Latest news with #PaulGoldsmith
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Editor: nitrate, milk and mallards
Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including the risk of nitrate poisoning in Gore, the price of milk products, and a magic moment for a mallard. Think again on overdue fines clamp down plan The government will trial new technology which will help clamp and seize cars of people evading paying court fines, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. There are some obvious and yet poorly considered difficulties with his measure. Many of those who incur fines have other liabilities such as child support arrears and debt to third tier lenders. Compounding this paradigm will not result in compliance. You cannot get blood from a stone. I sense that many of the cars clamped or impounded will be non-compliant — that is without WoF or registration. The relevant authorities will quickly accumulate scrap metal, and there is no shortage of old and non-compliant cars to replace those seized. The measure will restrict urban mobility, which means important family connectivity will be lost: those who work will be unable to do so, and school absenteeism will worsen. That said, the obvious work around will be to use a vehicle belonging to someone else. Enforcement costs will also exponentially exceed repaid fines. The solution is for realistic and structured deductions to be made electronically at source irrespective of its source. The reality is that many who owe fines are deprived and recipients of state support — life is difficult enough without the burden of fines — perhaps the expectation of payment should be considered before their imposition. Doing butter better One size fits all. Yeah right. If one size for all is wrong, then how can one price for butter, the export price, be right for all? It seems to me that the reason we are being told that one price is right is because one company has been allowed to dominate. What to do? One answer would be to break up the company. That is not likely to be palatable. Another would be to make remaining one company dependent upon looking after the domestic market. One price for exports, another lower price for the domestic market. Under the current arrangement, winning for Fonterra on prices, means losing for domestic consumers, other businesses, inflation and interest rates. Two prices and we could have win-win. If that change was made then I might agree with Fonterra's slogan on their website: "You, me, us together. Tãtou, tātou. Let us make it so. Those were the days Over 50 years ago, when our family first came to New Zealand, milk was price-controlled by government to 4c a pint. I think it actually cost about 25c a pint, but 4c was what you paid wherever you bought it. I think most New Zealanders would think this was a good use of public funds . Or you could insist Fonterra sell half the New Zealand requirement at a reduced price (as part of a licence to operate) and the government pay for the other half. Or better still, make Fonterra foot the whole bill and cap public company salaries at $750,000 a year. If it was done 50 years ago surely it could be done now. The modern equivalent would be making a one-litre can of milk 50 or 60c. This would affect everyone and could easily be transferred to the price of locally sold butter and cheese. Share the street On the subject of Albany St, why not just slow the traffic right down and make it a shared street? This would mean minimum disruption and cost, no loss of car parks and no removal of trees. Misfortune for mallard source of mirth for others Salutations to Stephen Jaquiery, your stellar photographer. His front page depiction ( ODT 25.7.25) of the mallard's icebound touchdown in the botanical gardens is a stunning tribute to his eye for capturing a magic moment, and his tenancity in waiting for it to happen. Fighting inflation I had a good laugh today at Ian Pillan's thoughts about a councillor's outraged reaction to questions surrounding fiddling with Albany St carparks ( ODT 26.7.25). It is a sad fact that the world is ruled by men, even in the 21st century still. Another sad fact that occurs to me is that many men, even with small amounts of power, have a very inflated sense of their own worth, often despite evidence to the contrary. We have some flagrant examples right around the world, at the moment, from Israel to Gaza to the US and elsewhere. I'd love the world to give women a proper go at it. It would be hard to do worse. State of Southland rivers in which I once fished and swam appalls The risk of nitrate poisoning has turned off tap water in Gore during the last weekend. Elevated nitrate levels, as we know now can cause health problems especially with pregnant women and babies. This is a fact that has been with us for many years now and the link has been made with intensive dairying. Ground water and many source streams and springs are utilised in town supplies and domestic outlying communities. This is a potentially dangerous situation, that despite warnings from health professionals and especially a fresh water ecologist Dr Mike Joy, is continuing. Greenpeace has now become involved to try and draw attention to this dilemma by doing what Greenpeace does; a little signage and minor vandalism. Now the irony. As Russel Norman points out after Federated Farmers Southland calls for Greenpeace to be stripped of its charity status. The SFF president Mr Herrick stated that the famous brown trout statue was made to look as if it had died.( ODT 24.7.25). Well the plastic trout may look dead but its real river lookalikes in many rivers are not there any longer because of abstraction and pollution (all smaller rivers and streams in Otago, Southland and Canterbury are polluted and or depleted). I know personally because as a youngster I fished and swam in all of them and even drank the water. Even the mighty Mataura River is suffering. There are over 600,000 dairy cows in Southland now. It might be time for Federated Farmers Southland to accept that intensive dairying threatens the wellbeing of others, see the water as common to all citizens, and really think about the role of Greenpeace in trying to keep our whenua safe. No to chemical fertilisers In the middle of the last century Americans brought chemical fertilisers to New Zealand and demonstrated how easy they are to use. Farmers adopted them and initially drilled superphosphate into the soil when sowing pasture or crops. This did little damage. From the 1980s farmers, particularly dairy farmers, added nitrogen to fading pastures by topdressing with synthetic nitrogen. This practice created runoff into nearby streams and rivers polluting the water and changing the environment. Recently it has been reported that the Gore drinking water had a reading of 11.4mg per litre of nitrogen. The recommended limit level of nitrates in drinking water in the USA is 10mg/L. Any level of nitrogen in drinking water is damaging to health, especially to young children and babies. Federated Farmers Southland president Jason Herrick seems to think that farming to the limit of drinking water impregnation is passable. I don't, the lowest amount of pollution is to be aimed for. The health and safety of our people should be of paramount importance. There is no longer an excuse for using chemical fertilisers in farming. Over the last few years research into regenerative farming using deep-rooted legumes in pasture by Professor Pablo Gregorini and medical researcher Dr Sagara Kumara at Lincoln University proved that organic/regenerative methods are more economic and produce as much produce as industrial methods. In fact, regenerative methods produce healthier soils, animals and healthier produce for people. It's here too There is no doubt about the origins of increased nitrates in Gore ground water. The same problem has appeared in Selwyn, Waimate and many other places in the Canterbury Plains and Otago low country for decades. A solid body of peer reviewed scientific papers show that elevated nitrate levels come primarily from large herds of dairy cows on bare ground during winter grazing regimes. In the absence of plant material the nitrates seep down to aquifers sometimes over a few days after heavy rain. Regional councils, which have the legal responsibility and authority to prevent this from happening, have known about the issue for at least 20 years. To suggest farmers and local authorities don't know the source of this threat to human health is disingenuous at best. Cottage owner backed My good friend Lou, of Crossans Cottage ( ODT 26.7.25) fame, has been dealt a low blow by the Central Otago District Council and I wish to express my anger, disappointment and confusion at the actions of council. (Oh I forgot to add frustration.) The council seems happy to hand out permission to those with bulging back pockets to build whatever, wherever and whenever but when it comes to this amazing woman who saw a dream in a few dilapidated stone walls to call it her own they have made her dream a nightmare. With the blessing of the descendants of the original owners she put in the hard yards to create an orchard and an amazing garden, which has made her self sufficient, alongside the most beautiful living space. No electricity but that's not a bother. I have been witness to an extraordinary Christmas cake being cooked in the oven of the coal range. Come on CODC show your softer side (if you have one) and accord this lady some empathy and a bit of gratitude for the fact she has restored our heritage in her own way. Draft apology Can we say to the CODC to pull its horns in, and cease its harassment of Mrs Lou Farrand ? One of the charms of Roxburgh is its collection of delightful old stone buildings, reeking of history. They would rather she demolish, and live on the streets? I offer this draft letter from the council to Mrs Farrand, which it may wish to consider sending her: "Dear Mrs Farrand, We write to apologise most abjectly for the high-handed bureaucratic thuggery we had inadvertently visited upon you, and at your stage of life. Indeed, we must thank you, and congratulate you, for your public-spirited work in maintaining your cottage as part of the lovely historic fabric of your wee town. How wonderful that it used to be a blacksmith shop. We want to ensure that your final years are spent in comfort in your delightful cottage, in full enjoyment of the way you have made it to be, free from outside aggravation. We acknowledge that, for all our local laws and regulations, Charles Dickens had a point, and hereby withdraw all financial demands, and will reimburse you for those already made. Apologetically, &c." My fee for providing this letter will be a great deal less than the four figure amount the council has levelled at Mrs Farrand. Providing peace We are a group of older Dominican women and are very concerned about the money and resources being put into armaments. NATO countries have increased their spending and it seems to us like an arms race we have experienced in our lifetime. This did not lead to protection or peace in the past and we are sure it will not do so now. The result was war on a large scale. It is of considerable concern to see that our government is following this trend and lauding evermore war preparations. A recent Faith and Reason column (Opinion ODT 18.7.25) provides statistics on what is happening. We do know what will prove to provide for peace is a very different direction. It will be to provide adequate shelter for everyone, healthcare from cradle to the grave, lifelong education, mutual respect for differences, giving shelter to migrants and care of our common home the earth. Sitting back How long does the world sit back and watch the appalling genocide of the Palestine people? Of all the countries in the world I would have thought Israel would have been the last country considering what they endured during World War 2, yet they are doing exactly the same to the people of Palestine. We have learned nothing from history I can't believe the world sits back and watches Israel kill innocent men women and children with the backing of many countries around the world. New Zealand led the world in the 80s with its anti-nuclear stance, although that didn't stop the warmongers of the world. But it made a statement to the world: as yet we hear no outrage from this government. Let's start by kicking the Israeli ambassador out of the country and to stay out till a ceasefire and peace talks begin Palestinians are dying in their thousands not only by bullets but by starvation possibly the worse kind of death imaginable. How many deaths is the world willing to put up with before they do something? Council thanked I would like to thank our Dunedin city councillors for their support of the Green Party's proposal to sanction Israeli politicians for occupying Palestinian territory. Night after night we see on our television screens the unimaginable suffering of Palestinian men, women and children whose only crime is to be born Palestinian and live in Gaza. One feels so helpless wondering why the rest of the world appears to do so little to stop this appalling situation. Now I hope other political bodies will follow the example of our council. Government complicity If I was to judge New Zealanders reactions to, and opinions of, the horror being played out in Gaza, by our government's official response, I could be forgiven for thinking that as a nation we deem this to be just another one of those conflicts in foreign parts; a situation where both sides are similarly responsible and should get around the table and sort out their differences. Winston Peters and the government's response appears to be driven by how other nations are responding (waiting for the other bystanders to speak out) rather than reflecting, not only the outrage but the emotional reaction of normal New Zealanders in the street and on the couch. Many of us are moved to tears or physically sickened by the daily stories and images representing the systematic destruction of the Palestinian people. To most decent people around the world, this is genocide. New Zealand was once considered a leader in international issues; speaking out against racism, environmental issues, climate change, anti-nuclear stance, to name just a few. However, this government has swiftly reduced us to a nation of followers happy to wait for other nations to act first before we squeak "yeah us too!" Our government will go down in history as having sat on its hands and waited until it was too late and thus become complicit in the horror. A little to give I note Givealittle has made it virtually impossible to get any money into Gaza for fear this money might fall into the hands of Hamas, even when the money is gathered for a known family in Gaza. This ostensibly because under New Zealand's Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism regime the funds could fall into the hands of Hamas, designated as a "terrorist" entity. So, while Gaza burns, while Israel deliberately minimises access to life necessities such that we see many civilians starving and even more children dying, Givealittle is concerned the funds could be used by someone linked to Hamas. So do we just look on helplessly as Mr Netanyahu and his government continue their deadly purge? Forgetting never again The meaning of "never again" has been forgotten. What has been remembered is the historic lesson on how to implement the process of destroying a specific group people. How is this done? Over decades you bully, humiliate, stigmatise, control and dehumanise the group. You systematically destroy cultural institutions — schools, universities, museums, places of worship and anything else that expresses the identity of the people. You move them from place to place, surveil their every move, destroy their homes, farmland and orchards. In the process you destroy communities, sow hatred and suspicion and also teach your children to hate. You deny your actions are responsible for the formation of resistance groups. You then use a horrific revenge attack as an excuse to destroy the entire population. Bomb and starve, cut off aid and blame it all on the people themselves. Prevent any objective reporting by banning journalists and assassinating local journalists. Convince the world that what you have done must never be seen in a negative light because of your past suffering. As the eternal victim no one can speak out against you. Governments and the media play the game. Stay silent, let the suffering continue until the broken and destroyed people can be hidden. Your greatest success may be that you will have destroyed memory. What? Did these people ever exist? The land was always yours. What happened to "never again"? Will our government and others ever take meaningful action or will they remain complicit? Solar farm In response to Ian Breeze on the proposed Helios Energy solar farm (Letters ODT 23.7.25), the benefits from photovoltaic power in lowering carbon emissions are real, but such facilities are not environmentally neutral as is suggested. Over a decade, I drove weekly between Durham and London along the M1 motorway and saw multiple building sites in designated areas of natural beauty. At first, I assumed this was housing but after the first photovoltaic panels appeared I realised this was different. Working at the Durham Energy Institute, (on nuclear power) I asked colleagues about what this was about; farmers were paid to set aside land for environmental reasons and the panels, in theory, are not buildings. Therefore, Peter Rabbit could frolic as usual and plants can grow around the infrastructure. This has not turned out to be true; the environment was impacted; this is a form of creeping urbanisation, a curse that affects countries in Europe as much its does New Zealand. There is a better way. In many countries planning consent for all new buildings can include mandatory rooftop solar. Tax credits are available for converting existing roof tops and carparks. Imagine all the large supermarkets and stores across Dunedin with solar panels on the roof and as shades in the car park? Imagine the impact on energy security as on sunny days we can reduce the hydro output, mitigating the impact of dry years and reducing natural gas imports. We need wind and solar. We are behind the global curve. With our hydropower as a strategic reserve (supplemented by a pumped hydro scheme at Lake Osbourne) we have an opportunity for solar and wind — we are closer to the equator than countries with significant solar power — to provide a secure source of energy. We held a referendum I refer to the letter from Dr Bernard Fouke (Letters ODT 24.7.25) and his statement: "I challenge the government to submit a referendum to let the public decide if the taxing system should be changed to support an adequately sized public system". May I suggest such a referendum has taken place. It was our last general election, both parties put forward their tax policies. Neither proposed a capital gain tax or adjustment to superannuation. During Covid we saw a $60 billion injection primarily for our health response. This is double our annual health budget. The interest on this loan is $3b annually. So the present government is injecting an extra 10% of the health budget into our health system to continue to pay for our Covid response. If 20,000 were saved from death by the government's Covid response, $60b divided by 20,000 equals $3 million per person. The question is, can we borrow more money or change a tax system that many may resist? The consequences will be the next generation will have to pay for the debt we incur today. Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
Malay Mail
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
New Zealand moves to end same-day registration, ban prisoner voting; attorney general warns of rights impact
WELLINGTON, July 29 — The New Zealand government today introduced a law that will prevent people from enrolling to vote on election day and bar prisoners from casting their ballot while in jail, in a move critics say could reduce voter participation. The proposed law, which passed its first of three readings in parliament on Tuesday, will allow people to enrol to vote only up to 13 days before an election. Currently potential voters can enrol up to and on election day. The law will also ban all prisoners from voting and require voting to open 12 days ahead of the official election day. 'This bill overhauls a number of outdated and unsustainable electoral laws. The package of amendments will strengthen the system, helping to deliver timely election results, manage the costs, clarify rules and provide more efficient services to voters,' said Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith, who proposed the bill. However, a report by Attorney General Judith Collins concluded that the bill 'appears to be inconsistent' with the country's Bill of Rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to vote. The changes are, in part, prompted by delays in results at the 2023 election, when it took nearly three weeks before an official result was released due to the high number of special votes. Special votes are cast by New Zealanders living or travelling overseas, voting outside their constituency or newly enrolled. The Attorney General's report, which was released publicly on Friday, said in the last election special votes included over 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts during the voting period. 'This gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected,' said Collins, who is a member of the ruling party. Duncan Webb, a lawmaker from the opposition Labour Party opposing the bill, on Tuesday called it 'a dark day for democracy'. 'Politicians should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder. It's how we make sure that everybody's voice is heard, that everyone gets a say,' he said. — Reuters
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Voting Reforms, Prisoner Bans And Enrolment Changes - What You Need To Know About The Electoral Amendment Bill
Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. What the bill is The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. You will no longer be able to enrol to vote on Election Day Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants 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. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. What are those special votes again? Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes. Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." If you're in prison serving a sentence, you'll no longer be able to vote, period The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back. "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Does this all make it harder for people to vote? Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report, Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying"frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report. Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." Political donation changes The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. What is treating, and why are they cracking down on it? Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed. The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." 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. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, 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." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. What's next? The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint.
Otago Daily Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Electoral Amendment Bill passes first hurdle
Legislation banning prisoner and same-day voting has passed its first reading. The House heard spirited speeches for and against the controversial electoral law changes today. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to "treating" (such as offering free food) on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the system was strong but needed "constant maintenance". "Confidence in the Electoral Commission has fallen in recent years, and we know the system has come under significant strain. "This bill overhauls a number of our dated and unsustainable electoral laws. The package of amendments will strengthen the system, helping to deliver timelier election results, manage the costs, clarify rules, and provide more efficient services to voters." Same-day voting did make it easier for some people to vote, but it also removed the incentive for people to get enrolled before the election, he said. "We had the Electoral Commission, on one hand, with one message saying, 'Get enrolled; get enrolled', and they were funded with many millions of dollars to encourage people to enrol, which the law says you should do; but, on the other hand, they were also saying, 'By the way, don't bother, because you can just rock up on election day and vote'. "More people heard the second message than heard the first message. As a result, more and more people were turning up and enrolling when they voted. That's led to more and more special votes and pressure on the count." Goldsmith said he had received advice that the final count, which took three weeks in the 2023 general election, could take even longer in future elections. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was a dark day for democracy, arguing the changes would make it harder for people to vote. "Politicians should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder. That's how we make sure that everybody's voice is heard, that everyone gets a say, and that this democracy - this Parliament - is truly representative. Webb pointed to Attorney-General Judith Collins' report that found the proposals were inconsistent with people's rights as further reason the legislation should be scrapped. "The Attorney-General, frankly, slated this bill. I have never seen an Attorney-General's report which is so bluntly vicious and damning, saying things like 'freezing registration earlier in the voting period has the potential to harm confidence and trust'." ACT Party justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said shifting the enrolment deadline from the day of the election to 13 days before was a "modest change". "Voting in a democracy such as ours does come with some responsibilities, and it's one of those responsibilities to actually be on the electoral roll - that's a legal requirement. "If you can't be bothered doing that within a short period before an election, you've really got to question whether you have a commitment to being a participant in our democracy." Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said it was already clear the bill would not achieve what its proponents were promising. "This bill proposes the exact opposite of a modern and robust, effective democracy, because it intentionally seeks to deny entire groups of people and communities from having easier access to be able to enrol and to be able to vote, while at the same time it is shifting the threshold for donations to be declared." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the changes were cynical. "It's not a coincidence that the very communities who would be silenced are the same communities that wouldn't vote for this government, and probably the same communities that made up the netballers on the weekend. "They say they're fixing democracy, but let's remember: this is the same government that has abolished Māori wards, introduced the Treaty Principles Bill, dismantled co-governance, Te Aka Whai Ora. And we know, again, why they do not want to see 16-year-olds voting." The legislation is now off to select committee, having passed with support from coalition partners National, ACT and New Zealand First.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Zealand introduces law that makes it harder to vote
By Lucy Craymer and Alasdair Pal WELLINGTON (Reuters) -The New Zealand government on Tuesday introduced a law that will prevent people from enrolling to vote on election day and bar prisoners from casting their ballot while in jail, in a move critics say could reduce voter participation. The proposed law, which passed its first of three readings in parliament on Tuesday, will allow people to enrol to vote only up to 13 days before an election. Currently potential voters can enrol up to and on election day. The law will also ban all prisoners from voting and require voting to open 12 days ahead of the official election day. 'This bill overhauls a number of outdated and unsustainable electoral laws. The package of amendments will strengthen the system, helping to deliver timely election results, manage the costs, clarify rules and provide more efficient services to voters," said Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith, who proposed the bill. However, a report by Attorney General Judith Collins concluded that the bill 'appears to be inconsistent' with the country's Bill of Rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to vote. The changes are, in part, prompted by delays in results at the 2023 election, when it took nearly three weeks before an official result was released due to the high number of special votes. Special votes are cast by New Zealanders living or travelling overseas, voting outside their constituency or newly enrolled. The Attorney General's report, which was released publicly on Friday, said in the last election special votes included over 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts during the voting period. 'This gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected,' said Collins, who is a member of the ruling party. Duncan Webb, a lawmaker from the opposition Labour Party opposing the bill, on Tuesday called it "a dark day for democracy". "Politicians should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder. It's how we make sure that everybody's voice is heard, that everyone gets a say,' he said. Solve the daily Crossword
