Māori Party MP Oriini Kaipara went out to bat for democracy – hurrah! – at Question Time in Parliament yesterday. But her mission, more pointedly, was to expose the discrimination against Māori which (she would have us believe) will result from government proposals to change electoral legislation.
In the upshot, she was reminded of what the law now requires.
This means that if anyone is being denied the right to vote, it’s because they have broken the law: they have failed to enroll as voters, as the legislation requires, or they have been banged up in prison.
Kaipara kicked off by asking Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith if he stood by the Government’s policy to ban enrollments in the final 13 days before an election, despite the Attorney-General warning that this might result in more than 100,000 people being directly or indirectly disenfranchised.
Goldsmith – not unexpectedly – said yes, he did stand by the policy.
He said he had every confidence that New Zealanders can respond to a change in the signal that is sent to them regarding their enrollment obligations.
They’ve got a year to get enrolled, and I’ve got every confidence that they will be able to get enrolled 13 days before the election.
It then became apparent that Kaipara was concerned more specifically about the voting rights of Māori women.
She asked about the impact on Māori women “who are one of the most overincarcerated groups in the world?”
The answer was simple: if they’re imprisoned more than three years currently, they don’t have a vote. After the legislation is passed, they will lose their vote also if they’re imprisoned for less than three years.
…and that’s about sending a clear message to those who are victims of crime that we take that seriously. There are consequences for crime, and one of those consequences is temporarily losing one’s vote while one is in prison.
Kaipara drew Goldsmith’s attention to evidence that rehabilitation goals are undermined by denying prisoners the right to vote. Social exclusion and the risk of reoffending is increased.
Goldsmith was unmoved: he said he tends to think more about the needs of the victims of crime who are trying to put their lives together after having been bashed or stolen or murdered or the many other victims of crime that live in this country.
Look, we have a robust, strong democracy. There are many countries around the world that have various restrictions on prisoners voting. Currently, it is the law that if you’re in prison for three years or more, you lose your vote. We are extending that earlier, and we think that’s fully justified.
Kaipara broadened her line of question far beyond Māori women in prison:
Does the Minister’s Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori, such as when they removed Māori wards dismantled co-governance, and introduced the Treaty principles bill?
But whoa.
“They” didn’t remove Māori wards. The citizens of some parts of the country did that when they were given the chance by the Luxon government to vote for or against the race-based wards which their local authorities had introduced.
Isn’t that an example of democracy being exercised at the local level?
As for “co-governance”, it’s an arrangement which gives unelected iwi and hapu leaders shared decision-making arrangements with the Crown (central or local government), invariably by invoking the Treaty of Waitangi. It means both sides have equal authority at the governance table, but only one side is democratically accountable to voters for its decisions.
And no, despite the expectations – and hopes – of significant numbers of voters for National, ACT and New Zealand First in 2023, co-governance has not been dismantled.
Luxon’s coalition government has scaled back or removed some co-governance arrangements in public services, but it remains in Treaty settlements, local governance structures and community organisations
Then there’s the Treaty principles bill.
National failed significant numbers of its supporters on that one by determining not to support it beyond the first reading and an exhaustive select committee process.
But Kaipara’s question was ruled out of order by the Speaker because it didn’t comply with the requirements of Standing Orders.
In so much as the Minister was able to make a statement, he could.
And he did.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can assure the House that this Government does care about democracy—very much so. The good news about democracy is that Governments are held to account, and we are perfectly willing to put our record before New Zealanders, particularly in the justice space, where we’ve seen 38—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a moment. Things have to settle down. There are people just yelling for no particular purpose—they are not interventions; they are just boorish barracking. It’s got to stop. The Minister will briefly eat his answer.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was just continuing about the virtues of democracy and the accountability and where we lay our performance before the people of New Zealand at the next election, and we’re very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many fronts.
Now came the chance for ACT leader David Seymour to expose the nonsense of Kaipara’s concerns about voters being denied the chance to enroll.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm it’s actually a legal obligation—one of the few blanket obligations the law places on all New Zealanders—to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18, so it shouldn’t be much of a problem to be enrolled 13 days before an election, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealanders of all races are equally capable of fulfilling this basic requirement?
Did you get that, dear reader?
There’s a legal requirement for all New Zealanders over the age of 18 to enroll.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and yes. I have always been troubled by a particular party claiming that their voters are disadvantaged by any changes, which would imply that their voters are less capable than other voters of getting themselves enrolled—which is a strange way to talk about your voters.
Perhaps Kaipara was unaware of the law.
New Zealand citizens (or permanent residents) aged 18 or older, who have lived in New Zealand continuously for at least 12 months at some point in their lives, must put their names on the electoral roll.
Voting is not compulsory. Enrollment is.
Enforcement is rare, but failing to enroll when eligible can result in fines under the Electoral Act.
But you have to get up to much more serious mischief to find yourself in jail and be denied the right to vote.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Kaipara kicked off by asking Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith if he stood by the Government’s policy to ban enrollments in the final 13 days before an election, despite the Attorney-General warning that this might result in more than 100,000 people being directly or indirectly disenfranchised.
Goldsmith – not unexpectedly – said yes, he did stand by the policy.
He said he had every confidence that New Zealanders can respond to a change in the signal that is sent to them regarding their enrollment obligations.
They’ve got a year to get enrolled, and I’ve got every confidence that they will be able to get enrolled 13 days before the election.
It then became apparent that Kaipara was concerned more specifically about the voting rights of Māori women.
She asked about the impact on Māori women “who are one of the most overincarcerated groups in the world?”
The answer was simple: if they’re imprisoned more than three years currently, they don’t have a vote. After the legislation is passed, they will lose their vote also if they’re imprisoned for less than three years.
…and that’s about sending a clear message to those who are victims of crime that we take that seriously. There are consequences for crime, and one of those consequences is temporarily losing one’s vote while one is in prison.
Kaipara drew Goldsmith’s attention to evidence that rehabilitation goals are undermined by denying prisoners the right to vote. Social exclusion and the risk of reoffending is increased.
Goldsmith was unmoved: he said he tends to think more about the needs of the victims of crime who are trying to put their lives together after having been bashed or stolen or murdered or the many other victims of crime that live in this country.
Look, we have a robust, strong democracy. There are many countries around the world that have various restrictions on prisoners voting. Currently, it is the law that if you’re in prison for three years or more, you lose your vote. We are extending that earlier, and we think that’s fully justified.
Kaipara broadened her line of question far beyond Māori women in prison:
Does the Minister’s Government truly care about democracy, or do they only care about democracy when it can be weaponised against Māori, such as when they removed Māori wards dismantled co-governance, and introduced the Treaty principles bill?
But whoa.
“They” didn’t remove Māori wards. The citizens of some parts of the country did that when they were given the chance by the Luxon government to vote for or against the race-based wards which their local authorities had introduced.
Isn’t that an example of democracy being exercised at the local level?
As for “co-governance”, it’s an arrangement which gives unelected iwi and hapu leaders shared decision-making arrangements with the Crown (central or local government), invariably by invoking the Treaty of Waitangi. It means both sides have equal authority at the governance table, but only one side is democratically accountable to voters for its decisions.
And no, despite the expectations – and hopes – of significant numbers of voters for National, ACT and New Zealand First in 2023, co-governance has not been dismantled.
Luxon’s coalition government has scaled back or removed some co-governance arrangements in public services, but it remains in Treaty settlements, local governance structures and community organisations
Then there’s the Treaty principles bill.
National failed significant numbers of its supporters on that one by determining not to support it beyond the first reading and an exhaustive select committee process.
But Kaipara’s question was ruled out of order by the Speaker because it didn’t comply with the requirements of Standing Orders.
In so much as the Minister was able to make a statement, he could.
And he did.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can assure the House that this Government does care about democracy—very much so. The good news about democracy is that Governments are held to account, and we are perfectly willing to put our record before New Zealanders, particularly in the justice space, where we’ve seen 38—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a moment. Things have to settle down. There are people just yelling for no particular purpose—they are not interventions; they are just boorish barracking. It’s got to stop. The Minister will briefly eat his answer.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was just continuing about the virtues of democracy and the accountability and where we lay our performance before the people of New Zealand at the next election, and we’re very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many fronts.
Now came the chance for ACT leader David Seymour to expose the nonsense of Kaipara’s concerns about voters being denied the chance to enroll.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm it’s actually a legal obligation—one of the few blanket obligations the law places on all New Zealanders—to be enrolled to vote with an up-to-date address from the age of 18, so it shouldn’t be much of a problem to be enrolled 13 days before an election, and, if so, does he believe that New Zealanders of all races are equally capable of fulfilling this basic requirement?
Did you get that, dear reader?
There’s a legal requirement for all New Zealanders over the age of 18 to enroll.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and yes. I have always been troubled by a particular party claiming that their voters are disadvantaged by any changes, which would imply that their voters are less capable than other voters of getting themselves enrolled—which is a strange way to talk about your voters.
Perhaps Kaipara was unaware of the law.
New Zealand citizens (or permanent residents) aged 18 or older, who have lived in New Zealand continuously for at least 12 months at some point in their lives, must put their names on the electoral roll.
Voting is not compulsory. Enrollment is.
Enforcement is rare, but failing to enroll when eligible can result in fines under the Electoral Act.
But you have to get up to much more serious mischief to find yourself in jail and be denied the right to vote.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
The law should be that everyone serving any sentence of imprisonment or home detention (which is supposed to be a form of incarceration) should lose their right to vote. Those sentences are effectively "time out" of your rights of citizenship, so that should include voting. Politicians need to start treating prison and Home D as punishments rather than as holidays. People serve those sentences only because they have deliberately denied the basic rights of other people.
In the same way, the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply to people serving those sentences. There are rules about what those people can and can't do and they should be enough. It's time to stop spending millions of dollars on legal aid and court time because some prisoner doesn't like being disciplined after breaking the rules, or is denied things like a TV or a hairpiece.
If Paul Goldsmith really thinks this government is delivering for New Zealanders, why is he working so hard to stop them voting? You can’t crow about the strength of democracy while quietly clipping its wings. Banning enrolments in the final thirteen days before an election might sound tidy to a man with an office, an assistant, and stable broadband, but it reeks of fear. If your record’s strong, you want more people voting. You want everyone to see it. Instead, the message from Goldsmith is clear: keep it neat, keep it quiet, keep the messy voices out of the booth. That is not confidence. That is cowardice hiding behind legislation.
And then there’s the smug lecture about “consequences.” As if denying prisoners the vote is some grand gesture to victims, when it’s really just a way of shrinking the franchise so fewer people can judge the government’s failures. Oriini Kaipara was right to call it out. It is rank hypocrisy for a government that bangs on about accountability to spend this much effort avoiding it. Voters aren’t Goldsmith’s problem, they’re his boss, and the only politicians who start tightening the gates around democracy are the ones who know the crowd outside is getting restless.
This reads less like an argument than a recital by anon 7.45am. Lots of moral fog, very little law.
The claim that the Government is “working hard to stop people voting” collapses the moment you remember a dull but awkward fact: enrolment is a legal obligation, not a last-minute favour granted by benevolent officials. New Zealanders have years to comply. Thirteen days is not disenfranchisement; it’s administration.
Democracy is not defined by how late you can wander into the system. It is defined by rules that apply equally. Polls close. Rolls close. Deadlines exist. None of this is novel, sinister, or evidence of “fear” — unless every timetable is now an act of oppression.
The prisoner point fares no better. Losing the vote is not a “smug lecture” or a plot to “shrink the franchise”; it is a consequence of serious criminal offending. Rights are not free-floating lifestyle accessories. They sit alongside obligations. Break the social contract hard enough and some rights are temporarily suspended. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s reciprocity.
The rhetoric about “clipping democracy’s wings” and “messy voices” is imported whole from overseas opinion pages.
It sounds polished because it isn’t thinking — it’s repeating. No engagement with the law, no engagement with responsibility, just motive-guessing dressed up as principle.
If a government truly feared voters, it wouldn’t bother enforcing enrolment at all.
It would simply abandon the idea that citizens are capable of meeting basic civic duties. That, oddly enough, is the only genuinely anti-democratic position on display here.
So let’s be honest. Calling this “just administration” is a joke. You don’t tighten the window for enrolment and then act like it’s meaningless. That is classic bureaucratic spin. Real democracies make it easier to vote, not harder. Thirteen days might sound small, but it’s deliberate. It’s control. This is a government terrified of ordinary people having their say, and hiding behind paperwork to justify it. Enrolment is a legal duty, yes, but the state is supposed to serve the citizen, not lecture them. They’ll move heaven and earth to ram through laws when it suits them, yet suddenly when voters need flexibility, the red tape becomes sacred. It’s hypocrisy pure and simple.
And the prisoner line is a red herring. This isn’t about “responsibility,” it’s about punishment performing as politics. Voting is part of citizenship, not a pat on the head for good behaviour. You don’t protect democracy by shrinking it. The left loves to cry about empathy until the people they don’t like want a say. That’s when the compassion dries up and the moralising begins. The real arrogance sits with those deciding who’s worthy of a voice and who isn’t. The government isn’t defending democracy here. It’s managing it like a PR problem, scared stiff of what the rest of us might actually say.
Oh my. Anon 7.45 really needs to have a nice cup of tea and a lie down. There are 3 years between elections, or around 1095 days
That's 1095 days for the non-compliant to get themselves on the roll and legal. Except for those last 13 days when the Electoral Commission officials have got more important things to do than hold the hands of those who don't get it. If any case, if you miss out on voting because you can't read a calendar you probably don't have the capacity to cast a meaningful vote in the first place. And that's hardly Paul Goldsmith or his Government's problem. It's actually doing the rest of us a favour.
Thirteen days. In the digital age. We can lodge a passport renewal at midnight, order dinner from three apps, and pay a bill from the back seat of an Uber, but apparently checking an enrolment form is just too much for some. And now we’re supposed to feel sorry for them? Please. The bureaucracy can run a nationwide census on a laptop but we’re meant to believe it can’t keep its finger on the pulse for one more week? Pull the other one.
And this adolescent Jones character in the comments, crowing about it like he’s uncovered some great civic truth. That smug, patronising tone is exactly why ordinary people roll their eyes at the so-called political class. Mocking voters isn’t witty, it’s pathetic. If locking people out makes you feel principled, you’re not defending democracy, you’re shrinking it to fit your own ego.
Seems like I touched a nerve there Anon 11.22. Good. Because it might drive home the point that it's not Goldsmith or the Government that's locking some folk out of voting; it's the inevitable consequence of those folk's own behaviour. Living in a democratic society might carry the right to vote, but rights always come with duties. And one of those duties is the requirement to register on time. If you don't bother to register you lose the right to vote. Quite simple really. What I find pathetic is people who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and desperately try to find someone else to blame.
Calm down there, Mr Jones. It’s just a debate, there is no reason to get all hot under the collar. If I could give you a hug I would!
We live in a developed nation of democracy, and history tells us that those who promote it are on the right side while those who try to restrict it are taking a step in a dangerous direction. I’m getting a bit sick of the elect/repeal/start again nonsense with the National party, but what are you gonna do…politicians are gonna politician.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.