The Electoral Ammendment Bill
BY James Aitken
I. Introduction
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) enshrines the right to vote in legislation for all citizens over the age of eighteen.[1] This right, however, goes far further than protecting the mere act of casting one’s ballot in “periodic elections,” it requires elections to have equal suffrage, ensuring that across the country everyone has a vote. One way this is achieved is through special votes. While it is compulsory to be registered to vote on the Electoral Roll, many people may not be. A special vote therefore allows electors to cast a ballot if they are unregistered until the close of poll on the certified election date and have this considered an application for registration.[2] In 2023 110,000 cast their vote using this method.[3] A broad interpretation of s 12 supports the view that the electoral system in New Zealand should be one that allows as many Kiwis to vote as possible. Ensuring that our voting system is flexible, inclusive, and accessible.
Recent proposed changes by the government would halt the ability for people to register and vote on the same day. Many commentators, politicians, community leaders, and academics have raised concerns over these changes. This includes Clare Charters, who raises concerns over the possible disenfranchisement of many, traditionally marginalised voters.[4] This article briefly lays out the changes proposed by the government, and the rationale behind them, before citing some significant flaws that exist within the government’s own reforms.
Aotearoa has remained consistent in achieving relatively high voter turnout, including for young people when compared with OECD countries.[5] However, the question must be asked; will the government’s changes to longstanding rules around voting, which are designed to make the process easy and accessible reduce equal suffrage, harm the ease of voting, and restrict the right to vote?
II. Understanding the government’s reforms and their consequences
The government is proposing to make a raft of changes to the voting process in Aotearoa; including restricting entertainment or access to food and water within 100m of a polling booth while voting is taking place, to reinstating a ban on prisoner voting, and ensuring there is a 12-day advance voting period ahead of election day.[6] However, the most significant change which this article examines is the proposed close of enrolments 13 days prior to election day, thus ending the ability for voters to enrol and vote on the same day.
The government argues that these changes are designed to overhaul Aotearoa’s “outdated and unsustainable electoral laws”.[7] The government’s rationale behind their proposed changes is based on the length of time it takes between election day and when the final election results are announced. In 2017, the election night results saw the National Party in prime position to lead the next government with 58 seats. However, after special votes were counted, this dropped back to 56, with both the Labour and Green Parties gaining an extra seat each, paving the way to a Labour led government.[8] Similarly, in 2023, the election night results made it possible for National and Act to govern together, without the support of NZ First. However, once the special votes were counted, the right-bloc’s seat count fell from 61, to 59 with the loss of two National Party seats, requiring NZ First to be a part of any governing arrangement.[9] These shifts between election night results and the final result can have enormous consequences for the final outcome of an election and who will form the next government. The government’s proposed changes are based on the belief that Aotearoa should have a good idea of who will lead the next government at the end of election day, rather than waiting weeks for the final outcome.
While certainty, confidence and stability are crucial hallmarks for any democratic system, this is rarely ever fully achieved. Instead, a balance is required. The reason why there is a delay in the outcome being known is partly as a result of the due diligence done by the Electoral Commission to ensure that every special vote cast is true, correct, accurate, and that the person who cast it is qualified to be registered to vote. This due diligence helps maintain that very same stability, confidence, and certainty in the voting process, which the government argues is the catalyst behind their reforms.
There are three main heads of argument behind the government’s rationale for their proposed changes:[10]
1. Improving the timeliness and efficiency of electoral administration;
2. Strengthening the integrity of the electoral law; and
3. Ensuring the resilience of the electoral system.
The government argues that their proposed changes represents a balanced approach, ensuring that timeliness, efficiency, integrity and reducing administrative pressure is considered alongside flexibility, and not to the exclusion of. While the government argues it’s reforms to be balanced, the consequence of such changes may leave tens of thousands of voters out in the cold, unable to take part in the democratic process, and undermine s 12 of NZBORA.
III. Criticism of the proposed reforms
Section 7 of NZBORA imposes a duty on the Attorney General to report on instances where sections, parts, or even whole bills are inconsistent with relevant provisions found within the Bill of Rights. Any inconsistency does not render legislation void, and governments are still fully permitted to pass legislation with such NZBORA inconsistent provisions. At most, being found to be inconsistent with NZBORA may leave government’s embarrassed, or open to significant public pressure.
In respect of the Electoral Amendment Bill, Attorney-General Collins found that numerous parts of the bill appeared to be inconsistent with NZBORA, including the change to the voter registration deadline being inconsistent with the s 12 right to vote.[11] The Attorney-General’s analysis describes the cut-off date for registration as being ‘restrictive’. Such proposals fundamentally change the nature of voting in Aotearoa and fail to meet a balanced approach, as acknowledged in the alternative measures proposed by the Attorney General in her s 7 report.[12]
A. Media and political commentary
Much commentary has been published about the political motives behind these changes from the government.[13] The focus, far from being one of political opportunity, should instead be on the outcome and finding a balance between the acknowledged need for timely efficiency and true, equal suffrage, underpinned by fair and straightforward access to voting. At the end of the day, the question, as ever in the law, becomes one of finding a middle ground that can uphold the significant right to vote against other considerations.
B. Common law principles and doctrine
At the heart of the Attorney General’s s 7 analysis is the attempted reconciliation between the NZBORA and proposed changes to voter registration deadlines announced by the government.[14] The relevant test is the Hansen model and requires the limiting measure to serve a sufficiently important purpose which justifies any restriction on a right, in this case the right to vote.[15] Based upon the Attorney General’s own analysis, the claim of speeding up the election results is not a sufficiently important purpose, supporting the high bar required to be met when placing any restrictions on a right. Minister Collins in her s 7 report cites the supreme law-making powers of Parliament, and in the end, it is the decision and role of Parliament to set the bounds of the electoral process in Aotearoa.[16] However, this once again clashes with competing legal principles, where courts are required to, where possible, give a rights consistent meaning to legislation.[17] Furthermore, it highlights the competing roles, and powers between the executive and Parliament more broadly.
The right to vote has been considered by the New Zealand Supreme Court to be fundamental, if not paramount.[18] As acknowledged by both the government and Minister Collins herself, there may be limited grounds where such rights can be curtailed. However, the government’s justification in this case falls short of meeting such a high bar. The risk that approximately 110,000 people not voting cannot be seriously accepted in the name of speed within the electoral process. Interestingly, even this argument has been rejected by the electoral commission itself, stating that the proposed changes by the government may ultimately do little to speed up the process.[19] Taking a balanced consideration, the government fails its own desire to achieve both efficiency, integrity and overall timeliness, with the importance of s 12’s right to vote, equal suffrage, and NZBORA’s protection of legislative rights.
IV. Conclusion
Regardless of the motives or rationale behind the government’s changes, it seems clear that it has failed to adopt a balanced approach to this issue. The need for timely, trusted, clear, and specific results is something that can receive near-unanimous support. Nevertheless, for every action, there is a reaction, and such a focus on increasing the speed of election results may well see equal suffrage undermined. Section 12 requires that there is a right to vote in New Zealand, which is held to a high threshold, protected, and considered important. Disenfranchising potentially 110,000 voters in the name of speeding up the process, fails to meet, said high bar.[20] Democracy is not designed to be timely, although that would be desirable; democracy is about ensuring that people's voices are heard, and interpreting this principle in the best light should see the right to vote upheld and made as easy as possible for every New Zealander who wishes to exercise that right.
[1] New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 12.
[2] Electoral Act 1993, s83(3A).
[3] Electoral Commission Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2023 General Election (Electoral Commission, May 2024).
[4] Clare Charters Planned voting changes could be a civic rights breach (The University of Auckland, Auckland, 2025).
[5] OECD Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators (OECD, June 2024).
[6] Hon Paul Goldsmith “Overhauling unsustainable electoral laws” (press release, 24 July 2025).
[7] Goldsmith , above n 6.
[8] Electoral Commission “New Zealand 2017 General Election – Official Results” (media release, 7 October 2017).
[9] Electoral Commission “Official results for the 2023 General Election” (media release, 3 November 2023).
[10] Electoral Amendment Bill 2025, Explanatory Note.
[11] Hon Judith Collins KC Report of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electoral Matters Legislation Amendment Bill (Ministry of Justice, 26 June 2025).
[12] Collins, above n 10 at [45].
[13] Charters above n 3.
[14] Collins, above n 10 at [34].
[15] Attorney-General v Chisnall [2024] NZSC 178, [2024] 1 NZLR at [195]
[16] Collins, above n 10 at [34].
[17] New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 5.
[18] Make It 16 Ltd v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134, [2022] 1 NZLR 683 at [51].
[19] Collins, above n 10 at [39].
[20] Electoral Commission Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2023 General Election (Electoral Commission, May 2024).
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.