Electoral Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Electoral Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 December 2025.

Our electoral laws are a core element of our democracy. The ability to throw Governments out and to bring new ones in, in a manner that is accepted and with a process that is trusted, is fundamental to our democratic accountability. Broadly speaking, our electoral system and our democracy are strong, but they need 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.

When and how people enrol matters. Every democracy we compare ourselves with requires voters to be enrolled in order to vote. But there’s a lot of variation as to how early people must be enrolled. In Australia, at the last federal election, voters were required to be enrolled 26 days before the election. In New Zealand, for many years, voters needed to be enrolled the day before the election. The previous Government allowed enrolling on election day itself.

New Zealand’s approach had the benefit of making it easier for some people to vote, but it also removed the incentive for people to get enrolled before the election. 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. The final vote count used to take two weeks. Last election, it took three. The advice I received is that if we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections.

The 20-day time frame for a final result is likely to be challenging, as it stands, without these changes. Therefore, one of the most significant changes in the bill is to close enrolment before the advance voting begins. People will need to make sure that they enrol and update their enrolment details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting opens on the Monday. That’s 13 days before election day. The earlier deadline will mean enrolment changes can largely be processed before voting closes. Special voting processing can then begin sooner, reducing pressure on the final vote. This gives people a year to get organised, and I have every confidence that New Zealanders can manage.

We’ve heard lots of claims about 100,000 people being disenfranchised. I reject that absolutely. Around 110,000 enrolled or updated their enrolment details on election day last year only because they were told they could, so some people did. The message will be different this election. People will be told they need to be enrolled well before voting starts. It’s not that hard, and people are capable of doing these things. We’ll be making it even easier to stay enrolled for future elections. The bill modernises and streamlines enrolment in several ways. The Electoral Commission will now be able to use data from other Government agencies to keep address details up to date. This will make it easier for people to stay enrolled. Over time, this change will help keep enrolment details accurate between elections and contribute to a timelier vote count.

Enrolment services need to become more efficient and digital as well. The bill will remove costly postal requirements so that people can be contacted digitally about their enrolment status. I think we all know that if you have large families like me, you’ll have six envelopes from the Electoral Commission in the letterbox on a regular basis. It’s very wasteful, so we’re going to change those rules and adopt more modern methods. The commission will no longer have to collect and update enrolment information that it doesn’t need for electoral purposes, which seems sensible.

The bill also makes several changes related to integrity. It will ban all prisoners serving a prison sentence from voting. This change reverses the 2020 amendment that the previous Government did. Currently, prisoners serving three years or more can’t vote. Now, all sentenced prisoners won’t be able to vote while they’re in prison. Citizens bring both rights and responsibilities. When people are sentenced to prison for committing a crime, they should temporarily lose some of those rights, including the right to vote. This change underlines the importance that New Zealanders afford to the rule of law and personal accountability. When they’re released, of course, they regain the right to vote, and Corrections will work with prisoners to facilitate that. The bill will allow people who have committed a crime but who are detained in a hospital or secure facility on mental health or disability grounds to enrol and vote. This change recognises the different status of people who are detained for the purposes of mental health treatment.

Free and fair elections rely on voters not being subject to improper influence. I’m concerned that the current treating offence, which prevents people from providing food or drink to influence a person’s vote, is unclear and not being enforced. The bill will make it an offence to provide free food, drink, or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place during the voting period. The offence will be an illegal practice and subject to a fine of up to $10,000. This approach will make some rules around treating clear. It will manage the risk of any perception of inappropriate influence when people are voting. It won’t apply to businesses near voting places undertaking their usual activities or where there is a reasonable excuse. The bill also extends existing offences of treating, bribery, and undue influence to cover inappropriate influence over a person’s enrolment choice. This change will make sure that decisions around enrolling have the same protection as decisions around voting.

The bill makes lots of changes to strengthen the resilience of our system. Currently, the Electoral Commission decides how long the advanced voting period is. This bill will require 12 days of advanced voting at each election guaranteed. This is a useful thing that we’ve done. We’ll also expand the Electoral Commission’s board from three members to up to seven members. This change will ensure the board is well equipped if a board member is unavailable at a critical time and will widen the skill sets of the board.

The bill updates thresholds for reporting donations from $5,000 to $6,000, recognising inflation and rounding it up to a round figure. Finally, the bill makes many systems improvements, such as setting a single deadline for candidate nominations, automating how electoral expenditure limits are set, and addressing gaps in the law. These proposals are outlined in full in the legislative statement.

Well-run elections are vital to upholding public trust and confidence and support the smooth and swift transfer of power, if indeed that is required by the people’s vote. The changes in this bill begin to transition to more modern and sustainable settings and enabling more timely and efficient elections in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s a dark day for democracy. Here in New Zealand, we have a proud tradition of extending the franchise to women before any other country in the world and of constantly making our democracy accessible to everyone, and what’s this Government doing? What’s Christopher Luxon doing? He is making it harder for people to vote. It’s shameful—it’s absolutely shameful.

We know that 110,000 people enrolled and voted on election day last year, and it’s all very nice for the Minister of Justice to suppose that they might enrol earlier, but 137,000 people actually changed their details in the voting period. That’s 137,000 people for whom he is making it harder to vote. He wants to stop people enrolling, stop all those people exercising their vote—that’s hundreds of thousands of people who might not get a say in our democracy.

I think that everyone is entitled to have a say in our democracy: working people, busy people, people caring for kids, and—hey, do you know what?—people who forget to enrol two weeks before as well, because not everyone is fixated on politics and elections, and sometimes it takes until the last two weeks to think, “I really need to get around to that.” 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.

Making it harder for working Kiwis and Kiwi parents to vote just shows how out of touch Christopher Luxon and this Government is, but do you know what’s really shocking? It is that all of the advice that the Minister has got has said that this is a bad idea. In fact, if you look at the regulatory impact statement, it says that there are other things you can do which are much more effective: enable electronic enrolment, enable automatic enrolment—and then there’s the Attorney-General’s report. 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”.

If people want to vote and they’re shown the hand and they’re told “Sorry, too late. You’re out of luck—you didn’t do your paperwork.”, what does that say about trust in our democracy? It is undermining the trust in our democracy, and that Government has undermined it a lot already and it’s doing it again.

The Attorney-General also said—and this is important—that the “starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.”, and did the Attorney-General think that there was a compelling justification? No, she quite honestly and frankly said that this is not justified. This is an unjustified limitation on the guaranteed right in section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to exercise that vote.

What’s more, if you then go to the departmental work—the regulatory impact statement—it says that it won’t work. Their advice, on page 23 of the report, is that this initiative “Could result in lower enrolment rates, lower turnout, and more disallowed votes.”—

Hon Damien O’Connor: That’s what they want.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and that it “Reduces ease for voters and creates a barrier to participation.” That is right, Damien O’Connor—that’s exactly what they want. They don’t want everyone to get down to the polling booth and have their say, because they don’t represent all of New Zealand. Christopher Luxon is making it harder for people to vote. He is so out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders that he doesn’t get that not everyone remembers to do their administration 14 days before the voting period.

It is a dark day for democracy. This is a huge step backwards, and we should be thoroughly ashamed of it.

Here we have this Government making it harder for ordinary, everyday, regular people to be able to have a say and have a vote, and easier for big money to influence Government. The beginning explanatory note of this bill talks about a “modern, robust, and effective” democracy. 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.

It allows for more and more of big money to have a say, which is consistent with what this Government’s approach has been this entire term: making it easier for their mates, like tobacco, like fossil fuel executives, to be able to have an influence—like landlords, who own massive swathes of houses, who have more influence on this Government than the ordinary person who’s just trying to get along, just trying to survive, has got a million things to be responsible for, and also doesn’t always see themselves represented in the political decisions of successive Governments.

I would have thought that any Government wants to, actually, instead encourage higher voter turnout, encourage more people wanting to be able to register, wanting to participate. The fact that we had hundreds of thousands of people turning up to vote on election day speaks to the fact that people want to have a say, speaks to the fact that if we were serious about—and this was the Minister’s own words at the beginning of his speech—ensuring a strong democracy, then we would be removing the barriers that this Government is wanting to put back in place by removing the ability to vote on the same day, by it removing the ability to enrol and vote on the same day.

The many research reports—the Auditor-General’s reports and independent election reports after reports after reports—have highlighted exactly who would miss out on being able to participate with these particular proposals; have highlighted that young people, people who rent, Māori communities, Pasifika communities, Asian communities, and people with disabilities have had these barriers for far too long, and that the proposals that this Government is trying to put in place put those barriers down in the concrete even more so. That is the message that they are sending to this country: who they want to make it easier for, and who they want to make it harder for.

I did want to pick up on the prison voting ban as well, because report after report, research after research, has again highlighted that we have inbuilt systemic discrimination in our prison systems, in our justice systems. That has been clear; that’s not even up for debate. It has been said time and time again. It means that disproportionately more Māori are imprisoned, more Pasifika people are imprisoned, more brown people and low-income families are imprisoned. So adding an extra punishment on top of the penalty that they are already receiving—it’s no wonder that the Auditor-General really called that out as actually denying basic, fundamental human rights. We do not add an extra penalty on top of the punishment that they are already serving, and especially when it is highlighted that this justice system already discriminates on communities and people.

So, again, who is this Government wanting to benefit? Not all of those communities that I’ve just mentioned in the speech. In fact, if we were truly interested in a strong democracy, then we would actually reduce the donation disclosure—according to, also, the independent report advice, which wanted to go down to $500, and instead this Government wants to increase it.

We would restore same-day enrolment and voting. That’s what the Greens would do. We would make it 16. If we want a strong democracy, all the evidence shows that when we are able to afford younger voters that opportunity, that will set up good voting habits for life. So that’s something that this Government could do straight away if they wanted. We would ensure things like civics in schools. If you want people to be enrolled, then having that education in schools is a good way of having a strong democracy. The Greens would also cap donations at $30,000. It is clear this Government are here simping for big money in politics.

I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill. Yes, our voting arrangements and our democracy are very important, and it is appropriate that from time to time we do look at the settings under which New Zealanders cast their vote. This bill looks to make some significant but effective changes to ensure that our democracy and the results of our elections are upheld, integrity is maintained, and we have it done in a timely way.

There has been a lot said already about enrolment on voting day. As has been outlined, one of the changes the Minister spoke about is just ensuring that people have to be enrolled 13 days before the election. 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.

It’s a modest change—13 days before the election, you need to have enrolled. As the Minister has also said, other jurisdictions like Australia require you to have enrolled 26 days before an election, so it’s a fairly modest change. There are actually a thousand days between elections, so that is plenty of time for people to take a few minutes. You can actually enrol online; you can go to elections.org.nz today and enrol, if you wish. There will be plenty of time for people to be enrolled, and the Electoral Commission will be running reminders around that. Tied to that is a really good change around setting 12 days for the advance voting period and putting that in legislation. That’s a really great change.

The other one, which we are very pleased to support, is actually stopping prisoners in prison from voting. Labour made this change, and we think it was unprincipled. As people in New Zealand understand, if you’ve committed a crime, you’ve violated someone else’s rights, and there are consequences for that, and so for prisoners in jail, not voting is one of those consequences. We think these are sensible changes. The other one is around treating. Again, we believe in this clarification around treating, because we don’t believe freebies and gimmicks have any place near the ballot box, and we just want to make sure that’s spelt out very clearly and people understand that.

There will be a select committee process, and as a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to hearing people’s submissions. But it is important that we ensure that our electoral system integrity is upheld, it is transparent, and it’s not open to fraud. We think these changes do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act to make electoral law and administration more modern, robust, and effective ahead of the next general election. It’s about making a range of systems improvements, etc., and I’m going to pick on a couple of those.

The first is that I think we can all remember back to the last election, and one of the things that there was significant concern about was the length of time it took to get to the final result. This piece of legislation is part of—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That was your fault.

ANDY FOSTER: The Opposition may have been more concerned about the actual result than about the length of time it took to get to that point, but I think the country wanted to get to the point where we actually had a result, so that the parties could then form a Government and be able to move on with that. This will allow that to happen more effectively, more efficiently, and for the Government to be able to get on with the business of governing. There are a number of other things in terms of efficiency. One of those is to be able to do a lot of the electoral enrolment process in a way that is not confined quite as much as it is today to the postal system.

The other two things I wanted to say: first of all is this issue that we’ve heard raised by the Opposition about 110,000 people now somehow being disenfranchised because they chose, in the last election, to enrol on the day. Well, the reality is that if you say to people, “Look, you’ve got to enrol a number of days in advance of the election to make sure that the electoral rolls are ready and the system is ready to go and is able to deliver the electoral result more efficiently, effectively, and earlier”, then there is a different deadline. Instead of being on the day, it’s some days before that, and that, as we’ve heard before, is about some degree of personal responsibility to be able to get yourself organised in time to enrol.

The other thing I wanted to mention was the Manurewa Marae amendment clause, and that is the one about stopping treating close to a polling place. I think that that is a very sound amendment, because, clearly, if you are giving people something in the process of the election which is associated with a particular political party, that is something that is going to potentially encourage people to vote in a particular way, and that clearly is not appropriate. We all, I think, are looking forward to a report on that matter at some point in time—hopefully, before the next election would be very, very helpful. That, to me, seems a very, very sensible amendment and a very sensible clarification.

The final thing I wanted to say, because we have heard a little bit about the prisoner voting side of things, is, look, if you’re in prison, you can’t be enrolled, can’t vote, but on the flip side of that, which I don’t think I’ve heard the Opposition say yet, people who are in other forms of institutions—whether it’s mental institutions, disability institutions; those kinds of facilities—will now be able to vote, and I think that that is a positive thing there. I know there will be a lot of debate to and fro as this goes to the select committee. I think we will all look forward to that process, and I commend the bill to the House, and good luck to the Justice Committee in dealing with it.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, I stand up to oppose this bill. This bill, listening to it all eloquently being introduced as something that’s going to help efficiency and accountability—I call that out. This bill is about silencing. It’s about using power hoarding—this obsessive control—to rig the electoral system.

It’s been really interesting to listen to the previous speaker bring up Manurewa when there’s actually been no conviction. What we’re listening to, in fact, is speculation, and those who are happy to spend millions of dollars to go out and advertise on TV, but for goodness’ sake, don’t dare give a cup of tea to anyone. What it is—and we saw it, actually, this rigged system. We saw the mask slip this week when the so-called Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, who helped design these reforms, had the audacity to label 100,000 people as “dropkicks”. This is, in fact, a politician, a leader whose ideal leader was once Jago.

I want to talk about what this bill will do. First of all, it’s banning enrolments 13 days before the election, which, according to their own team member, the Attorney-General, could disenfranchise over 100,000 people disproportionately: Māori, Pasifika, Asian. It reinstates a total ban on prisoner voting, when every court in the country, including the tribunal, the electoral review, have all said that this is a breach of basic human rights, but—ha!—surprise, surprise from this Government. It raises the donation disclosure threshold, making it easier for the rich donors to buy and influence in silence. It criminalises the provision—as we heard earlier—of free food, where those are going to be eligible for a $10,000 fine, which for some of them is actually more than what their whole income will be.

This is an electoral suppression by design. It is racism by design. It is justice by design in the image of a Government that wants fewer Māori voting, fewer rangatahi engaged, and fewer people with any power. And let’s talk about the numbers. In 2023, 48 percent of Māori voters aged 18 to 19 enrolled or updated their details during the voting period; only 9.8 percent of non-Māori did the same. So nearly 19 percent of Māori roll voters used this period to enrol or update. This bill is not race-neutral; it is race-targeted, like a whole lot of other bills that we’ve seen come through from this Government.

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.

Under Te Pāti Māori, we would reinstate the right to vote for all prisoners, because prison shouldn’t mean political erasure. We would bring the vote to 16-year-olds, because many of them are working two jobs before they even go to school—do not insult their intelligence by saying they do not know what this country needs. We would ensure every whānau has the right to enrol right up to the moment that they can cast their vote, because that is what a fair, secure democracy demands. We would defend mana motuhake, because our right to participate in decisions that affect our lives does not begin and end at the convenience of the super-rich and this particular Government.

The bill is a declaration of war on rangatahi Māori, on the rights of the incarcerated, and on the political agency of our people. It’s not about fairness. I want to say to those 100,000 people that have been called “dropkicks” by this Government’s Minister, by this Government’s, actually, current Deputy Prime Minister: you are not the problem. You are not the reason why votes and these types of Governments are getting in. You are the reason why we fight. You are not worthless—you are worthy. You are worthy of dignity, you are worthy of equity, you are worthy of leaders who serve and recognise you. We want to make sure that you never ever ever let this type of Government through again, whānau, so make sure that you enrol. And to David Seymour, if you are so worried about dropkicks, start by looking in the mirror. Kia ora rā.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a great piece of legislation. It’s time for people around New Zealand to take some personal responsibility. The law already requires you to be enrolled to vote, so get on and get enrolled in advance of next year’s election. Don’t wait for election day to do it; do it now. Get enrolled today. Get in there and do it. This improves timeliness and efficiency of electoral administration. It’s great to see Te Pāti Māori turn up to the debating chamber today. Strengthening the integrity of electoral law, ensuring resilience of the electoral system—this is a great piece of legislation, and, as a member of the Justice Committee, I’m looking forward to considering it and I’m looking forward to the member making contributions to the Justice Committee as well. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. E tū ana awau ki te whakahē i tēnei pire, arā te Electoral Amendment Bill, mā te Pāti Reipa, mā Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

[I stand to oppose this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, for the Labour Party and for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.]

The rhetoric around this bill is that these proposed changes will make voting more reliable and efficient. I ask: for whom? The purpose of an election is for the people across Aotearoa to have their say. Each of us here is an elected voice of the people across Aotearoa. They are the priority—the voters. Should we not be making it convenient for them, the people we serve? Minister Goldsmith stated in his introductory speech, “The system is under strain.” How out of touch with New Zealand can you be? If we want to talk about being under strain, let’s talk about whānau across Aotearoa who are under strain—under strain from the everyday struggles this Government is imposing on them; under strain from the cost of living; under strain with worry about where they will live; under strain from job losses—the list goes on. Instead of choosing to sort these very real issues out, the Government is choosing to make it harder to vote.

Māori participation is already low. In Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, voter turnout over the last two elections sat at around 67 percent, rising from 26,047 in 2020 to 27,362 in 2023. That increase of 1,315 voters, I know, partially came from first-time voters enrolling on the day—as they should have the right to do. Voter apathy is very real in our communities, and walking through that door is hard enough for a lot of whānau, who, potentially, have saved up their gas money to be able to do it on the day. While I want to acknowledge the many local faces who work at our polling booths and make what can be a frigid process a bit more comfortable, there were still reports of people being turned away last election. Putting up another barrier is the last thing we need to do. Work does need to be done to increase participation, but the work needs to be done on the system, not the voters—or, as the ACT Party leader called people who enrol late, “disengaged, lazy dropkicks”. E kī, e kī! [Is that so!] How on earth can you claim to be a Government of all people when you are marginalising the voices of voters? The short answer: you can’t. Aotearoa knows this.

One word comes to mind when thinking of the motivation for this bill: mataku—fear. People across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and Aotearoa, know that this Government are taking us backwards, and they will be lining up at the polls to make sure this is a one-term Government—and this coalition do not want that. This is another pitiful attempt to marginalise and silence people, and it will be unsuccessful. Continue to enrol, whānau mā.

How exactly are they going to engage with whānau to ensure the opportunity to enrol, and transfer roll, and vote? I don’t know if this Government have noticed, but there’s a housing crisis going on in Aotearoa; people are transient and homeless. Don’t tell me digital communication is the answer, because I invite you to Maraehara Road, Rangitukia, where we don’t have cellphone coverage, and not every home has internet or devices, but we do still have good old rural delivery. Sadly, though, Minister Goldsmith said that postal mail-outs are wasteful—and I guess our rural, isolated voters just ain’t worth it. This bill is another tool to isolate and silence people at a time when this Government know Aotearoa wants them out. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’re in the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I’d just like to remind our listeners that in 1975, the third Labour Government allowed all prisoners to be regifted the privilege to vote, and in 2020 the sixth Labour Government gave convicted prisoners the right to vote again. What does this say? Labour is on the side of criminals; National is on the side of victims. I commend this bill to the House.

I agree with my colleague that this is a dark day in democracy, and I rise to speak against this irrational and profoundly unjust bill. There are times when this House but also the people of New Zealand need to pay very, very close attention, and it’s when bills are tabled that touch the bones of our democracy, as this one does.

This is an abhorrent breach of rights, because here in New Zealand, we lean so heavily into parliamentary supremacy that the only way people truly have—the singular way people truly have—to agree to being governed or to object to being governed is to exercise their vote. When the vote is diminished and when it’s removed from certain groups of people, we must pay attention, because in many ways, it is following what could be described as a handbook on authoritarian politics, where rule number one is when you get into power, you must work out how to make it very difficult to be removed from power. This is what we’re discussing today.

Now, I want to talk about the irrationality, but firstly I want to talk about an oddity in this legislation. Before it was introduced to the House, it was actually in an omnibus bill with the changes to the Constitution Act that the Government is introducing later today or this week. I was trying to work out why the two have been separated. From what I can see, the philosophy between the two is quite different. With the Constitution Act, the change made acknowledges that a statutory time limit, the 28-day rule, can and should be removed. In this case, what the Minister’s telling us is that the 20-day rule is very, very important. If we can’t get all the valid votes counted in the 20 days, that’s hugely problematic, and we need to stop some people being able to vote. Well, hang on! It feels like there’s an easy solution to this, which is to extend the date, but that doesn’t seem to be something that the Minister has considered. In fact, many countries that we compare ourselves to don’t actually set a date by which those votes must be counted. The UK just has a practical test. Canada doesn’t. Sweden doesn’t. Denmark doesn’t. Norway doesn’t. They recognise that the most important thing is that the most people who have the right to vote are given every opportunity to do so. Yet this Government is taking us backwards—apparently for a very, very disturbingly particular reason.

Now, the other thing I wanted to talk about is the oddities in the bill, and my credit goes to the Attorney-General, who sets this out beautifully in her section 7 report. She talks about the “blanket disenfranchisement” of people imprisoned, and she makes these points about who will and won’t be able to vote: “A person imprisoned for a one-month period, that happens to coincide with polling day, shall be disenfranchised but a person who committed a premeditated murder, but is released on parole in the weeks prior to election day, shall be able to vote, as will a person that serves a two-year sentence in between elections. A person convicted of serious sexual offending but [who has] not yet [been] sentenced, shall be able to vote. Persons sentenced to imprisonment of two years or less are eligible for home detention, but whether [that] person is detained [at home at all or is in prison will depend on whether they’ve got an address to be detained within].” It is absolutely incomprehensible that these people are being treated quite differently, just dependent on where they’re located.

A member opposite referenced the fact that people who are in mental health or other facilities will now be able to vote. Well, guess what! This means that people who are in prison who have medical issues during the election will be able to vote if they’re held in a health facility but won’t be able to vote if they’re held in prison. It is simply irrational, simply illogical, and very, very telling—very telling—about the motivations of this Government when it comes down to really considering whether they want to hear what everyone believes. There are many people who are sick of the rising costs of living who would like to be able to tell this Government so. Give them the right to be heard.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. Banks Peninsula is one of the most engaged electorates in New Zealand. At the last election, we had 99.5 percent of eligible voters enrolled, and over 86 percent of them turned out to vote. I’m sure that my constituents will be able to get themselves sorted and get themselves enrolled to vote in such outstanding numbers again. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to the Justice Committee