In an ideal world there would be cross-party support for any electoral reforms, but the passage of the Electoral Amendment Bill was anything but. What the government claimed were "timely and efficient" law changes were "appalling" and shameful to MPs sitting on the other side of the House.
Enabling special vote processing to begin earlier, setting a single deadline for all candidate nominations and alterations to party registration requirements and timeframes are all useful clerical amendments.
Particularly welcome is dropping the requirement to put a personal address on candidate and promoter statements. Sadly, the requirement to do so had caused legitimate security and safety concerns for candidates and dropping that requirement was common sense.
Other straightforward changes include recognition of the ever-increasing role of digital technology in our lives: people will now be able to enrol to vote electronically rather than have to do it by post, and the Electoral Commission will now be able to automatically update people’s enrolment details using data from other government agencies.
However, where the party’s unanimity splinters is the law setting a deadline for voter enrolment.
For 2026 enrolment will close before advance voting begins; that will also be the deadline for updating important information like place of residence.
The government, despite some advice to the contrary, believes that late enrolments were a leading contributor to the weeks-long delays in getting a final election result declared.
It also argues that given the election date will be publicised well in advance, people should take some personal responsibility for ensuring they are on the roll.
The contrary view is that there should never be any barrier placed in the way of anyone who wishes to vote, and that the deadline will disenfranchise those who are young, disorganised, or both.
Naturally, each side is speaking somewhat from self-interest. The governing parties are well aware that late enrollees tend to vote for left-leaning parties, and those parties are equally cognisant of that fact.
In a close election that may well make a difference. During the 2023 election in excess of 200,000 people enrolled either during the early voting period or on election day itself. In an MMP election every percentage point of party vote matters, and that was roughly 7% of the total vote at the last election.
Hence, on the weight of numbers, the Opposition does have a strong argument.
That said, the argument that if you want to vote you should organise yourself to do so has some weight. Enrolling to vote is not an arduous task and anyone taking even a slight interest in the world about them should be able manage the requirements to do so.
It will be interesting to compare pre-election enrolments for the 2026 election against late enrolments for 2023 to see if this change will make any difference to voter behaviour.
The Act also reinstated the controversial ban on prisoners being able to vote.
This issue has been a political ping pong one, being instituted and repealed by subsequent governments, divided by a philosophical divide as to whether voting is a right or a privilege.
The pendulum has swung back to privilege with the passage of this law, despite a succession of attorney-general reports, judicial decisions and legal academics noting that revoking the right to vote runs counter to the Bill of Rights.
The government has taken some heed of some of the expressed concerns concerning the arbitrariness of the ban; a sentence of three years or more imprisonment will now be the trigger for loss of voting rights. It has also resisted a push to expand voting restrictions on people detained under mental health grounds.
While being a nod toward the issues the ban raises, they are unlikely to stop this issue rolling around again the next time the government changes.
