Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has put too much strain on the system and it is taking too long to get the final vote count.
He says this could worsen in future general elections, conveniently not mentioning the other delay to new government formation — protracted negotiations between political parties.
There were multiple issues with the count in 2023, but should the blame for the time taken fall on late enrolled voters or a system which was poorly resourced, staffed and organised?
The law was changed for the 2020 election to allow enrolment on voting day after 19,000 people who had turned up at the previous election to enrol and vote were disenfranchised.
The Electoral Amendment Bill, introduced to the House last week, will not take the situation back to that which existed for years before 2020.
Then, late enrolments could be accepted up until the day before the election.
(That is the case for local elections, and officials have pointed out having substantially different deadlines for the two types of elections may confuse voters.)
Now, for a vote to be valid in a general election, enrolment would have to be completed 13 days before the election; a day before advance voting starts.
Whether he was trying to provoke an odd Trans-Tasman rivalry — anything the Aussies can do we can do in half the time — is not clear. It was a strange comparison to make because, unlike New Zealand, Australia has compulsory voting.
He did not mention almost half of the states in the United States of America allow same day enrolment and voting, as does Canada.
In our last election, special votes included more than 97,000 people who enrolled during the voting period and nearly 134,000 people who changed electorates during that time.
Officials have suggested this gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected by this policy change, and the earlier the deadline, the more people who are likely to be impacted.
Also, Electoral Commission data indicates special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian and Pasifika, and younger people.
We should be encouraging these voters, not putting obstacles in their way.
When, traditionally, special votes have favoured the Left, this move by the current Right-leaning government looks self-serving.
The argument that if people were taking their voting responsibilities seriously, they would ensure they were enrolled with up-to-date information well before voting begins, assumes everyone has an orderly and predictable life, and fully understands their obligations.
For David Seymour to say he was "a bit sick of dropkicks that can’t get themselves organised to follow the law" was another illustration of his failure to make the transition from shoot-from-the-lip party leader to the gravitas-requiring role of the deputy prime minister.
Call us picky, but the special voters lodging votes on or close to polling day in the last two elections were not outlaws.
Mr Goldsmith’s description of Mr Seymour’s comments as unhelpful was an understatement if ever there was one.
Among other things, the Bill also proposes reintroducing a total ban on prisoner voting for those convicted and sentenced, something which is not a surprise from the government.
It is more about cynically playing to those still convinced by its tired tough-on-crime mantra than considering its fairness or contravention of the Bill of Rights Act.
It also is against the advice of the Ministry of Justice which supported giving all prisoners the right to vote.
Whenever changes are proposed to electoral law, major consideration should be given to whether alterations might improve or dissuade participation from all parts of our society.
In this instance, it is difficult to see what weight has been given to this for both prisoners and those who, for whatever reason, might not be up to date with their voter registration 13 days before an election.
