
Better late than never
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has put too much strain on the system and it is taking too long to get the final vote count.
He says this could worsen in future general elections, conveniently not mentioning the other delay to new government formation — protracted negotiations between political parties.
There were multiple issues with the count in 2023, but should the blame for the time taken fall on late enrolled voters or a system which was poorly resourced, staffed and organised?
The law was changed for the 2020 election to allow enrolment on voting day after 19,000 people who had turned up at the previous election to enrol and vote were disenfranchised.
The Electoral Amendment Bill, introduced to the House last week, will not take the situation back to that which existed for years before 2020.
Then, late enrolments could be accepted up until the day before the election.
(That is the case for local elections, and officials have pointed out having substantially different deadlines for the two types of elections may confuse voters.)
Now, for a vote to be valid in a general election, enrolment would have to be completed 13 days before the election; a day before advance voting starts.
In his media release announcing the proposed change, Mr Goldsmith referred to the Australian law setting the enrolment deadline for 26 days before the Federal election.
Whether he was trying to provoke an odd Trans-Tasman rivalry — anything the Aussies can do we can do in half the time — is not clear. It was a strange comparison to make because, unlike New Zealand, Australia has compulsory voting.
He did not mention almost half of the states in the United States of America allow same day enrolment and voting, as does Canada.
In our last election, special votes included more than 97,000 people who enrolled during the voting period and nearly 134,000 people who changed electorates during that time.
Officials have suggested this gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected by this policy change, and the earlier the deadline, the more people who are likely to be impacted.
Also, Electoral Commission data indicates special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian and Pasifika, and younger people.
We should be encouraging these voters, not putting obstacles in their way.
When, traditionally, special votes have favoured the Left, this move by the current Right-leaning government looks self-serving.
The argument that if people were taking their voting responsibilities seriously, they would ensure they were enrolled with up-to-date information well before voting begins, assumes everyone has an orderly and predictable life, and fully understands their obligations.
For David Seymour to say he was "a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law" was another illustration of his failure to make the transition from shoot-from-the-lip party leader to the gravitas-requiring role of the deputy prime minister.
Call us picky, but the special voters lodging votes on or close to polling day in the last two elections were not outlaws.
Mr Goldsmith's description of Mr Seymour's comments as unhelpful was an understatement if ever there was one.
Among other things, the Bill also proposes reintroducing a total ban on prisoner voting for those convicted and sentenced, something which is not a surprise from the government.
It is more about cynically playing to those still convinced by its tired tough-on-crime mantra than considering its fairness or contravention of the Bill of Rights Act.
It also is against the advice of the Ministry of Justice which supported giving all prisoners the right to vote.
Whenever changes are proposed to electoral law, major consideration should be given to whether alterations might improve or dissuade participation from all parts of our society.
In this instance, it is difficult to see what weight has been given to this for both prisoners and those who, for whatever reason, might not be up to date with their voter registration 13 days before an election.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Labour MP Tangaere-Manuel criticises bill banning food at voting places, cites manaaki
Ikaroa-Rāwhiti Labour MP Cushla Tangaere-Manuel says marae should be able to offer manaaki in the form of food and drink to voters on election day. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti Labour MP Cushla Tangaere-Manuel says the 'treating' clause of the Electoral Amendment Bill prohibiting food and drink at voting places violates the manaaki of iwi and hapū at marae voting sites. The clause prohibits the provision of food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place.


Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
The Rainbow Warrior Bombing 40 Years On: ‘Re-energising' For Global Peace
The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior on 10 July 1985, with the death of Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, was a terrible tragedy. But a greater tragedy is the horrendous legacy of Pacific nuclear testing for the people of Rongelap, the Marshall Islands and 'French' Polynesia, the associated military oppression in Kanaky (New Caledonia), and lingering secrecy. Between the United States and France, nearly 300 nuclear weapons were tested, resulting in contamination of indigenous peoples. The British are also to blame. Almost eight decades since the US tests began, a year after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 'Pacific' nuclear powers have still failed to take full responsibility for the region and adequately compensate victims for the injustices of the past. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), other pan-Pacific agencies and the Australian and New Zealand governments still have much work ahead. In my new book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, which reflects on the consequences of the French secret service's bombing of the Greenpeace flagship in Auckland Harbour and the killing of Pereira, I have argued that New Zealand and the PIF states should have vigorously supported the lawsuits of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the US Federal courts. This was an opportunity lost. In 2014, the Marshall Islands sued nine world powers. The late Tony deBrum, Marshall Islands Foreign Minister at the time, declared that the lawsuits were a final bid to establish a global conversation on nuclear disarmament. He said: 'Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damages of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on Earth will ever again experience these atrocities.' New Zealand and the PIF states should now require full investigations of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands and French Polynesia to support a more robust compensation program than currently exists. New Zealand and the PIF states also need to take a less ambiguous position on decolonisation in the Pacific, give greater priority to that issue and seek a 're-energising' of the activities of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation. This is especially important in relation to French Polynesia and Kanaky New Caledonia and, also for Bougainville as it approaches the end of the transitional political autonomy period with a unilateral declaration of independence from Papua New Guinea slated for 1 September 2027. Decolonisation is also a critical issue in New Zealand's relations with Indonesia, particularly in relation to the six Melanesian provinces that make up the region known in the Pacific as 'West Papua' and Indonesia's growing and politically motivated role in the region with respect to climate aid. It is important that New Zealand and the PIF states take a lead from the MSG — at least those states other than Fiji and PNG, which have both been co-opted by Indonesian bribery in the form of economic aid. They should take a more pro-active stance on West Papuan human rights and socio-political development, with a view to encouraging a process of political self-determination and a new, more credible UN-supervised vote replacing the 1969 'Act of No Choice'. With regard to the present-day environmental threat of climate change, it is essential to address the lack of an officially recognised category for 'climate refugee' under international law. It is also important to seek an international framework, convention, protocol and specific guidelines that can provide protection and assistance for people crossing international borders because of climate change. The existing rights guaranteed refugees — specifically the right to international humanitarian assistance and the right of return — must be extended to climate refugees or migrants. This issue should be acted on by the PIF with the Australian and New Zealand governments. More generally, Australia and New Zealand need to respond to Pacific Island countries' concerns over climate change and global warming with a greater sense of urgency and resolve. Vitally important here is the current landmark ICJ case brought by a coalition of 132 countries, initiated by innovative and frustrated law students at the University of the South Pacific's Vanuatu campus, seeking an advisory opinion on the obligations of states over climate crisis. An historic and unanimous opinion delivered by the ICJ on 23 July found that countries must uphold existing international laws related to climate change and, if they fail to act, could be held responsible for damage to communities and the environment. The opinion opens a door for future claims by countries seeking reparations for climate-related harm and has been described by many supporters as 'a turning point for frontline communities everywhere'. Regional and country-specific climate change plans and policies are needed to deal with large numbers of Pacific refugees. This is especially important for New Zealand, as a country with a significant Pacific population (442,632 people or 8.9% according to the 2023 Census) that is well integrated into the national infrastructure, and a country well placed to welcome more Pacific Islanders. In April 2025, the New Zealand Government announced plans to double defence spending as a share of GDP over the next eight years under its long-awaited Defence Capability Plan. However, it appeared the priority was to join a new Donald Trump-inspired global arms race while the country faced no threat, at the expense of the climate change, nuclear-free Pacific and regional peacemaking policies and actions that have forged the country's global reputation. Speculation was also rife about the possibility of New Zealand joining a second tier of the controversial AUKUS security pact between Australia, the UK and the US, which would raise geopolitical tensions with little benefit for the Pacific region. In the prologue to my book, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is forthright on this issue as she laments the undermining of the country's independent foreign policy and respect for the international rule of law. In 2003, Clark demonstrated New Zealand's independence by refusing to support an illegal US invasion of Iraq. The wisdom of her stance was revealed by the military quagmire faced by the George W. Bush administration. New Zealand also showed independent leadership with the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which has now been ratified by 73 states. However, as Clark argues, the global multilateral system is now in crisis — across all its dimensions: The UN Security Council is paralysed by great power tensions. The United States is unlikely to pay its dues to the UN under the Trump presidency, and others are unlikely to fill the substantial gap which that leaves. Its humanitarian, development, health, human rights, political and peacekeeping, scientific and cultural arms all face fiscal crises. This is the time for New Zealand to link with the many small and middle powers across regions who have a vision for a world characterised by solidarity and peace and which can rise to the occasion to combat the existential challenges it faces — including of nuclear weapons, climate change, and artificial intelligence. As Marshall Islands Journal editor Giff Johnson has remarked, the people of Rongelap changed the course of history for Pacific nuclear justice by taking control of their destiny with the help of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior. However, the relocation of the islanders four decades ago has revealed that the legacy of nuclear testing remains unfinished business. 'On the fateful last voyage,' reflects Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Dr Russel Norman, 'the crew of the Rainbow Warrior, look at us in black and white through the lens of time, and lay down the wero – the challenge. They faced down a nuclear threat to the habitability of the Pacific. Do we have the courage and wits to face down the biodiversity and climate crises facing humanity, crises that threaten the habitability of planet Earth?' To Ngati Kuri kaumatua Dover Samuels says the Rainbow Warrior was 'probably the biggest battleship that ever traversed the oceans of the world. But she wasn't armed with guns, she was armed with peace'. Dr David Robie travelled as a journalist with the Greenpeace campaigners on their 1985 mission to relocate 320 Rongelap Islanders in the Marshall Islands who had suffered from a legacy of radiation from the 1954 Castle Bravo thermonuclear test and was on board the Rainbow Warrior for almost 11 weeks before the bombing. His book is published by Little Island Press. Dr Robie is speaking on the theme '40 years on, the Rainbow Warrior, the bombing, and French colonial culture in the Pacific' with the Fabian Society at 5.30pm on Friday, August 8, 2025. He will also appear in conversation with Jeremy Rose at the Aro Valley Peace Talks on Saturday, August 9, 2025.


Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
The Rainbow Warrior Bombing 40 Years On: ‘Re-energising' For Global Peace
Article – David Robie David Robie reflects on nuclear testing in the Pacific, and the 1985 bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, in an article based on his new book, Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior (Little Island Press). The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior on 10 July 1985, with the death of Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, was a terrible tragedy. But a greater tragedy is the horrendous legacy of Pacific nuclear testing for the people of Rongelap, the Marshall Islands and 'French' Polynesia, the associated military oppression in Kanaky (New Caledonia), and lingering secrecy. Between the United States and France, nearly 300 nuclear weapons were tested, resulting in contamination of indigenous peoples. The British are also to blame. Almost eight decades since the US tests began, a year after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 'Pacific' nuclear powers have still failed to take full responsibility for the region and adequately compensate victims for the injustices of the past. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), other pan-Pacific agencies and the Australian and New Zealand governments still have much work ahead. In my new book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, which reflects on the consequences of the French secret service's bombing of the Greenpeace flagship in Auckland Harbour and the killing of Pereira, I have argued that New Zealand and the PIF states should have vigorously supported the lawsuits of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the US Federal courts. This was an opportunity lost. In 2014, the Marshall Islands sued nine world powers. The late Tony deBrum, Marshall Islands Foreign Minister at the time, declared that the lawsuits were a final bid to establish a global conversation on nuclear disarmament. He said: 'Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damages of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on Earth will ever again experience these atrocities.' New Zealand and the PIF states should now require full investigations of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands and French Polynesia to support a more robust compensation program than currently exists. New Zealand and the PIF states also need to take a less ambiguous position on decolonisation in the Pacific, give greater priority to that issue and seek a 're-energising' of the activities of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation. This is especially important in relation to French Polynesia and Kanaky New Caledonia and, also for Bougainville as it approaches the end of the transitional political autonomy period with a unilateral declaration of independence from Papua New Guinea slated for 1 September 2027. Decolonisation is also a critical issue in New Zealand's relations with Indonesia, particularly in relation to the six Melanesian provinces that make up the region known in the Pacific as 'West Papua' and Indonesia's growing and politically motivated role in the region with respect to climate aid. It is important that New Zealand and the PIF states take a lead from the MSG — at least those states other than Fiji and PNG, which have both been co-opted by Indonesian bribery in the form of economic aid. They should take a more pro-active stance on West Papuan human rights and socio-political development, with a view to encouraging a process of political self-determination and a new, more credible UN-supervised vote replacing the 1969 'Act of No Choice'. With regard to the present-day environmental threat of climate change, it is essential to address the lack of an officially recognised category for 'climate refugee' under international law. It is also important to seek an international framework, convention, protocol and specific guidelines that can provide protection and assistance for people crossing international borders because of climate change. The existing rights guaranteed refugees — specifically the right to international humanitarian assistance and the right of return — must be extended to climate refugees or migrants. This issue should be acted on by the PIF with the Australian and New Zealand governments. More generally, Australia and New Zealand need to respond to Pacific Island countries' concerns over climate change and global warming with a greater sense of urgency and resolve. Vitally important here is the current landmark ICJ case brought by a coalition of 132 countries, initiated by innovative and frustrated law students at the University of the South Pacific's Vanuatu campus, seeking an advisory opinion on the obligations of states over climate crisis. An historic and unanimous opinion delivered by the ICJ on 23 July found that countries must uphold existing international laws related to climate change and, if they fail to act, could be held responsible for damage to communities and the environment. The opinion opens a door for future claims by countries seeking reparations for climate-related harm and has been described by many supporters as 'a turning point for frontline communities everywhere'. Regional and country-specific climate change plans and policies are needed to deal with large numbers of Pacific refugees. This is especially important for New Zealand, as a country with a significant Pacific population (442,632 people or 8.9% according to the 2023 Census) that is well integrated into the national infrastructure, and a country well placed to welcome more Pacific Islanders. In April 2025, the New Zealand Government announced plans to double defence spending as a share of GDP over the next eight years under its long-awaited Defence Capability Plan. However, it appeared the priority was to join a new Donald Trump-inspired global arms race while the country faced no threat, at the expense of the climate change, nuclear-free Pacific and regional peacemaking policies and actions that have forged the country's global reputation. Speculation was also rife about the possibility of New Zealand joining a second tier of the controversial AUKUS security pact between Australia, the UK and the US, which would raise geopolitical tensions with little benefit for the Pacific region. In the prologue to my book, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is forthright on this issue as she laments the undermining of the country's independent foreign policy and respect for the international rule of law. In 2003, Clark demonstrated New Zealand's independence by refusing to support an illegal US invasion of Iraq. The wisdom of her stance was revealed by the military quagmire faced by the George W. Bush administration. New Zealand also showed independent leadership with the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which has now been ratified by 73 states. However, as Clark argues, the global multilateral system is now in crisis — across all its dimensions: The UN Security Council is paralysed by great power tensions. The United States is unlikely to pay its dues to the UN under the Trump presidency, and others are unlikely to fill the substantial gap which that leaves. Its humanitarian, development, health, human rights, political and peacekeeping, scientific and cultural arms all face fiscal crises. This is the time for New Zealand to link with the many small and middle powers across regions who have a vision for a world characterised by solidarity and peace and which can rise to the occasion to combat the existential challenges it faces — including of nuclear weapons, climate change, and artificial intelligence. As Marshall Islands Journal editor Giff Johnson has remarked, the people of Rongelap changed the course of history for Pacific nuclear justice by taking control of their destiny with the help of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior. However, the relocation of the islanders four decades ago has revealed that the legacy of nuclear testing remains unfinished business. 'On the fateful last voyage,' reflects Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Dr Russel Norman, 'the crew of the Rainbow Warrior, look at us in black and white through the lens of time, and lay down the wero – the challenge. They faced down a nuclear threat to the habitability of the Pacific. Do we have the courage and wits to face down the biodiversity and climate crises facing humanity, crises that threaten the habitability of planet Earth?' To Ngati Kuri kaumatua Dover Samuels says the Rainbow Warrior was 'probably the biggest battleship that ever traversed the oceans of the world. But she wasn't armed with guns, she was armed with peace'. Dr David Robie travelled as a journalist with the Greenpeace campaigners on their 1985 mission to relocate 320 Rongelap Islanders in the Marshall Islands who had suffered from a legacy of radiation from the 1954 Castle Bravo thermonuclear test and was on board the Rainbow Warrior for almost 11 weeks before the bombing. His book is published by Little Island Press. Dr Robie is speaking on the theme '40 years on, the Rainbow Warrior, the bombing, and French colonial culture in the Pacific' with the Fabian Society at 5.30pm on Friday, August 8, 2025. He will also appear in conversation with Jeremy Rose at the Aro Valley Peace Talks on Saturday, August 9, 2025.