see a careful consideration of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Justice and Electoral Committee, and that if improvements to it are needed, we will see them be made in a spirit of multiparty agreement, as well.
It is appropriate to have a new combined entity to regulate elections, and it is likely that it will be more effective than the previous three entities. Although the election administration machinery will be streamlined by the bill, I think it is appropriate for somebody in a first reading speech to at least record that in saying that, nobody is trying to take anything away from the fine work that has been done by the three existing agencies, which have served New Zealand well. We have had largely free and fair elections in this country. There are one or two notable exceptions that probably do not need to be reiterated in this speech, but the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the previous Electoral Commission, and the Chief Registrar of Electors have shown a demonstrable commitment to the oversight of free and fair elections. We are blessed in this country to have those types of elections generally. I think sometimes we take that for granted, and we fail to realise how well served we have been. Let us hope that the new combined body will continue to work in the spirit of its three predecessors, and do an even more effective job. It should be able to discharge its responsibilities efficiently by having all the functions in one body, rather than having them split across three bodies.
As to the need for reform, it is interesting to look at the functions of the previous bodies. The Chief Electoral Office conducted the elections, the Electoral Commission registered political parties and logos, and the Chief Registrar of Electors was responsible for the electoral roll. Clearly the reform process that is mooted by this bill will make the system potentially more efficient, by making sure that those roles are carried out by the new body. Giving it responsibility for conducting elections, dealing with donations and expenditure, informing the public about electoral matters, appropriating broadcasting time and funding, registering parties and logos, maintaining the electoral roll, sharing the information across what used to be separate authorities, and reducing crossovers and potential miscommunications should all make for a better system.
It is very important that the new commission be staffed at the highest levels by the very best people who are available. As Lianne Dalziel said, this Parliament, facilitated on the appointments side by the Minister, has made two appointments to the new commission. A third appointment is pending. It is important that we have that appointment expedited, so that the work of the commission can continue with a full complement of commission members. There is a big job ahead, certainly in terms of supervising the next election and possibly the odd by-election that might well occur in the meantime, and obviously there is the job of supervising the MMP referendum, which the Government remains determined to hold in conjunction with the next election.
Unfortunately, we do not have the member for Botany here to tell us about the likelihood of the next by-election, but obviously it is desirable to have the commission up and running at full strength as soon as possible. I do hope that the Minister will hasten to ensure that the third member of the commission can be appointed on a consensus basis in the Parliament, as the legislation intends.
The amendments that were recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee following its inquiry into the 2008 general election will also, when adopted in legislation, make the enrolment process better. They will result in more people being on the electoral roll, and provide more clarity around the status of immigrants to New Zealand and whether people in that category are eligible to enrol. This is good news. It has become an issue in recent years, and it is an area that needs improvement. I know from personal experience in recent weeks of doorknocking in Mana that there is a lot of confusion in immigrant communities about enrolment. A lot of voters would not have had the chance to enrol if our party, and no doubt other parties, had not taken the forms physically to them in their homes, in shopping centres, or wherever else it was, and ensured that they were on the roll or able to cast a special vote. The more that we can do to ensure that the body charged with the public function of ensuring that everybody who is entitled to be on the roll is on the roll, the better it will be. Although we can praise the innovative work that has been done to date on enrolment, there is always more that can be done, especially with the use of the new technologies that are now at the command of the new body. We want to see all those innovative technologies and opportunities being deployed by the new body.
I look forward to the general election next year being conducted under the new authority that the Government has set up. I am sure that the new commission will do an excellent job. I do hope that the third member of the commission is appointed promptly, and also I wish the select committee all the best in its consideration of this legislation. I hope we will see the same type of consideration—thorough and consensus based—that we have seen to date on other electoral legislation in this Parliament.
HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this
I am pleased to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). As previous speakers have noted, there are three key provisions within this bill, and the bill itself is part of a suite of electoral reforms. This bill is but one part of those reforms and, as the previous speaker indicated, this has been carried out in the context of a consensus amongst parties on the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is important that the functioning of democracy in New Zealand is clear and transparent, accountable, well understood, and has the support of all parties in Parliament. Democracy is only as good as the quality of the people who participate in it, and this bill is part of the legislative framework that provides for that quality.
The first part of the bill is about establishing the Electoral Commission as a Crown entity, and the second phase is about tidying up the institutional or structural administration of electoral legislation. The bill amends the Electoral Act 1993 to ensure that stage two of the two-stage process of electoral administration can occur, and occur in a way that is the least disruptive possible to the general election at the end of 2011. We look forward to the full complement of commissioners being in place to oversee the administration of this legislation.
But I want to move on to the provision about immigrant communities, which provides for those people who are enrolled on the register to have as much assurance as possible about what the process is, and the quality of that process that will enable them to ensure that they can indeed exercise their right of democracy, which is to cast a vote. In the recent Mana by-election it was indeed clear to us—particularly in Mana, which comprises a very committed set of communities embracing refugee communities and immigrant communities—that as part of their citizenship entitlement in New Zealand they understand how they might participate in the democratic process.
Many of these refugees and immigrants come from countries where democracy is practised in ways that are quite different from the way we in New Zealand have come to know democracy and enjoy it—where one’s vote is free and untrammelled, where one can go to a polling booth, without being intimidated or threatened, and where one can, in the repeated words of columnist Chris Trotter, “vote as if one is free”. But one can vote as if one is free only if one is indeed registered to vote.
The bill also includes amendments arising from the Government’s response to the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on its inquiry into the 2008 election. These amendments will enable the Department of Labour’s immigration information, which is currently used to check whether enrolled electors are entitled to be on the electoral roll, to be used to check whether an applicant for enrolment is qualified to be enrolled. It will provide a new notice of procedure for applications that fail the pre-enrolment immigration status check. It will be used to authorise the destruction of paper enrolment records, as long as they have been stored as secure electronic images, and it will allow information from the Department of Internal Affairs on new and renewing passport applicants to be provided to the Chief Registrar of Electors for enrolment purposes. Together with the other two main provisions of this bill, I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this
The Labour Opposition will be supporting the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) in the name of Simon Power. There are so many things to say about the different aspects of our electoral law. My colleagues the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel have already touched on those events.
I acknowledge the previous speaker, Hekia Parata. I think she would be offended if I did not make reference to her, as the speaker following her speech. I know that despite her natural shyness she will set this to one side to allow me to make a couple of comments. I note that on Saturday, Labour won the second by-election of this parliamentary term. It is great indeed to see that Labour’s record is winning two out of two by-elections. Matters of electoral administration are very, very important to Labour. In fact, if I were to be unkind to the honourable member, I would say that her claim that she does not do runner-up is not a line she can keep on using. This is the third time she has come in as runner-up in an electoral race. I think she will have to use a new strap-line for her campaigns. [Interruption] I am sorry; I cannot hear the member as her own colleagues are drowning her out.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
That can be achieved. I can deliver that for the member, if she chooses. But I will not. I just note that I commiserate with the member, because her own personal share of the vote fell by almost 3,000. Almost 3,000 fewer people voted for her on Saturday than 2 years ago. I almost wondered whether Jonathan Coleman had been giving some advice to that particular campaign.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
I am pleased to hear Government members now saying that there was a low turn-out on Saturday, because I had not heard that from the spin of the National Government. Now the candidate for Mana is saying that one of the reasons she lost 3,000 votes on Saturday was that there was a low turn-out. I acknowledge the member, and I agree with the argument that she has put forward. I think that was very useful, indeed.
The member will be grateful to the Prime Minister for the extraordinary amount of time he spent in her electorate and the predictions he made. It was unusual to see him in the electorate on Saturday night. None of us thought we would see him in Mana on Saturday evening. He made the decision to be there, while, of course, there were other matters of State on his mind and we are all thinking of him in that respect. But he was there in Mana, and he obviously had some expectations that did not come to pass. Anyway, that is the way it went. I am glad the member had the chance to speak on matters of electoral administration. There was a far more honourable showing on Saturday, I must say, than we saw just a year ago in the Mt Albert electorate. I am very critical of Jonathan Coleman for many reasons, and a lot of them are shared by his own colleagues, so I feel in great company in that respect. But I must admit I will give him credit for one thing. On election night he and Melissa Lee showed up to concede in person. I was very surprised that the member Hekia Parata did not appear in person to concede defeat in the Mana electorate. I thought she would have done that. I must admit I was a bit surprised about that, because when all is said and done she is a good person. I thought that might have been a classy touch to what was a very clean campaign.
However, having said that, I will touch on other matters on this bill, because it is important. Having poked a little bit of borax at the National Party, I want to give praise to Simon Power on this 23rd day of November 2010—one day after the 22nd of November. That date will be important to the Minister of Justice for reasons known to him. Minister Power has managed this process with a great degree of integrity, and he has sought to genuinely balance a degree of bipartisan cooperation, to the extent that that can be expected. There are some genuine differences across the aisle here about the ways these matters should be handled. The balance of the package that the Minister has developed—and is delivering by way of two other bills that we will debate on Thursday—and this bill tonight is not perfect from the Labour Party’s point of view. I know that National does not think it is perfect, either, but there is a balance. I think we have got ourselves back into a very credible position where we are trying to have laws for electoral purposes that, even if we do not regard them as perfect, most sides can live with. I do have to say that Simon Power has brought us to that position through his ministerial role, and we do appreciate it. I definitely put on the record that we are grateful to him for that.
As other speakers have said—including Mr Bakshi, who very eloquently pointed it out—this is stage two of a two-stage reform package. He made the point quite firmly that the bill does make changes to how the new Electoral Commission can operate. We, of course, had an Electoral Commission previously, but this bill coordinates the different branches of that commission in a way that we have not seen before. It is almost but not quite a one-stop shop, but that model of one agency that will deliver on our electoral laws and will give the advice, the support, the guidance, and, importantly, the information about our electoral system will be quite an important thing. So the Labour Opposition does understand why the Government has done this.
I think all political parties, regardless of their political philosophy, who have stumped up on the campaign trail, have all, at different points, felt some degree of frustration at some of the duplication that has occurred in our processes. So being able to streamline that—a phrase that I think all parties have used to explain their support for this bill—will obviously have some reduction in terms of the costs of running elections, but, more to the point, it will provide more clarity for political parties and parliamentary candidates than has necessarily been the case in the past. This a staged process, although the commission exists. Mr Chauvel spoke about the fact that two members of the commission are appointed and there is a third member to come on board, which should take place as quickly as possible. Again, I say that the Minister has been very generous in his consultation on that. Once that is set up, I think it will be quite important for the members to assume those responsibilities as soon as that can take place.
I must admit I am surprised that the role of the Chief Registrar of Electors do not fall into this new commission until 2012, which is still quite some time away. That takes us beyond the Botany by-election, and it takes us beyond the general election of 2011, as well. So there will be quite some time before these reforms all take place. But there is a road map for it, and I think that is quite a useful thing that has been signalled to us.
I will pick up on some of the points that members of the Justice and Electoral Committee made, because I think they focused on this quite heavily after the general election. We have a convention, I guess, that after every general election the committee conducts an inquiry. There are submissions from different political parties, and most of them are from those who are active in the election process. In some years nothing really happens with those reports, but this year I was very pleased to see that the multiparty committee that inquired into that has made some recommendations that the Government has picked up. Those have been outlined by Lianne Dalziel, and Hekia Parata just mentioned a number of them in respect of immigration information that is available.
I think that moving down the path of e-enrolment will be a very important thing, particularly when people find through moving around that they can easily be dropped off the roll, which none of us like to see happen. I think the reforms that were made when Tim Barnett was the chair of the select committee, to assume that people would be reinstated on the roll after every general election, were a good thing. Members will recall that after each election everyone was wiped from the roll and forced to re-enrol—that was a crazy system. It has been much better to have the reform whereby people are assumed to continue as electors unless there is a reason not to. So I am pleased to see that that has continued.
We are lucky in New Zealand that we have very high levels of enrolment and an optional voting system. That is an important element to make sure that people get on the electoral roll and exercise their right to vote. In Australia, of course, with its compulsory voting system that is not as important. There is an almost 100 percent rate of participation in elections. I know that there is a state election in Victoria this weekend, and once again we will see an electoral system that works very, very credibly. Labour supports the referral of this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. For the reasons I have outlined, this is useful legislation, and we congratulate the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, on the way he is conducting this process.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
I was not going to mention the Mana by-election, but as the member who has just resumed his seat, Mr Hughes, opened the door, I am very happy to go through it. I congratulate Mr Fa’fo, and I look forward, as all honourable members do—
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
Thank you. I look forward, as I am sure all members do, to Mr Fa’afoi taking his seat in this House. But it was a pyrrhic victory, really, was it not? We can see it was when we think about all the union resources Labour members used. They were trucking protesters up from Dunedin, for goodness’ sake! Of course, there is a surplus of them down there. I am sure that Labour could have done without a few, because they have had very little to protest about down there.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
I have not had them outside my office for several months. I cannot think what might be going right, but something is definitely going right. The protesters had nothing else to do but come to Mana and protest the Prime Minister and the National candidate. Really, as the Prime Minister said, it was the best feeling anyone could have coming second; we never thought that coming second would feel so good. The Leader of the Opposition said the by-election was a referendum on the Government. I think, actually, that it was more of a referendum on his leadership and on the Labour Opposition. Some members of that caucus must be sweating profusely. That does not apply to the good Mr Hodgson; he will not have to worry for too much longer.
On a more generous note, I will pick up on the points Mr Chauvel made. Was that the correct pronunciation?
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
Mr Chauvel made some very generous comments about the temporary select committee that was set up, the Electoral Legislation Committee. I thought it did an outstanding job. I was not a member of that select committee, but like many other members, I spent some time on it. It dealt with some really tricky issues on the three bills it was considering. They involved quite substantial changes to our electoral system, and I congratulate all the members on the work they have done.
This bill, of course, will continue that work. I think it will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I am particularly interested in the Internet capability for e-enrolment that this bill will provide, and also the efficiencies that will continue with the merger of the three organisations. I strongly support the bill.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I am surprised and disappointed that the member from Dunedin who has just resumed his seat, Mr Woodhouse, was unable to make a contribution longer than the modest one he made. In the course of his speech he spent much time speaking about Mana and a surfeit of support from Dunedin to help in the Mana electorate because there are an awful lot of Labour Party activists in Dunedin. Well, if that is to be the tenor of that member’s contribution, let me take issue with the fact that we have a surfeit of Labour Party supporters in Dunedin who were able to help in the Mana by-election and contrast that with the fact that a fellow called Joe Butterfield has just been appointed as chief executive of the Southland District Health Board. He comes from Timaru, which is 200 kilometres from Dunedin, and, I say to Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, it is 400 kilometres from Invercargill, which you know so well. There is no air link. And this is a man who is well into his 70s.
What does that say for the quality of National Party hacks in Dunedin? The Minister of Health thinks that the National Party hacks in Dunedin are all of such low standards that he has to appoint a very experienced man, I must admit, from 200 kilometres further north. Well, enough—enough of that.
All I would say about Mana is that the turn out in Mana exceeded the turn-out in Mt Albert, that the party vote for the Labour Party in Mana exceeded the party vote for the Labour Party in the 2008 election, that whenever we have a by-election there is always a lesser turn-out than there is in a general election, therefore there is always a lesser majority than there is in a general election, before or after. It happens time and again. We could go through any by-election. One could go to the Taranaki - King Country by-election and find the same thing.
There was only one winner in the Taranaki - King Country by-election. True, he came to this House in a tractor, which he failed to stop, and in which he went up the steps of Parliament House. But there was only one winner. The Labour Party did not win Taranaki - King Country; we came second, and there is no place for second in politics. We consider the Taranaki - King Country by-election to be a dreadful loss. Mana, on the other hand, was not. “We won. You lost. Eat that!” Ha, ha! I do not know whether I am quoting anyone. I wonder who last said that. What seat were they in? What reaction did it cause around the country? Was there a strike by capital? I think there was, but probably not in this case.
I will make some serious remarks about electoral reform. This legislation is pretty modest. It does not do a lot, but it does some stuff that is really rather interesting, including, for example, moving us towards electronic enrolments. I think that is pretty smart. One thing will follow, like night follows day, as soon as we have electronic enrolments, and it is that people will ask why they cannot enrol on election day, or why they cannot enrol after election day and before the special votes are counted, and so on. People will push the boundaries, and that has been part of history. We used to close the electoral roll 28 days before an election, in order to get the roll printed. It was a lovely excuse. We had to close the roll 28 days before an election in order to print it, because unless it could be seen that they were on the printed roll, they could not be issued with voting papers. Of course there were exceptions, say, where someone had just come of age in the week before the election, in which case they could cast a special vote.
Finally, one bright spark said: “Well, if you can cast a special vote for that reason, maybe you can cast a special vote for the fact that you have only just gone on the roll in general a week before.” So, one way or another, after a lot of argy-bargy through the 1990s, the enrolment closure period moved from 28 days, out to 5 p.m. the day before the election. Still, in the last election 20,000-odd people—I cannot remember the exact number; let us say 25,000 people, about the adult population of Timaru—on election day went to the trouble of going down to the polling booth, asking for their name to be looked up, finding that their name was not to be found on the roll, asking for a special vote, being given a special vote, filling in the special voting form, putting it in the ballot box, and having their special vote not counted—only because they were not on the roll. That occurred with 25,000-odd New Zealanders, or maybe 23,000.
Under-enrolment, even though we have high levels of enrolment when compared with the standards of some jurisdictions, continues to disenfranchise folk. We need to be preoccupied by that. So moving to electronic enrolment is a damn good idea, but it does beg the question of whether people can enrol on election day. If people can enrol on election day, then the question arises as to whether those people can enrol and then vote. Of course, the administrators will say that they are busy enough already. But as administration gets easier and easier and we move to a more and more straightforward and electronic approach to life in general, including, electronic voting one day, then the idea of electronic enrolling and voting at once will be plausible, and the minute it is plausible it will be demanded.
We are on a bit of a journey, and this legislation takes us one step further. Earlier speakers have spoken of the value of a mostly agreed electoral system—of a mostly agreed electoral system. There are periods in our history, including one recently, when the electoral system, the law around the electoral Acts or various pieces of legislation that we use, including parliamentary rules, has not been agreed on across the House. There will always be some argy-bargy. There will always be a viewpoint from, say, the ACT Party that there should be absolutely no restriction ever again on anyone doing, for example, television advertising, because that is just horrible. If someone is extremely rich and wants to spend a lot of money buying an election result—and is stupid enough to spend their money on that, says the ACT Party—then they should be allowed to, because that is what a liberal society looks like. There are other people who hold the view that it is best that we do not have people winning elections on the basis of how rich they are, but, rather, on the basis of the contest of their arguments and whether their arguments stack up in the views of the majority.
There will always be differences, but it is really important that we get a significant measure of agreement, which we have not always had. Indeed, there were some terrible debates in this House over the 28-day enrolment rule of 1993, 1996, and 1999—way back then. Then when we got ourselves into the MMP debate, around 1992-93, and we had some incredible debates then too. I say that this legislation, and the legislation that is coming up later this week, now has a significant measure of agreement, at least between the two major parties. I acknowledge that minor parties hold other views, and I am respectful of those. But, equally, I think minor parties would acknowledge that it is good that the bulk of us have a rough measure of agreement about what electoral laws should be like, because it so important, because it is part of our constitution. All I would say—
Hilary CalvertThere goes the ACT Party position. I told her what it was, and minutes later the member, having returned from urgent public business, walks into the Chamber and, like the puppet she is, out it came. It is just what one would expect from the ACT Party. It is good to see her here, another person from Dunedin, and that is great. In fact there are not a lot of people left in Dunedin north midweek, because half of that number are up here in the House. We have a significant measure of agreement across the House. I add my thanks to the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, and indeed to the National caucus for their contribution to that better measure of agreement. It is not great agreement, but it is much, much better. We are probably a better nation for that better agreement. Thank you.
STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this
It is good to stand up in support of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). A lot of people do not realise that about 80 percent of bills that pass through the House have agreement between National and Labour. Labour supports good legislation. We support strong legislation, and we support common-sense legislation. In fact, the only sort of legislation we do not support is the sort of legislation that strips away rights from workers—and we have seen a little bit of that recently, as Mr Assistant Speaker Roy is well aware. We have debated that long and hard, and I think the vast majority of New Zealanders understand that National is the party for the few; Labour is the party for the many.
We support this legislation, but the other sort of legislation we do not support is the sort of legislation that gives massive tax cuts to those very few at the top. As an example, we are talking about the 650 New Zealanders who earn $1 million or more. They have received a tax cut of about $1,000 a week, or more. People on the median wage in Napier have received less than $5. That is the sort of legislation that Labour does not support, because it is not fair or equitable. It is not what everyday New Zealanders support or, in fact, what the vast majority of New Zealanders actually voted for. It is not the sort of legislation that Labour would support.
Michael Woodhouse brought up an interesting fact when he started speaking about the Mana electorate. It sounded like the rhetoric we hear from the New Zealand cricket team when they talk about moral victories. National has said there was a moral victory in Mana. John Key stood up and said: “Coming second has never felt so good.” Well, he will come second again in about 12 months, so I hope he feels the same way then. I tell him that members on this side know there is a winner and there is a loser; there is not a moral victory. So I tell him to enjoy his moral victory, because he will have a lot more moral victories. But on this side of the House, all we are concerned about is real victories. Chris Fa’afoi won; Hekia Parata came runner-up—again.
That is right: she does not do runner-up—but she does. I do not quite understand that, but it is the sort of gobbledegook we are used to hearing from members opposite, anyway. John Key was “ecstatic” at National’s coming second. Well, he will be laughing a long time next year, I assure him.
I must admit that it was good to hear the contribution from the ACT Party. I think it was a retort that said something about free TV. I ask my chief whip how many votes the ACT candidate got in Mana.
I think that was about 100 votes. I saw the Hon Rodney Hide in the Koru Club one time when I was heading back to Napier to work hard in Hawke’s Bay, because we are going to take those Bay seats back. I asked him where he was headed to and was told he was going down to Mana. I thought to myself: “Why is he going down to Mana? Is there something to do with local government down there? Is there a local government conference?”. But he was going down to campaign in Mana. Why would he? ACT got 100 votes. I have to say that he is a man who was against perks. He was a perk-buster. So how much money did it cost to get Rodney Hide from Auckland down to Mana, and back again?”. It was about $1,000 per vote, I suspect. That is not a good use of taxpayers’ money, at all.
Paddy from TV3 came up and asked: “How much taxpayers’ money did it cost to get you MPs out to Mana?”. I said: “To tell the truth it did not cost the taxpayers any money but it cost me $6 on the train.” He said: “Oh, there goes my story.” I said: “Absolutely!”. No taxpayers’ money was involved, because we were on the train out to Mana every day.” At 6 a.m. we were on the train. It did not cost any money, because I was down here on a Thursday anyway. I just decided to go out and help out a mate in Mana, because that is what we do in the Labour Party. At 6 a.m. we are normally at the gym or going for a run, but that Thursday I thought I would go and help out a mate; I went and waved some signs. It cost me $6 out of my own pocket. So it was a moral victory for National, but it was a real victory for Labour, which is what we are concerned about.
I come back to the bill. As mentioned, we support the bill because we support good, common-sense legislation—legislation that makes it easier for all New Zealanders to engage in the voting process. As my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson mentioned before, this bill is about making it easier to enrol and using online electoral enrolment. That is a good thing, and I give one reason: when I was out doorknocking in Mana many people were either not enrolled or were not living at the address shown in the current electoral roll. When people are not enrolled they become disenfranchised from the system, and we all know the statistics of people who have turned up on enrolment day in a general election wanting to vote but not able to vote. The people I met wanted to have their say. They had taken time out to go and vote once every 3 years—that is all, but if they live in Mana it is a little bit more often—but they had been told they were not on the roll. Well, that is not right, apart from the fact that we know it is actually illegal not to be on the roll. Unlike Australia where it is illegal not to vote, here it is illegal not to be on the roll.
We have to make it easy for people to obey the law and to get on the roll. If there are any impediments to that, then it is really the role of this Parliament to ensure that those impediments are removed, or at least mitigated, and to make it easy for people to engage. That is what this bill does. It provides for a more efficient way of checking that electors’ immigration status legally allows them to be on the electoral roll. Anyone who has been to a citizenship ceremony will understand the importance that new immigrants place on voting in this country. For a lot of countries that is not a right, and the reason a lot of people are here is that they have been denied their fundamental, democratic right to vote. But in New Zealand we think it is a very fundamental right to vote. It is probably the No. 1 right when one becomes a New Zealander—one’s right to choose the next Government. We have to make it easy for people to do that; I think that everyone would agree with that, but in Mana there were many instances where that was not the case. People did not know, they could not check, and they did not have the ability to check. This bill will make it so much easier, which we are all for.
Another thing I would like to talk about, which has already been alluded to, is electoral finance reform and referenda. The Government’s initial refusal to provide spending caps on so-called parallel campaigners or third parties was actually a black mark against electoral reforms. But Mr Power saw common sense and realised there needed to be transparency, so we reached a workable compromise. I thank my Labour colleagues very much who suggested to Mr Power that that would be a good suggestion. He listened, and here we have what we have now. I understand that the new spending limit on third parties is about $300,000. To a lot of people $300,000 sounds like a lot of money, but when we hark back to the 2005 election we know there was a group—I think, the Exclusive Brethren—who spent a million dollars. They were not aligned to any political party—in fact, they are not even allowed to vote, according to their religion—but they spent a million dollars. This bill brings the limit right back to $300,000. Under a citizens initiated referendum it would be down to $50,000, and we think that that would be a good idea; as I said, we must have transparency and accountability.
Under the former electoral administration set-up we basically had three separate bodies. There was the Chief Electoral Officer—but let me tell members a story. I was standing beside one of the electoral blokes on election day in Mana. He got a call saying there was a “Nash Labour car” driving through the electorate. I was standing beside him and he asked where my car was. I said that I had driven it right through the electorate and it was now sitting in the parliamentary car park underneath Parliament House. We relayed that, and the electoral officer said—well, I cannot repeat what he said, but I can tell members that he was not very happy about that, at all. We have to use a bit of common sense in this situation, but the blokes on the other side ignored that common-sense test well and truly.
Under the former set-up there was also the Electoral Commission and the Chief Registrar of Electors. Now we have a new Electoral Commission, and it conducts elections, deals with donations, informs the public about electoral matters, apportions broadcasting time and funding, registers parties and logos, and maintains the electoral roll.
This is good, common-sense legislation. As I have said, Labour supports common-sense legislation. Thank you very much.
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
I will take a short call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party will be supporting this legislation. It is the second bill that deals with reforming the various electoral agencies. It makes perfect sense in the circumstances for it to proceed, and we have no problems with it. We supported the first round of legislation on this issue and we will support this one as well.
Other members have been talking too about the other electoral law that we expect will be available for debate later this week on the electoral financing system. The Green Party is very pleased to see that in that bill, for example, there are caps on spending by third parties in an election, as there will be in the MMP referendum. The electoral agencies that are concerned in the bill we are discussing tonight will manage that process. We will go into that debate in more detail later in the week, but for the Greens those are significant issues about the protection of our democracy.
The democratic system that we have in this country, although not perfect—and it will never be perfect—is one that attempts to provide the fairest and most genuine representation to all New Zealanders that is possible. It is a democratic system that we need to continue to improve, to be honest about its failings, and to be able to deal with the changes that need to be made.
We know that in the next election, for example, there will be an MMP referendum. Legislation about that referendum will come to this House soon for debate. We see that decisions have been made to put a cap on the spending of third parties on the MMP referendum. We are very pleased about that. We think that is very important. One of the most important decisions that the people of this country—the citizens of this country—can make is a decision about the kind of system we use to elect our representatives to this House. Indeed, a more important decision than an election itself is how we conduct it.
As we look around the world we see so many examples where communities are stripped of their right to have a say. They are stripped of their right to fair representation inside their democratic system. They are stripped of their right to critique and assess whether their representatives have done a good job and to hold those representatives to account. They are stripped, in many places, of their right just to be represented—just to have a voice in a House like this that will speak for them and their issues.
We in this country, despite the flaws of our system, are very lucky that we have a proportional representative system. That means that by far the majority of New Zealanders who vote in this country are represented by their choice of representative in this House. That is a critical step in the development and the growth of a changing electoral system, and of a democratic system.
The provisions of this bill are very narrow and I am certainly talking about the broader issues around electoral reform, but I think it is very important that we continue to put out the message that this electoral system and this system of democracy—the Westminster representative democracy—belongs to the citizens of this country. They are entitled to be decision makers, to have access to the best possible information, and to have a process of information and decision making that is not corrupted by the influence of excessive use of money.
There is a lot of argument about whether there should be controls on spending on elections and, for example, on the MMP referendum. But those controls are necessary; advertising works. It is a multibillion dollar industry for a reason and that is because advertising works. Because it works so well and can distort what is the most critical debate this country faces, which is how we will elect our Governments and how we elect our representatives to this Chamber, we need to make sure that the public get access to good quality information and that that is not distorted by the abuse and the misuse of money in the system. That is why we are so pleased to see that the Government has agreed to our proposal to have caps on the MMP referendum alongside caps on third parties in electoral finance law.
All of those issues are part of the public debate. It is really important that the public themselves engage in those discussions in this debate. There was the select committee process, and no doubt there may be other issues that get raised as a result of this legislation being passed tonight that will be discussed at select committee. But at the end of the day, as I say, any provision and any legislation that deal with reform of our electoral system are of critical import to the rights of our people to act as citizens and take responsibility as citizens for the electoral system and the governance systems of their country. We are pleased to support legislation that does that. Kia ora.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a very short call on this Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2).
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
The member is standing again. It is good to see the member sitting in on this occasion. He is the voluble ex-member of—where was it, Ōtaki?
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON Link to this
I do not think so. Amendments arising from inquiry into the 2008 general election are encapsulated in this bill. They will renew and simplify enrolment processes to maximise enrolment and achieve cost effectiveness.
It is good to see that the Labour Opposition, including Darren Hughes, Charles Chauvel, and even Stuart Nash, all recognise the finely crafted job that this excellent National Government has achieved in bringing this bill about. I commend it to the House.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this
I, first of all, want to thank Simon Power for the work that he has done on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). He has listened to other people, and that is when Parliament is at its best—when the Government listens to this Opposition. It has been a tough week for the National Government. It was going to win Mana, but it came second, and it is very happy about that—a close second. But at the TAB when one puts one’s money on for a win, one gets something back only if the horse wins. National’s horse came nowhere.
I listened to the member for Hunua. It is great to see the member for Hunua actually standing up to say something in Parliament. But out in Hunua, people are dissatisfied and National is dissatisfied with the member for Hunua. People are now plotting and scheming, and looking for who can replace the person who replaced Bill Birch, and, of course, he came second, and will come second.
This bill is really important. When we have electoral reform it is very easy for people to look after their own interests. It is not often that we get the two major parties agreeing, and I think that is good. Some of the smaller parties will not be happy with all of this and they really need to voice their concerns a lot stronger than they have. But we, as an Opposition, believe that voting has to be made even simpler. In my electorate many people shift around. It is a very transient area. It does not matter where they come from, they come into Manurewa, and they love George. Of course Cam Calder will tell members that. But a lot of these people do not get themselves on the electoral roll and they miss out on voting.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
No, Cam is not on the Manurewa roll; he is on the North Shore roll. He has to come across the bridge each day, but he knows where a good place is. But those people who do not get themselves on the roll do not get to vote. That is really very sad. Some of them turn up on election day and want to vote. They want to vote for me, and I support them, but they cannot. They get a special vote and when they get a special vote it usually ends up in the bin. It goes into the bin. These people have problems because of the transient nature of their lifestyle when they run away from one landlord to another landlord. That is the style of life that people face in tough times, and this Government forgets that. It thinks that people should pay 2.5 cents more in the dollar for everything they buy. For every dollar that they spend, another 2.5 cents goes to the Government. These people want to be able to get out, probably in July next year when the general election will take place, and they want to have something to say.
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this
They will in Botany. They will get up and there will be voting going on there. Botany is interesting. It is a seat where there is a lot of interest, and people are all of a sudden becoming very interested in Botany. They are National members all looking for somewhere to go. I say to Cam Calder that Botany is a good seat. In fact, it is probably closer to Devonport than Manurewa. Perhaps he should go there.
I want to finish off by saying to Simon Power that it is good that he has brought this bill here, and that he has listened and cooperated in a very genuine way. That is something that is all too rare here.