have made their way into regulation by the previous minister and by
Clayton Mitchell carrying it through
through the last part. In 2017 it will be a better run election than
will be a better run election than
in 2014 as a result of this
legislation and I commend it to the
House. Chris Hipkins. That was
an absolutely pathetic art
for not allowing voters to enrol
on the day. I have a message for Jono
Naylor, a lot of people show up at the polling
booth on the day and
find they are not on the roll and
they weren't aware they are not on the
roll. It is not that they are
too APPEAthetic or lazy to go along and
vote and they decide on a whim they will
show up to the polling
booth, many of them arrive at the
polling booth fully expecting that they will be
able to exercise their democratic
right but find that
their name has dropped off the roll. Who are these
the people who are transient, so less likely to be the people
voting for the National Party, so
it suits them to have their votes
discounted but many of them weren't aware they
weren't on the roll. Under
the old system, the new system is
much better, under
better, under the old system everybody had to
reenrol every election. A few elections back
we changed that so people stayed on the
electoral roll. What happens
is if somebody moves house during that
period of time they then don't
update their enrolment
period of time they then don't
update their enrolment details at the time they move house,
some people might move
house several types between elections, they might
not be aware they have been dropped
off the roll
because their confirmation is sent back to the
Electoral Commission. To say they
are too APPEAthetic to update
their enrolment details is pathetic. It
means they are not having their
right to vote respected because the
Electoral Commission have decided to
believe them from the role
and they may not have even been aware of
that. There is no good reason not to
allow people to
enrol and vote on the day. They are
allowed to enrol and vote as an early vote. So
therefore how is it in any
way different for someone to go to
an early vote polling
different for someone to go to an
might not be on the roll, can I fill in an enrolment form and cast my
vote
in an enrolment form and cast my
up on the election day and says exactly the same thing. There is
absolutely no justification for that
other than the fact
that the National Party would prefer
to disenfranchise a
disenfranchise a group of voters who they know are less likely
to vote for them than vote for some of
the other political parties
on the ballot paper. I think that is
completely wrong. I liked the
idea put forward by the
Electoral Commission, bearing in mind
that the Electoral Commission are the
independent body we have to oversee
elections and they put forward
a suggestion that somebody
who is completing a special
vote declaration on the day should be
treated as having enrolled
on the day and that their vote should
be counted in that regard. I think
that is a very sensible solution
that means that everybody's vote
will be counted. I am very disappointed
that the National Party didn't take
up that opportunity. I think there
are some other areas around modernising
electoral law that we missed
and one of the ones I have always been
a little surprised by, certainly at
the last election, is this issue
of selfies in the polling booth. I
have no problem with someone
taking a selfie of them self voting
or even indicating the way they are
voting when they are
doing an advanced ballot. Actual lie, I don't
have a problem with them doing it on the
day either. The issue is if somebody
is aloud to put up on Facebook
when they cast an early vote,
can't they do that on election day as well. If we want to
encourage participation and turnout
there is no good reason, if we are living in
the 21st century,
to say to someone you can't do a selfie
in the polling booth. There has to be a
few constraints around that. They should
be allowed to share their vote. They
shouldn't be allowed to infringe
on the rights of somebody
else who is voting so they shouldn't be
taking photos of somebody else
in the polling booth or
how they are voting. In they want to share they
have been down to vote and they
voted for a
particular political party this is the 21st century they
they should be able to do so. Not
everybody, including some people
on my own side, will agree with
that but it is time we get into the
21st century. I want to talk about the
Broadcasting (Election programmes and
and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill, which is part of the package
we are debating at the moment.
Again, it comes down to
the fact that parliament needs
to drag itself into the 21st century and we need
to make sure our electoral system gets
into the 21st century as well. When
the rule around opening and closing
broadcasts for election campaigns
was into diced there were two TV
channels in New Zealand. Only
the two. If you were sitting
at home watching TV and the opening and
closing broadcasts were broadcast on
both those channels as they
were back in those days, you had
no other choice other than the watch them or
turn the TV off. The reality now is
that is simply not
the media anymore. People can be watching live
streamed content on Netflix, using
My Sky or any other types
of device. They can be watching all sorts
of other things. They can
be accessing their content via social media.
The idea that we have these opening
and closing broadcasts, which
are expensive to produce because
they are quite long in form and very few
people watch them, the idea that
we should lock that into law and
lock political parties into
spending some of their broadcast allocation to
do that simply doesn't make sense. It
is not good
for the broadcasters either. Let's be really
frank about this. TVNZ had
either. Let's be really frank about
the time slot they set aside for the opening and closing broadcasts at
the last election campaign than they
would normally have in
that time slot. From memory it was
corps Onation Street that was supplanted
by the opening and
closing broadcast. Even if that can get more
viewers than the opening and closing
broadcasts that is saying something.
It was on at the same time as a
rugby test. The
law allows political parties to spend some of their
broadcast allocation on
internet advertising. Actually, it is
increasingly becoming difficult to
discern between the two in the
sense that a lot of the way
we access content now is through an
online medium. So if you take something
like TVNZ on demand
or TV3's equivalent to that
and someone missed their TV show at their
regular appointed time slot
and decides to watch it on the on demand
Channel, under the old law we
wouldn't
Channel, under the old law we
would not be able to insert their adverts into the on
demand version people were watching through live
streaming. So what is
the difference. It is the same
TV programme but just being
watched at a different time using a different
way of conveying it
to the television set
television set that someone is watching it on or the
laptop or whatever
whatever technology they are watching it on. There is no
good reason to say that political parties
should not be able to use that
form offed a verdict stiesing. We need
the consider
offed a verdict stiesing. We need
need to consider the fact that there are other forms of content
people with accessing online. If we
want informed citizens going to the
polling booth then being
able to advertise in the other
forms of online content is also important. It
is important because it is
very difficult
difficult sometimes to distinguish between them. So if you are looking
at the Stuff news
website for example and you are looking at a
video clip on that website would
it be deeped to be a TV programme
or some other form
of content. In this bill we are removed the need to try
to draw that distinction
by simply saying that online advertising is
an acceptable use for
the broadcasting allocation that has
been given to political parties. I
don't agree with the suggestion put forward by
some in this debate.
By some in in debate that there should be no limits
on broadcast advertising. One of the things
that is good about New Zealand, having
visited other countries, in
particular having visited
the United States during
States during a presidential election campaign, I think
it is fantastic that we don't have
the plethora of attack advertisements
that they have in
those other places. I remember sitting
in a hotel room in Wisconsin, one of
the battleground states in the last
presidential election, and literally
every second advertisement was an
advertisement attacking someone. It
was not promoting
in any way, shape or form the
candidate they were trying to promote, they were
just attack ads. That is the sort
of territory we would get into
if we removed all of the restrictions and
caps on
caps on broadcast advertising in New Zealand. It is fantastic that
we don't have that level
of smear campaigning in New Zealand that they
have, particularly in the
United States. I think that it
is good to see that the current
restrictions are being protected. So, overall,
I think there are some good changes. I
think this bill take agency
few small steps
small steps towards bringing electoral law into the 21st century
but I think there are significant
progress that still needs
to be made if we want to engage everybody
in the electoral process, if we want to
ensure that everybody's democratic
rights to vote and to have
their vote counted are respected, if
we want to engage younger voters in
the process. Bear in mind that younger
voters are the least likely
to vote. I absolutely do not
accept the argument put forward by many that
it is because they are
too APPEAthetic
I have spoken to are some of the least
I have spoken to are some of the
comes to voting and I would like to ensure that they have their
votes counted. That they are encouraged
to participate in the process and
it is disappointing that this bill, as it
is currently put before
the House, misses the opportunity to do a lot
more in that regard. Maureen
Pugh. I too stand today in support
of the Broadcasting (Election
Broadcasting (Election programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment
Bill in its third reading. Thanks
to the work of the