'Blunt tool': Government to strengthen election 'treating' offences
Photo:
RNZ / REECE BAKER
The government is moving to strengthen the offence of treating, by creating a buffer zone around polling stations where free food, drink and entertainment is banned.
It is a move officials said was "blunt" and "superficial", but would make it more straightforward to identify offending.
Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It is already an offence, but the law is poorly understood and rarely prosecuted.
New Zealand has strict rules in place aimed at preventing voters from being unduly influenced.
Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself.
It means voters can head to the ballot without someone else trying to change their mind.
But the line between hospitality and influencing is where the confusion comes in, and what the government is hoping to clear up.
"There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating. This will make the rules crystal clear," Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said.
Rather than clarify what is or is not treating - or whether it amounts to corrupt intent - the government has instead established a new offence, creating a 100-metre buffer around polling stations.
Within that buffer, free food, drink and entertainment will not be allowed, with a maximum penalty of $10,000.
In a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo.
"The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said.
But it was not their preferred option.
"A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area."
In its inquiry into the 2023 election, the Justice Committee heard concerns from submitters that there may have been
breaches of the treating rules at Manurewa Marae
.
The marae was used as a polling booth at the 2023 election. The marae's then-chief executive,
the late Takutai Tarsh Kemp
, won the Tāmaki Makaurau seat that year.
The Electoral Commission had looked into complaints about the provision of food at the marae, and found it did not meet the test for treating.
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said this had likely influenced the government's decision to strengthen the offence.
"Because of concerns about how that particular polling place was operating, they've decided to put in this law that says if you're basically trying to do something nice for voters within 100 metres of a polling place, that will become an offence," he said.
"There's a lot of reasons why you might want to have things like free barbecues, someone on guitar singing, making it more of a community, communal experience. Because that actually might get people to engage with the electoral process more.
"So I do wonder if this is another example of where a problem arose, and in response to that a hammer has been taken out to smash the walnut, and we end up overreacting."
Officials recommended clarifying the law to make it easier to understand and more enforceable, as well as a lower intent threshold and penalty.
"A lower threshold would make a clear connection between the incentive given and the outcome sought by providing it. This option seeks to make it clearer that genuine intent is required to improperly influence a voter, and this is different to customary practices such as manaakitanga."
The controlled areas option was seen as having the potential to have a disproportionate effect on voting places that serve Māori communities.
"It is consistent with the practice of manaakitanga to welcome and show appreciation for people with food, drink, and/or entertainment. This option would prohibit and criminalise these cultural practices in the areas around voting places."
The ministry's preferred option was to amend the bribery offence to prohibit the use of food, drink or entertainment.
"Treating is similar to bribery in the sense that an incentive is provided with the intention of procuring a specific outcome. The key difference is the incentive that is offered - for bribery, it is something of pecuniary value, and for treating it is food, drink, or entertainment. The purpose of combining these into a single offence is to remove the distinction to make it easier to understand and apply."
Under this option, officials said it was unlikely manaakitanga would be inappropriately captured.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Luxon defends voting changes
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. The Prime Minister says the public still have plenty of time to get enrolled to vote despite scrapping same-day enrolment for elections. Last week the government announced legislation to overhaul electoral laws it said had become "unsustainable". The government agreed to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election, and the changes would mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. On Monday morning, Newsroom reported Attorney-General Judith Collins, had said the proposed law changes clashed with constitutional rights in a report. She indicated 100,000 or more people could be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an election. Collins declined an interview with RNZ on the issue. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Collins had a statutory responsibility to review legislation to make sure it was consistent with the bill of rights. "As a government we think enrolment should happen before early voting starts," he said. Luxon pointed to Australia as an example of a country that does not allow enrolment on the same day as voting. "We want everyone to participate but it's just done two weeks before elections day. It's not uncommon, it gives people plenty of time to get enrolled and get sorted. "All we're saying is we want everybody to participate in our democracy... not an unreasonable request." On Election Day 2023 110,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Immigration Minister on overseas born NZers moving to Australia
immigration 13 minutes ago Last week, RNZ reported nearly half of the New Zealanders applying for Australian citizenship weren't born here. Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Better late than never
The government's reasoning for stopping late voter registration, including enrolling and voting on election day, is flimsy. 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. In his media release announcing the proposed change, Mr Goldsmith referred to the Australian law setting the enrolment deadline for 26 days before the Federal election. 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.
