Golriz’s Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill
Golriz had her Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill pulled from the biscuit tin, and there’s a lot that is worthy of debate.
The seven areas of reform in the Bill are:
- Enabling voters of Māori descent to change roll type at any time
- Extending the voting age to 16 years
- Removing the requirement for NZ citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last 3 years to maintain their voting rights
- Giving all people in prison the right to vote
- Implementing the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP Review recommendations
- Strengthening transparency and safeguards on donations to parties and candidates
- Extending the reserved provisions to include all provisions that reduce eligibility to register as an elector or to vote at an election.
Here are my thoughts.
Māori Roll: The manner in which Māori are only allowed to swap between the Māori Roll and General Roll once every 5 years is very regressive in terms of Treaty obligations and democratic representation of Māori. There were tens of thousands of Māori who enquired about changing between rolls at the last election, and the ability to vote where you want is important for universal suffrage.
The justification for the 5 year approach is that the demographic details are used to set electoral boundaries, so there will need to be a technical work around to make this work.
As the country begins to appreciate the yawning chasm of inequality lockdowns have exacerbated between Māori & Pakeha (while acknowledging we aren’t safe until we are all vaccinated), this revelation has to translate into strengthening Māori political representation, not amputating it as ACT want!
Lower voting age to 16: Taxation without representation is a classic and it has weight. Lots of 16 and 17 year olds have jobs and are paying tax but without any political representation. That is an incredibly powerful argument for Democrats and those arguing against lowering the voting age don’t have much intellectual or philosophical counter weight to this prescient point.
One counter is that teenagers frontal lobes haven’t developed enough yet and as such 16 & 17 year olds don’t have the maturity to vote.
While it is certainly true that teens don’t develop frontal lobes until their mid 20s, we are talking about sudden panic moments in young peoples lives like fighting or boy racing or racing off in police pursuits, that criticism can’t be extended to teenagers ability to reason or understand the world around them!
What is the suggestion here? Teenagers will panic at the voting booth and murder everyone in an epic melt down over not being able to take a selfie while voting?
The third argument is that this is self serving for the Left. I think that is garbage. Allowing people over 80 to vote leads to very biased results!
Young people are dealing with climate change, allowing them a political voice and by bringing them into politics earlier builds the franchise of democracy no matter who it benefits politically (and I would argue it benefits older people right now)!
Broadening the franchise of Democracy is the goal and allowing our teenagers to have a say would force politicians to listen.
If politicians aren’t going to listen, they won’t get their vote!
What more democratic is that?
I say yes to lowering the voting age to 16 and welcome a new generation of citizens into the great debate that is democracy!
Removing the requirement for NZ citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last 3 years to maintain their voting rights: The justification for restricting voting rights to citizens overseas who have visited the country within the last 3 years is so we only include voters who actually have a physical connection here. There is a million of us who live overseas, do we really want to include a vast electorate who never return home?
What about making voting only a right for citizens rather than permanent residents? The question is as urgent to ask if we are opening up voting rights to external citizens who like absent landlords have never visited their homeland but continue to influence the system under which we live, not them.
There are real philosophical reasons you would restrict voting rights and these need to be explored.
Giving all people in prison the right to vote: This makes sense. A prisoners rights are curtailed in a state run environment where they have no power. Allowing prisoners to vote forces society to have a legitimate democratic voice for those being punished by us. Critics claim that you lose your rights as a prisoner including the privilege of voting, but that privilege is intrinsic to all citizens regardless of their imprisonment. A prisoner loses their liberty, they don’t lose fundamental human rights. Allowing prisoners to politically voice their views forces political parties to listen to their concerns, and people in prison have concerns.
Dump Coat-tailing: The MMP coat-tailing rule was a quirky feature that recognized regional political movements and allows for Minor Parties to build infrastructure. The inability for many minor parties to exist suggests it hasn’t been successful to date but doesn’t mean it should be removed! It plays an important incubator in the creation of political movements in NZ and losing it would I think shut down one of the structural engines built within MMP. As someone who has started a fair share of minor parties, it is a legitimate tool that helps build new political parties.
Lower threshold to 4%: We don’t want the madness of the Israeli MMP system, but 5% as the threshold has cut most political movements off before they start. Lowering it to 4% will help NZ First.
Strengthening transparency and safeguards on donations to parties and candidates: Sure, but this isn’t the real reform we need, we need public funding of our political system!
With so much swirling around donations to political parties, isn’t it time to consider publicly funding our political parties? If we want to remove the influence of big money from politics, remove the need for politicians to have to flirt for those donations in the first place.
Law God Andrew Geddis put forward the argument for publicly funded election campaigns for Political Parties in his 2007 public policy essay…
The third set of responses can be termed public assistance measures. They complement the egalitarian objective of the previous two forms of regulation by replacing the role that private (and thus unequally distributed) sources of wealth can play in the electoral process with a ‘clean’ source of funding – the general taxpayer. Further, such measures may be designed to provide funding to parties or candidates which otherwise would struggle to raise private funds, thereby enabling a greater range of voices to participate at the election. A variety of different forms of public assistance measures are available: direct payments to electoral participants on a ‘dollar-per-votes’ basis; post-election refunds of the expenses incurred in campaigning; matching donations for small, individual donations; tax credits to compensate small donors for their gift; the provision of broadcasting time or other campaign benefits to qualifying contestants.
…publicly funding political party election campaigns would remove all money influence from the political decision making process.
Based on the current spending caps we are talking about a $20million cost per election to remove big money from NZ politics.
It’s time to seriously discuss publicly funding election campaigns.
Extending the reserved provisions to include all provisions that reduce eligibility to register as an elector or to vote at an election: There are a lot of mainly women who need to be on private rolls so that they can’t be chased by abusive ex partners, this process to apply to be on the private roll should be as bureaucratically easy as possible.
There is real meat on the bone philosophically and technically on ways to empower and strengthen our democracy that we should all take seriously.
We have seen the danger of misinformation and disinformation to our democracy when it comes to the Facebook algorithms of hate. Strengthening and extending the universal franchise of democracy is an urgent endeavour we must engage with.
Can we have that debate rationally?
Fuck no!
The polarisation of politics is so extreme now, this will immediately be seen as the Greens attempting to screw the scrum in their favour. When you have a Party openly promising to amputate 5 Ministries, the idea of progressive political processes will clash like Donald Trump at a Vegan Feminist Conference.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
Mr and Ms 16 year old can vote. Whoopty do! They can vote Green,. They can see for their vote the priority Green issue is non binary co-leadership models.
Maori can switch rolls with ease.
But none can buy a home because the fucked up economic model every political party in parliament signs up stacks the deck against them and stops them doing so. But they can feel voting achievement for non gender specific co leadership. And ease of switching voter rolls
And expats still get to make decisions that us remaining here have to live with while they don’t? Who on earth apart from the Greens think that is a good idea?
More pointless virtue signaling.
I’m sorry, but is there any point or purpose to the Greens?
I have to agree with you. There seems to be little or no point to the Greens. Their appeal as a trendy political party has worn off. Some of the young voters may still appreciate their views but their heyday is no more.
Over the years the Greens have been responsible for most of the absurd bills which have gone up for debate. This has caused social division in this country on more than one occasion.
Yup, because old people seem to think they have a monopoly on sense?
If a 16 year old can start full time employment and pay taxes, then they absolutely should be given a vote.
Incedently prisoners can’t vote, and they are paid nothing for prison labour and rehabilitation is none to nonexistent. They should be given their vote back.
The “standard” minumum wage for Maori are paid less than them. It’s important Maori can switch to and from the Maori and general role when ever the business party try and flog of Maori assets and interests to Chinese water bottling companies ect.
We will need Maori interests inorder to balance Chinese interests.
Is this a performance art peice entitled “Golriz tries for relevance” ?
NO!!!
The young are captured by Greens as they have all the answers without the experience ce to see the concequences. As the young travel overseas these would be lost Green votes The prisoners would vote Green as they are soft on crime . Nobody that makes money from business would vote Green . 5 percent keeps out the other looneys that could support Greens. All in all it seems a very self serving move.
Trevor how on earth would you know who the young are captured by? What a sweeping generalisation. Are you seriously telling me a 16-17 year Max Key type, or that f’wit that thought Nadia Lim was virtually nude in a prospectus, would ever vote Green? I have serious doubts
I have grandchildren and teacher friends who talk about the young people . If you think Simon Henry is young at 60 then there is chance for me yet.
I think it was Churchill who said if you were not a socialist when young you did not have a heart but if you remained a socialist when old you did not have a brain.
Absolutely true Wheel
Even if the did vote Greens no different than most farmers voting National with their vested interests.
You think gang members in prison would vote Green? Stop smoking crystal bruh, your teeth will fall out.
Cue, more dirty filthy personal attacks on Golriz–a woman MP that had to have Police protection at one stage such is the fury of frustrated Incels and racists.
Cue, expostulations from grumpy boomers on all counts of the proposal–and the “hang ’em high” lot re prisoners.
This Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill with some needed and expected changes, will be a good move for many NZers if participation in democracy is improved.
Really agree with Martyn on the unpublished Roll, should be widely publicised and super easy to sign on to.
I am not in favour of 16yr olds voting they need to enjoy life and stop being in a hurry to grow up. We should be encouraging those that don’t vote to do so.
Why encourage people to vote.
I don’t think those that are not interested or informed or those that are simply ambivalent or that prefer to trust the collective judgement of their fellow citizens should be encouraged to vote. Might be better to make it harder to vote, if anything.
Why make it harder to vote that is plain dumb we could make it mandatory like our Aussie mates.
I am not in favour of 16 year olds voting – most are good kids but they are still kids, still at school, they haven’t worked and paid taxes, ie earned the right to have a say which may determine the politics and government of the country.
And I do not want my vote to be cancelled out by someone who lives their life and gets all their info off social media/ their phone.
A small problem with your simplistic logic RosieLee. Sure, 16 year olds in the main haven’t paid taxes but they are sure as f**k going to – big time. You have conveniently overlooked the fact that the Government debt incurred today for your generation will be left for them to pay, long after you are gone. It makes sense that they should have an exercisable option to curb the ‘Me – Now!’ generations who are mortgaging the future of today’s 16 to 18 year olds.
It’s strange that there is much debate over the wisdom of sixteen year olds voting when one can easily find elderly people with diminishing faculties who vote.
Good intelligent response Andy K
There are other considerations I think to the ones you discuss Martyn. My almost 16 yr old has been endoctrinated at school. 8 of her potential classes this year (20) are to do with either Climate or mainly, Identity Politics. My daughter worships Jacinda and believes everything the IPCC says. Kids today (especially in a girl’s school) are raised in woke echo chambers. The Greens and Labour know that if they lower the voting age, the votes will mostly go to them. Similarly with criminals, its likely their votes will go Left. Stopping those living abroad may well limit the overseas detractors of Labour particularly at the moment.
So these are all things to consider. If you shift boundaries, limit or increase access to voting (Straight out of the US Republican party playbook) then by default you are having a potentially very significant impact on your democracy. Just imagine if either side (in this case likely to be left) get a 5 – 10% windfall from these changes. We may find ourselves with a LINO government for decades without impetus to change and do better.
The rights and wrongs are one consideration but we’d be naive to view this bill as anything other than primarily about political power. As an aside, Maori and Pasifica would also get more representation from this arrangement so everywhere you look, there are some very significant political issues that will fall out of this so its something that I believe we should vote on via referendum. I think discussing the issues one by one is a smokescreen and it’s typical ‘business as usual’ for this government. Appear to be progressive and transformative whilst incrementally plotting. And almost as bad, never delivering anything that brings about real change for real NZer’s.
Issue by issue, yes, Crims not voting is a human rights issue. Not sure how many 16 year olds do work but certainly if NZDF takes anyone under 18 into a war zone then definitely they should get the vote. People who live overseas for long periods should give up the right to vote as they are not paying tax here.
I am sure that people here have lots of views on the reasons for and against but lets not forget the biggest one. Political power and what it will really mean to NZers.
To sum up, you like things the way they are, because you fear that any change might enfranchise people who want to change the way things are.
Maybe but I can say I havent decided my vote yet. And I agree you can argue with real substance that all those voting arrangements should change.
I am pointing out that these changes have far reaching consequences beyond the initial rights and wrongs so we need to understand that as it could very well mean NZ is governed by one party for a very long time. One that I also voted for.
For this reason alone we should have a referendum.
A couple of thoughts:
Firstly the ‘taxation without representation’ aspect could equally apply to kiwis offshore. If they’re not ‘resident for tax purposes’ then they shouldn’t get the vote, regardless of how long they’ve been away.
Secondly if we lower the voting age to 16 can we also treat them as adults in the justice system?
And 16 year olds aren’t allowed to go to the pub or play in some contact sports like rugby league, they have to stay in their age grade a health and safety measure.
I disagree here. I do not see myself as regressive but do take issue with 16 and 17 year olds having the right to vote, and also with all prisoners having the right to vote, as well as NZ citizens who are living overseas.
I do see, however, more of an argument, particularly in these times, in favour of implementing a four year parliamentary term.
My main concern actually is that older people and their issues of concern are not adequately represented, particularly because of the fact that Winston Peters catered to them and remains the sole politician that does. Going forward there will be an increased need for the elderly in a range of areas.
MMP doesn’t bother me in particular because coat-tailing has been given a bad rep ever since the electoral rules were changed. Many people will still opine even today that MMP is better than first past the post because MMP provides checks and balances that the old system could not have. If you look at the USA for example, here is the most developed country on earth and yet every eight years they go from a democratic government to a republican government and vice versa and the lives of everyone changes dramatically due to tax changes, budgeting changes in health, education, etc, and some of these changes are so extreme and unfair on certain groups of people. Our political system here in New Zealand is a lot fairer.
If development of their frontal lobes is a hindrance to extending the voting age to younger people, and despite them being among those most affected by the decisions made at the ballot box, how about, rather than lowering the voting age, just extending parents voting rights to include whatever number of children they have. Did somebody say something about cats and pigeons?.