Latest news with #ElectoralAmendmentBill
Newsroom
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Why planned voting changes could be a civic rights breach
Opinion: You might recall that in the 2023 election, National and Act 'lost' two seats once the special votes were counted post-election day. In other words, the special votes weighed against them. This meant that they could not form a government without NZ First. Fast-forward to July 2025. National, Act and NZ First have just passed the first reading on the Electoral Amendment Bill, a bill that will almost certainly reduce the number of special votes. Is this bill an apolitical, justified limitation on the holy grail of democratic rights – the right to vote? Or is it a power-abusing, rights-breaching, Trump-esque attempt to rig voting in their favour? Let's look at this a bit more closely. One proposed amendment is that people must enrol to vote 13 days prior to election day. If they don't, they cannot cast a valid vote. Under current law, people can enrol up to and on election day. Votes from people enrolled after 'writ day' – approximately two months before the election in 2023 – and election day are so-called special votes (together with, for example, votes cast overseas). In other words, votes from people who enrol in the 12-day period leading up to the election are special votes. In 2023, 110,000 voters registered on election day and, of the 600,000 special votes cast, 97,000 people enrolled for the first time during the voting period. These votes would be discarded under the proposed law change. Unsurprisingly, then, the Attorney-General – the Government's highest legal officer, and senior National Party member, Judith Collins – found in her report that there was a real possibility a large number of people would be caught by this new rule and, as a result, their votes wouldn't be tallied. She also noted that the highest courts of the land – here and overseas, especially Australia – have stressed 'the fundamentality of the right to vote as lying at the heart of the democratic system'. The coalition argues we need to restrict who gets to vote to avoid delays in post-election count and the formation of a new government. There just isn't the evidence to prove that this amendment is necessary to expedite a verified election result. And as Collins writes, 'While acknowledging the public importance of promoting timeliness in the counting of votes … there may be alternative measures for addressing delays in the processing of votes, which are less restrictive of the right to vote, and could therefore possibly be justified.' It is not even clear that restriction would remedy delays in counting. Those not enrolled before the cut-off can still apply for and cast a special vote. These special votes must still be processed after the election but won't be included in the ultimate vote count. Anyway, any detriment associated with any delay is – to me at least – relatively small because we have a longstanding plan b in place, in the form of caretaker governments to ensure the country keeps running while votes are tallied, checked and verified. Collins also recognises that the restriction on voting registration will effectively discriminate against Māori, Pasifika, Asian and youth voters, who are currently more likely to enrol in the 12 days ahead of the election. 'The Electoral Commission has data that indicates that special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, and that younger people are more likely to cast special votes. This may indicate that these communities will be more affected by the proposed registration deadline.' The Government had Collins' report before it passed the bill in Parliament but chose to ignore the Attorney-General's recommendations. Let's now consider the bill in the light of the current political context. At least one political poll has the National Party heading towards one term in power and it's likely that the next election will be tight. Just like in 2023, every vote could tip the balance one way or the other. Now balance the long-standing trend that special votes favour the left. As leading election law professor Andrew Geddis notes, 'Restricting same-day enrolment and voting can … be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties.' This Government has enacted some of the most regressive laws breaching the rights of Indigenous peoples we have seen in decades. In a constitution such as ours, there are few legal barriers to it doing so. This bill is likely to disproportionately affect Māori and their right to vote, thereby making it more difficult to defend their rights. The Act Party has promoted its role as the defender of democracy and the right of one person, one vote. Leader David Seymour said in 2023 that, 'Yes, it's pretty frustrating that it's taken so long to count the votes, but let's not lose sight of the real goal here which is free and fair elections that are above any kind of suspicion. That's absolutely key no matter what the result is.' Given there is no convincing justification for the bill, as assessed by Collins, the reasoning behind it looks suspicious. It has the whiff of a calculated move by National, Act and NZ First to weigh the next election in their favour, in a way that is reminiscent of Donald Trump's advocacy for redistricting of congressional boundaries in Texas to favour the Republican Party. If that is the case, and you be the judge, then this could be a substantial breach of one of the most important of our civic rights and democratic process.
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Politics
- 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
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Have Your Say On The Electoral Amendment Bill
The Justice Committee is calling for public submissions on the Electoral Amendment Bill, which would make a range of amendments to the Electoral Act 1993. The amendments aim to improve the timeliness and efficiency of electoral administration, strengthen the integrity of electoral law, and ensure that the electoral system is resilient and fit for purpose. They also seek to help deliver more timely election results, manage future costs, and provide more efficient services to electoral participants. The proposed changes include: closing enrolment earlier and introducing automatic enrolment updates enabling the validation and qualification of special votes to begin before election day streamlining the processes for candidate nominations amending political finance reporting requirements to reduce the compliance burden on parties and the Electoral Commission strengthening protections relating to improper influence disqualifying all prisoners convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment from enrolling and voting while in prison. Make a submission on the bill by 1.00pm on Thursday 11 September 2025. · What's been said in Parliament about the bill?
Scoop
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Voting Reforms, Prisoner Bans And Enrolment Changes - What You Need To Know About The Electoral Amendment Bill
Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. What the bill is The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. You will no longer be able to enrol to vote on Election Day Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. What are those special votes again? Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes. Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." If you're in prison serving a sentence, you'll no longer be able to vote, period The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back. "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Does this all make it harder for people to vote? Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report, Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying"frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report. Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." Political donation changes The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. What is treating, and why are they cracking down on it? Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed. The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. What's next? The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint.
Otago Daily Times
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Electoral Amendment Bill passes first hurdle
Legislation banning prisoner and same-day voting has passed its first reading. The House heard spirited speeches for and against the controversial electoral law changes today. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to "treating" (such as offering free food) on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the system was strong but needed "constant maintenance". "Confidence in the Electoral Commission has fallen in recent years, and we know the system has come under significant strain. "This bill overhauls a number of our dated and unsustainable electoral laws. The package of amendments will strengthen the system, helping to deliver timelier election results, manage the costs, clarify rules, and provide more efficient services to voters." Same-day voting did make it easier for some people to vote, but it also removed the incentive for people to get enrolled before the election, he said. "We had the Electoral Commission, on one hand, with one message saying, 'Get enrolled; get enrolled', and they were funded with many millions of dollars to encourage people to enrol, which the law says you should do; but, on the other hand, they were also saying, 'By the way, don't bother, because you can just rock up on election day and vote'. "More people heard the second message than heard the first message. As a result, more and more people were turning up and enrolling when they voted. That's led to more and more special votes and pressure on the count." Goldsmith said he had received advice that the final count, which took three weeks in the 2023 general election, could take even longer in future elections. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was a dark day for democracy, arguing the changes would make it harder for people to vote. "Politicians should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder. That's how we make sure that everybody's voice is heard, that everyone gets a say, and that this democracy - this Parliament - is truly representative. Webb pointed to Attorney-General Judith Collins' report that found the proposals were inconsistent with people's rights as further reason the legislation should be scrapped. "The Attorney-General, frankly, slated this bill. I have never seen an Attorney-General's report which is so bluntly vicious and damning, saying things like 'freezing registration earlier in the voting period has the potential to harm confidence and trust'." ACT Party justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said shifting the enrolment deadline from the day of the election to 13 days before was a "modest change". "Voting in a democracy such as ours does come with some responsibilities, and it's one of those responsibilities to actually be on the electoral roll - that's a legal requirement. "If you can't be bothered doing that within a short period before an election, you've really got to question whether you have a commitment to being a participant in our democracy." Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said it was already clear the bill would not achieve what its proponents were promising. "This bill proposes the exact opposite of a modern and robust, effective democracy, because it intentionally seeks to deny entire groups of people and communities from having easier access to be able to enrol and to be able to vote, while at the same time it is shifting the threshold for donations to be declared." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the changes were cynical. "It's not a coincidence that the very communities who would be silenced are the same communities that wouldn't vote for this government, and probably the same communities that made up the netballers on the weekend. "They say they're fixing democracy, but let's remember: this is the same government that has abolished Māori wards, introduced the Treaty Principles Bill, dismantled co-governance, Te Aka Whai Ora. And we know, again, why they do not want to see 16-year-olds voting." The legislation is now off to select committee, having passed with support from coalition partners National, ACT and New Zealand First.
