Hon Paul Goldsmith
Minister of Justice
Proactive release – Prisoner Voting
Date of issue: 30 April 2025
The following documents have been proactively released in accordance with
Cabinet Office Circular CO (23) 4.
Some information has been withheld on the basis that it would not, if requested under the
Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), be released. Where that is the case, the relevant
section of the OIA has been noted and no public interest has been identified that would
outweigh the reasons for withholding it.
No. Document
Comments
1
Additional electoral reforms: updated and Some information has been withheld in
draft Cabinet papers
accordance the fol owing sections of the OIA:
Briefing
•
section 9(2)(a) to protect the privacy of
Ministry of Justice
natural persons, and
24 March 2025
•
section 9(2)(f)(iv) to protect the
confidentiality of advice tendered by
Ministers of the Crown and officials.
2
Paper 4: Electoral Matters Bill – Further
Some information has been withheld in
Policy Approvals
accordance with the fol owing sections of the OIA:
Cabinet Paper
•
section 9(2)(a) to protect the privacy of
Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice
natural persons, and
14 April 2025
•
section 9(2)(f)(iv) to protect the confidentiality
of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown
and officials.
3
Appendix 1: History of prisoner voting in Released in full.
New Zealand (1956-2023)
Appendix to Cabinet Paper
Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice
14 April 2025
4
Appendix 2: Sentenced prisoners by
Released in full.
offence seriousness, sentence length and
ethnicity
Appendix to Cabinet Paper
Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice
14 April 2025
5
CAB-25-MIN-0122
Some information has been withheld in
Cabinet Minute
accordance with section (2)(f)(iv) of the OIA to
Cabinet Office
protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by
Ministers of the Crown and officials.
14 April 2025
© Crown Copyright, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
No. Document
Comments
6
Aide memoire: Paper 4: Electoral Matters Some information has been withheld in
Bill – Policy approvals (disqualification of accordance with section (2)(f)(iv) of the OIA to
sentenced prisoners from voting)
protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by
Aide memoire
Ministers of the Crown and officials.
Ministry of Justice
14 April 2025
© Crown Copyright, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice
Additional electoral reforms: updated and draft Cabinet papers
Date
24 March 2025
File reference
EMB-2025-03-24
Action sought
Timeframe
Indicate your final decisions on additional electoral policy
By midday on Wednesday 26
proposals to be included in the upcoming Electoral Matters Bill (or
March 2025, so we can
other legislative vehicle).
finalise the Cabinet papers for
lodging on Thursday 27
Provide feedback on
the attached draft Cabinet papers.
March
Contacts for telephone discussion (if required)
Name
Position
Telephone
First
contact
(work)
(a/h)
Kathy Brightwell
General Manager, Civil
S9(2)(a)
and Constitutional
Hayley Denoual
Policy Manager,
Democracy and Open
Government
Minister’s office to complete
Noted
Approved
Overtaken by events
Referred to:
Seen
Withdrawn
Not seen by Minister
Minister’s office’s comments
Purpose
1.
This briefing:
1.1.
S9(2)(f)(iv)
1.2.
provides a new draft Cabinet paper (
Paper 4: Disqualification of sentenced prisoners
from voting) which seeks Cabinet approval to introduce a ban on prisoner voting,
and sets out the Ministry’s view on this proposal.
2.
Both papers are currently scheduled for lodging on Thursday 27 March, and for
consideration by the Cabinet Social Outcomes Committee on Wednesday 2 April. We are
seeking your urgent feedback on both papers, and approval to inform key agencies (such
as the Electoral Commission and the Department of Corrections) about the new proposals
in Paper 4, prior to lodging.
S9(2)(f)(iv)
2
S9(2)(f)(iv)
3
S9(2)(f)(iv)
Paper 4: Disqualification of sentenced prisoners from voting
22.
Following direction from your Office on Friday 21 March, we have attached a further Cabinet
paper (Cabinet Paper 4), which seeks approval to disqualify all sentenced prisoners from
enrolling, remaining enrolled and voting.
23.
The paper notes that a full ban on prisoner voting is likely to attract a section 7 report for
being inconsistent with section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), and
possibly section 19(1), and not justified under section 5.
24.
The draft paper also proposes that the existing processes between Corrections and the
Electoral Commission, which aim to support prisoners to enrol, or re-enrol upon their release,
should continue. This is in keeping with the Commission’s broader activities to improve
enrolment processes and keep the electoral roll up to date.
4
Treatment of existing prisoners serving a sentence of 3-years or less
25.
We are seeking your direction on whether the ban should apply to prisoners who are serving
a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years or less at the time the bill commences. This would
effectively require all prisoners to be removed from the electoral roll upon commencement,
meaning none of them would be able to vote at the next general election. We note this may
be considered to be retrospective legislation because prisoners who are serving a sentence
of imprisonment of 3 years or less had the right to vote at the time of sentencing. We note
that guidance from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee states that the starting
point is that legislation should have prospective, not retrospective effect, and any direct
retrospective effect must be clearly stated in the legislation and be capable of justification.
26.
The alternative approach, which was taken by the 2010 Act, is to provide that the ban applies
only to prisoners sentenced after commencement. Existing prisoners serving a sentence of
under 3 years or less would not be disqualified for registration on the grounds of their existing
sentence of imprisonment. Prisoners who would have been disqualified under the 2020 Act
would remain so (
officials preferred option).
Persons committed to a hospital or secure facility upon conviction
27.
In some cases, a person who has committed a crime may not be in prison on mental health
grounds or due to an intellectual disability. This situation may occur if a person has been
found unfit to stand trial, acquitted on the legal grounds of insanity, committed to a hospital
or secure facility upon conviction, or is in prison and requires compulsory care or treatment.2
28.
The Act currently provides that in these situations, a person only loses the right to vote if they
are detained in a hospital or secure facility for more than three years. This disqualification
essentially provides for consistent treatment with other offenders.
29.
These provisions apply to a very small number of people, but there are a number of
complicating factors around how they may interact with the proposed ban on prisoner voting.
For example, people detained in a hospital or secure facility may not have been ‘convicted’,
and so they are not always classified as ‘imprisoned’. In the time available we have not been
able to consult with the necessary experts in Corrections and Health to confirm what
amendments, if any, may be appropriate to these provisions.
30.
The attached draft Cabinet paper therefore notes that you have asked for further advice on
this and seeks delegated authority for you to make any subsequent policy decisions (subject
to confirmation by Cabinet before the Bill is introduced).
Ministry advice on the proposed prisoner voting ban
31.
The Ministry does not support the proposed ban on prisoner voting. The Ministry’s advice
with regard to prisoner voting rights was canvassed in our Regulatory Impact Statement:
Prisoner voting, dated 8 November 2019.3 This RIS was prepared to accompany Cabinet
2 This generally applies to people detained in a hospital under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment
and Treatment) Act 1992 or in a secure facility under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and
Rehabilitation) Act 2003.
3 The RIS can be found here: Prisoner Voting - 25 February 2020 - Regulatory Impact Assessment - Ministry
of Justice
5
decisions on what became the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment
Act 2020. Our views have not changed since this RIS was prepared.
32.
In addition, we are also concerned about the fact of, and the process by which, voter eligibility
rules are being continually amended, which risks undermining voter trust and respect for our
core democratic values.
33.
The Ministry has included a comment to the above effect in the attached draft Cabinet
paper (paragraphs 63-66).
Allowing prisoners to vote is the most human rights/NZBORA consistent approach
34.
The Ministry’s view is that allowing all prisoners to enrol, vote, and (if Māori) participate in the
Māori electoral option is the only approach that removes the significant human rights and
Treaty of Waitangi issues of a prisoner voting ban (whether partial or full). The right to vote
should not be regarded as a privilege, and allowing prisoners to exercise their democratic
rights freely is the most consistent with NZBORA, our international human rights obligations
and the Crown’s Treaty obligations.
35.
The ban is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed in section 12 of NZBORA. In 2010, the
then Attorney-General, Hon Christopher Finlayson, brought the Electoral (Disqualification of
Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill to the attention of the House under section 7 of
NZBORA. He did so on the basis that the Bill was inconsistent with section 12.
36.
The Ministry notes Judge Savage’s comment in his forward to the Waitangi Tribunal’s
He
Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report4 that the Tribunal could see no utility
whatever in any restriction on prisoner voting. The Ministry concurs and believes that the
rationales that are put forward – such as punishment, deterrence, or breach of social contract
– are inadequate and unproven.
37.
Removing the right to vote is an additional punishment on top of incarceration, rather than
incidental to it, yet there is no evidence that suggests disqualifying sentenced prisoners from
voting deters people from committing crimes, or helps victims feel safer. Imprisonment is the
punishment, and there is no merit in also remove electoral rights. We consider that removing
the ban on prisoner voting entirely is most consistent with the criminal justice system’s focus
on rehabilitation.
The disqualification goes against New Zealand’s international human rights obligations, and is out
of step with international trends
38.
The right to vote is recognised by Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). The United Nations Human Rights Committee (the UNHRC) considers
blanket prisoner voting bans as inconsistent with the ICCPR and as serving no rehabilitative
purpose. In this context, the UNHRC frequently comments unfavourably on prisoner voting
bans and has tried to limit the reach of such laws it has reviewed. It has specifically noted the
"significant racial implications" of prisoner voting prohibitions, given the disproportionate
representation of ethnic minorities in most prison populations.
4 He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report
6
39.
In November 2023, the UNHRC communicated its View to New Zealand that the 2010 Act
breached Article 25(b) of the ICCPR, which relates to the right to vote.5 The Committee’s
View was issued in response to a case bought on behalf of Arthur Taylor, Sandra
Ngaronoa, and Sandra Wilde. A Government Response to the UNHRC was provided in
April 2024. It noted that the 2010 Act was no longer in force. The Response further noted
that the Government considered the current 3-year disqualification justified as it enhanced
the criminal sanction for serious offending and enhanced civil responsibility and respect for
the rule of law for those convicted of serious criminal offending.6
40.
In line with international human rights jurisprudence, there has been a trend towards easing
restrictions on prisoner voting internationally. In Europe, most countries have no or partial
prohibitions on prisoner voting; only the United Kingdom still retains a complete prohibition
(except for prisoners released in licence). There is a partial prohibition on prisoner voting in
Australia (three years); and no prohibition in Canada. The situation varies depending on the
State in the United States.
41.
Introducing a ban on prisoner voting will place New Zealand at odds with the trends in most
other liberal democracies with which we usually compare ourselves. If full prisoner voting
rights are not restored, the Ministry would suggest retaining the current status quo of
disqualifying only prisoners serving longer terms of imprisonment, which is at least closer to
the position taken in many other comparator countries.
The disqualification amounts to discrimination and is inconsistent with the Crown’s Treaty obligations
42.
The Waitangi Tribunal found that, during the previous ban on prisoner voting, the Crown
failed to actively protect Māori rights.7
43.
The Ministry considers that the data presented at the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry on the impact
of the disqualification support the view that a prisoner voting ban is discriminatory against
Māori. Drawing on Crown evidence, the Tribunal found that in 2018 Māori were 11.4 times
more likely to be removed from the electoral roll because of a prison sentence than non-
Māori, compared to in 2010 before the complete disqualification where Māori were 2.1 times
more likely to be removed from the electoral roll because of a prison sentence. This indicates
that Māori are being sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than three years at a
significantly higher rate than non-Māori.
44.
This means disqualification of prisoners could also be inconsistent with section 19 of
NZBORA. Section 19 affirms the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race,
national or ethnic origin.
45.
A ban on prisoner voting is also likely to be inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination due to
its disproportionate effect on Māori. Article 5(c) states that parties are to prohibit and eliminate
racial discrimination and to guarantee political rights, especially electoral rights. It may also
5 New Zealand ratified the ICCPR in 1978, and went on to ratify the Optional Protocol in 1989 which provided
for the Committee to receive communications (‘complaints’) from individuals who claim that New Zealand has
breached their rights under the ICCPR.
6 https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/human-
rights/international-human-rights/international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/
7 He Aha I Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report. Above N4, at pp 32-33.
7
be inconsistent with the Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration
states that Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political
institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully in the political life of the State.
46.
We note that you are considering attending New Zealand's upcoming examination before the
Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination in August 2025. If the Bill
has been introduced by that date, it is likely the Committee will question the delegation about
the proposed ban.
47.
The Ministry considers that, in light of the disproportionate impact the disqualification has
had on Māori both before and after 2010, removing any form of prisoner disqualification
would also be most consistent with the object of ensuring our electoral laws are, and are
perceived to be, fair.
The Ministry is concerned about the continual cycle of changes to voter eligibility rules
48.
The Ministry’s comment in the draft Cabinet paper also notes our concern that the continual
cycle of partisan changes, or proposals to change, the voter eligibility rules, may ultimately
undermine voter trust in, and respect for, our core democratic values. We note, for example,
that if the proposed ban proceeds, the prisoner voting rules will have changed four times over
seven electoral cycles. Similarly, in recent years changes to the voting age were rapidly
proposed without prior cross-party consultation and discussion, and subsequently
abandoned.
49.
We acknowledge that the issue of voter eligibility in any democracy will always raise a range
of complex substantive questions and matters of principal. However, we suggest that the
consideration of issues pertaining to fundamental democratic rights should be approached in
a more collaborative, non-partisan, and consultative way. The increased level of interest and
commentary from the judicial and legislative branches of government, on matters pertaining
to voter rights, also behoves a more considered and collaborative approach from the
executive in response.
S9(2)(f)(iv)
50.
We understand that your preference is to include the prisoner voting amendments in the
upcoming Electoral Matters Bill. S9(2)(f)(iv)
8
S9(2)(f)(iv)
An alternative is a standalone Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill
55.
S9(2)(f)(iv)
, an alternative option
is to introduce a standalone Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment
Bill. S9(2)(f)(iv)
56.
S9(2)(f)(iv)
58.
In the interest of time, the attached draft Cabinet paper provides for both legislative options.
We can amend it according to your decisions on this briefing.
Next Steps
59.
Both papers are currently scheduled for consideration by the Cabinet Social Outcomes
Committee next Wednesday 2 April. We are therefore seeking your urgent feedback on
both papers, so we can finalise them for lodging this Thursday 27 March.
60.
Timeframes for ministerial consultation are tight, but we recommend that you notify the
Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Local Government (in respect of local elections)
of your prisoner voting proposals ahead of ahead of lodging this Thursday.
S9(2)(f)(iv)
9
61.
You may also wish to advise the Electoral Commission Board of your decisions regarding
S9(2)(f)(iv)
, and the prisoner voting ban, at your meeting with them tomorrow (Tuesday
25 March).
Agency Consultation on Cabinet paper 4 - prisoner voting ban
62.
Due to time constraints, no departmental consultation has been undertaken in preparing draft
Cabinet paper 4. We will need to consult closely with the Electoral Commission and the
Department of Corrections during the drafting of the prisoner voting ban, and to understand
any transitional and implementation arrangements that may need to be put in place.
63.
We seek your agreement to inform the Electoral Commission, the Department of Corrections,
the Department of Internal Affairs (Local Government), and the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet (Policy Advisory Group) before this paper is lodged on Thursday.
64.
We will engage with the Ministry for Regulation regarding the Regulatory Impact Statement
requirements. As noted in the draft Cabinet paper (paragraph 41) due to timing constraints
we have not been able to prepare a Regulatory Impact Statement for submission with the
paper, as required under Cabinet Office Circular CO (24) 7: Impact Analysis Requirements.
65.
Instead, we propose to prepare a Regulatory Impact Statement for submission along with the
Cabinet paper seeking approval to introduce the Bill.
Recommendations
66.
We recommend that you:
S9(2)(f)(iv)
NOTED
10
Cabinet Paper 4: Disqualification of sentenced prisoners from voting
3.
note that the Ministry does not support a prisoner voting ban, and
NOTED
considers that allowing all prisoners to vote is the only approach that
is consistent with NZBORA, our international human rights obligations
and the Crown’s Treaty obligations;
4.
note that the Ministry has included a departmental comment in the
NOTED
Cabinet paper expressing the Ministry’s views on prisoner voting
rights;
5.
provide feedback on draft Cabinet Paper 4, which seeks Cabinet
approval to introduce a ban on prisoner voting;
6.
indicate whether the ban should apply:
6.1.
retrospectively to existing prisoners who are serving a
YES / NO
sentence of imprisonment of 3 years or less at the time the Bill
commences;
OR
6.2.
prospectively only to new prisoners sentenced after the Bill
YES / NO
commences, similar to the approach taken by the 2010 Act
(
official’s preferred)
7.
indicate your preferred legislative vehicle for progressing the prisoner
voting amendments
7.1.
include within the Electoral Matters Bill, S9(2)(f)(iv)
YES / NO
;
OR
7.2.
include in a standalone Electoral (Disqualification of
YES / NO
Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, S9(2)(f)(iv)
11
8.
Agree to officials informing the Electoral Commission, the Department YES / NO
of Corrections, the Department of Internal Affairs (Local Government),
and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Policy
Advisory Group) about the proposed prisoner voting ban before
Cabinet Paper 4 is lodged on Thursday.
Hayley Denoual
Policy Manager, Democracy and Open Government
APPROVED SEEN NOT AGREED
___________________________________
Hon Paul Goldsmith
Minister of Justice
Date / /
Attachments:
• Appendix 1: S9(2)(f)(iv)
• Appendix 2: Draft Cabinet Paper 4: Disqualification of sentenced prisoners from voting
12
I N C O N F I D E N C E
Office of the Minister of Justice
Cabinet
Paper 4: Electoral Matters Bill – Further Policy Approvals
Proposal
1
This paper seeks agreement to amend the Electoral Act to disqualify all sentenced
prisoners from enrolling, remaining enrolled and voting.
2
This paper is part of a suite of four papers relating to electoral reform that
includes:
S9(2)(f)(iv)
• Paper 3: Government response to the Justice Committee report
Inquiry into the
2023 General Election.
Relation to government priorities
3
This paper proposes changes ahead of the 2026 General Election that align with
the Government’s twin foci of upholding the integrity of the electoral system and
strengthening the societal response to crime by placing a greater emphasis on
personal responsibility and accountability.
Executive Summary
4
Currently, only prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more are disqualified
from voting. This paper seeks agreement to disqualify all sentenced prisoners from
enrolling and voting, and consequentially from the ability to stand as a candidate.
This reflects the uncomplicated principle that people lose rights when sentenced to
prison after committing a crime. The proposed change will establish a consistent
approach to prisoner voting, regardless of the length of sentence.
5
The right to vote is foundational to any democratic society and should be afforded
the highest respect and protection. People are only sentenced to prison in New
Zealand for serious, and often multiple, offending. The loss of the right to vote while
serving their sentence serves to underline the importance that New Zealanders
afford to the rule of law, and the civic responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with the
right to participate in our democracy through voting.
6
When prisoners have served their time, they will enjoy the full restoration of electoral
rights. The proposals in this paper also continue the existing processes between
the Department of Corrections (Corrections) and the Electoral Commission which
support prisoners to enrol upon their release.
7
The current position, under which only prisoners serving a sentence of three years
or more are disqualified from voting, was enacted in 2020. It was considered by the
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
link to page 16 link to page 16
I N C O N F I D E N C E
then Attorney-General to be not inconsistent with section 12 of the New Zealand Bill
of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) – the right to be vote, nor section 19(1) – the right to be
free from discrimination (including on the ground of race)
.1
8
However, following the line of reasoning in the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in
Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor, and the Waitangi Tribunal’s 2019
recommendation in
He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report, a full
ban on prisoner voting is likely to attract a section 7 report for being inconsistent
with section 12, and possibly section 19(1), of BORA, and not justified under section
5 of BORA.
9
I propose to include these amendments in the Electoral Matters Bill (the Bill), S9(2)
(f)(iv)
A ban on prisoner voting underlines the value of the right to vote
10
I propose to reinstate the ban on prisoner voting for anyone convicted and detained
in prison under a sentence of imprisonmen
t.2 This will also mean that prisoners will
not be eligible to stand as candidates in elections. This will reintroduce the position
introduced by the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment
Act 2010 (“
the 2010 Act”), which is discussed further below. It will reverse the
changes that were rushed through in the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced
Prisoners) Amendment Act 2020 (“
the 2020 Act”) so that only prisoners serving
sentences of three or more years were prohibited from enrolling to vote. Appendix
1 sets out further detail on the recent changes to prisoner voting in New Zealand.
11
I consider the right to vote to be foundational to any democratic society. As such it
should be afforded the highest respect and protection. Those who commit a crime
and are duly sentenced should expect, as part of the reparations they owe to
society, to temporarily lose certain societal rights.
12
The loss of the right to vote while serving a sentence of imprisonment underlines
the importance that New Zealanders afford to the rule of law, and the civic
responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with the right to participate in our democracy.
The proposed change will remove the current arbitrary rules, and reinstate a
consistent approach to prisoner voting rights, regardless of the length of sentence.
13
I propose that the ban on voting will apply only to prisoners sentenced after
commencement. Existing prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years
would not be disqualified for registration on the grounds of their existing sentence
of imprisonment. Prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more, who would
have been disqualified under the 2020 Act anyway, would remain so.
1 Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (22565/5.0): Consistency with New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
2 For the avoidance of doubt, this will not include prisoners held on remand who have not yet been
sentenced.
2
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
link to page 17 link to page 17
I N C O N F I D E N C E
Potential inconsistencies with BORA
14
In respect of potential discrimination under section 19(1) of the BORA, I do not
consider a ban to be discriminatory in the sense that it will provide a material
disadvantage to Māori. I note the Crown Law advice on the 2020 Act which noted
the evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal in 2018 that less than one percent of the
Māori population were in prison at any one time. That advice went on to note, at
paragraph 36, that “
it remains difficult to see how such low numbers could give any
material disadvantage to Māori as a whole, if material disadvantage is understood
as significant, potential electoral impact”.3
Persons committed to a hospital or secure facility
15
I have asked officials for further advice on whether those who have committed a
crime, but who may not be in prison on mental health grounds or due to an
intellectual disability, should also be disqualified from voting to align with those
convicted and received into a prison. This situation may occur if a person has been,
for example, committed to a hospital or secure facility upon conviction, for
compulsory care or treatment. I seek delegated authority to make policy decisions
on this matter, subject to confirmation by Cabinet before the Bill is introduced.
Challenges to the 2010 ban on prisoner voting
16
The 2010 Act was introduced as a members’ bill in the name of Paul Quinn MP. It
introduced a full disqualification of any sentenced prisoners being able to register
to enrol as an elector and therefore vote. It resulted in the complete removal from
the electoral roll of offenders sentenced to imprisonment. Upon release from prison,
it was the offender’s responsibility to re-enrol.
Section 7 BORA report - inconsistency with section 12 (right to vote)
17
The then Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, presented a report to
Parliament under section 7 of BORA on the 2010 Act. This noted that, although the
right to vote was not necessarily an absolute right, the complete disqualification of
all prisoners was inconsistent with the electoral rights affirmed by section 12 of
BORA and could not be justified
.4 The report did not discuss any potential
inconsistency with section 19(1).
18
The Attorney-General concluded that the objective of the Bill (serious offenders
forfeiting their right vote) was not rationally linked to the blanket ban on prison voting
given that people who are not serious offenders, for example fine defaulters, would
also be disenfranchised.
Declaration of inconsistency upheld by the Supreme Court
19
In 2013, then-prisoner Arthur Taylor commenced court proceedings, along with four
others, and sought a formal declaration that the prohibition was inconsistent with
the right to vote in BORA. The Court agreed, and a declaration of inconsistency was
3 See footnote 1 above.
4 https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/BORA-Electoral-Disqualification-of-Convicted-
Prisoners-Amendment-Bill-v2.pdf
3
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18
I N C O N F I D E N C E
issued by the High Court in 2015, and upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2017 and
the Supreme Court in 2018
.5
Waitangi Tribunal - He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report
20
In 2018 the Waitangi Tribunal considered three claims that sought the repeal of total
ban on prisoner voting. It released He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting
Repo
rt6 in 2019.
21
The Tribunal found that the ban was inconsistent with the purpose of the corrections
system and prejudiced the rehabilitation and reintegration of Māori prisoners. It held
this to be inconsistent with the principle of active protection.
22
The Tribunal also found that Māori were prejudicially affected, and that the ban was
a serious Treaty breach because Māori are significantly more incarcerated than
non-Māori, especially for less serious crimes. It noted that young Māori are more
likely to be imprisoned than non-Māori of equivalent age, impeding the development
of positive voting habits, and thus the Tribunal found that practical effect of
disenfranchisement was wider than the effect on individual prisoners, impacting on
their whānau and communities. Finally, the Tribunal noted that the ban operated as
a de facto permanent disqualification due to low rates of re-enrolment amongst
released prisoners.
23
The report also criticised the process by which the 2010 Act was passed, finding
that the Crown had failed to consult Māori and failed to provide sufficient information
to the Select Committee considering the Bill about consistency with the Treaty. This
resulted in failure to actively protect Māori rights and breached the Crown’s duty of
informed decision-making.
UN Human Rights Committee
24
In November 2023, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (the UNHRC),
communicated its View that the 2010 Act breached Article 25(b) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which relates to the right to vote
.7 The Committee’s View was issued in response to a case bought on behalf of Arthur
Taylor, Sandra Ngaronoa, and Sandra Wilde.
25
A Government Response to the UNHRC was provided in April 2024. It noted that
the 2010 Act was no longer in force. It had been replaced with the 2020 Act, which
meant that that only prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more were
disqualified from voting. The Response further noted that the Government
considered this ongoing, albeit more targeted, disqualification justified as it
enhanced the criminal sanction for serious offending and enhanced civil
5 Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 170; Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215; Attorney-
General v Arthur William Taylor [2018] NZSC 104.
6 He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report.
7 New Zealand ratified the ICCPR in 1978 and went on to ratify the Optional Protocol in 1989 which
provided for the Committee to receive communications (‘complaints’) from individuals who claim that New
Zealand has breached their rights under the ICCPR.
4
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
link to page 19
I N C O N F I D E N C E
responsibility and respect for the rule of law for those convicted of serious criminal
offending
.8
26
The UNHRC is not a further appellate tier of the New Zealand court system. Its
Views are not binding or enforceable domestically but have persuasive value and
member states endeavour to observe them.
Implementation
27
The Electoral Commission and Corrections will be responsible for implementing
these changes ahead of the 2026 General Election (which, for planning purposes,
is assumed will be in Spring 2026).
Cost-of-living Implications
28
These proposals are not expected to have any cost-of-living implications.
Financial Implications
29
There may be some additional upfront costs for the Electoral Commission and/or
Corrections to implement these changes.
30
I do not anticipate these costs being material enough to require additional funding,
S9(2)(f)(iv)
I will provide further advice on any cost
implications, and how these will be addressed, when the Bill is considered by
Cabinet Legislation Committee.
Legislative Implications
31
I propose to implement this proposal through the Electoral Matters Bill, S9(2)(f)(iv)
8 https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/human-
rights/international-human-rights/international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/
5
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
link to page 20
I N C O N F I D E N C E
S9(2)(f)(iv)
34
Cabinet Office Circular CO (02) 4:
Acts Binding the Crown: Procedures for
Cabinet Decision notes that bills that amend existing Acts will generally follow the
position of the principal Act on whether the Act is binding on the Crown. The
Electoral Act 1993 does not bind the Crown, and it is proposed that the Bill will
follow that position. The Bill will therefore not bind the Crown.
Power to act on further decisions and minor amendments if needed
35
I seek Cabinet authorisation to make any further related policy decisions consistent
with the policy proposals in this paper and to make minor amendments needed to
implement these decisions as required during the drafting of the Bill. I will report
back on any such decisions and changes when I seek Cabinet approval to introduce
the Bill.
Impact Analysis
Regulatory Impact Statement
36
Cabinet’s impact analysis requirements apply to the proposal to ban prisoner voting,
but there is no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement and the Ministry for
Regulation has not exempted the proposal from the impact analysis requirements.
Therefore, it does not meet Cabinet’s requirements for regulatory proposals.
37
On behalf of respective Ministers, the Ministry for Regulation and the Ministry of
Justice have agreed that supplementary analysis will be provided before Cabinet
(LEG) Committee.
38
In the interim, the Ministry notes the Regulatory Impact Statement which was
prepared on the introduction of the 2020 Act, which canvasses the background,
differing viewpoints and statistics around prisoner voting
.9
Climate Implications of Policy Assessment
39
The Climate Implications of Policy Assessment (CIPA) team has been consulted
and confirms that the CIPA requirements do not apply to this proposal as the
threshold for significance is not met.
Population Implications
40
Corrections data shows that in 2024, 85 percent (5,756) of all adult offenders
receiving prison sentences had sentences of under 3 years compared with 1,026
receiving sentences of 3 years or more.
41
Those receiving prison sentences of under 3 years in 2024 committed a wide
range of offences, though as noted above, the majority were for offences below a
7-year maximum penalty. As shown in Figure 1, the most common offences were:
9 https://www.regulation.govt.nz/our-work/regulatory-impact-statements/regulatory-impact-assessment-
prisoner-voting/
6
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
I N C O N F I D E N C E
Acts intended to cause injury (23%); Offences against justice etc. (18%); theft and
related offences (13%); and unlawful entry/burglary (12%). Full details on
numbers of offenders by offence division and maximum penalty are provided in
Appendix 2.
Figure 1. Number of offenders receiving prison sentences with a sentence of under 3 years, by
offence (ANZSOC) division: 2024
25
23
22
20
18
latot f 15
13
12
o tnec 10
r
6
Pe
5
5
0
t
,
to
d
r
e
n
s
s
y
yr
l
d
o
e
d
y
ni
,s t…
te
tr
a
te
ci
n
s
s
c
e
r
e
n
al
n
l
n
h
y
,
a
ec r
n
d
uj
ga
e
r
e
s
e
gr e
e
r
s
n
t
n
e
e
n
n
e
f
i
a
u
r
l
d
v
e
o
p
f
c
me
c
u
thi u
to
c
ti
n
ef
te
e
s
d
n
o
e
tis e nr
d
n
f
b
a
d
al n
c
f
e
n
n
e
w
n
r
i
s
c
u
c
e
f
w
t/
e
u
me
o th
u
n
j
o
v
a
f
a
u
e
l
n
k
a
a
g
ff
d
s
r
t
ts
a
e
r
o
t f o
e
ci e o
b
s
e
s
th
c
c
ff
p
g
e
n
te
r
ff r
A
ar th ni
O
A
O
h
U
ni b
a
T
ar
o
a
T
h
ga
A ban on prisoner voting would impact more Māori than non-Māori
42
Māori accounted for 64 percent of all adult offenders receiving prison sentences of
under 3 years, and 49 percent of those receiving sentences of 3 years or more.
43
9.7 percent of all adult offenders receiving prison sentences of under 3 years were
female compared with 5.1 percent of those receiving sentences of 3 years or
more. Māori women accounted for 74 percent of all Māori receiving sentences of
under 3 years, compared with 65 percent of all Māori receiving sentences of 3
years or more.
44
Full details on offenders by ethnicity are provided in
Appendix 2.
45
A ban on prisoner voting would impact more Māori than non-Māori. As Figure 2
illustrates, more Māori were removed from the electoral roll under the previous
ban than non-Māori.
7
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
link to page 22 link to page 22
link to page 23
I N C O N F I D E N C E
person is eligible
,12 and found that Māori imprisoned for their first election are less
likely to form a voting habit.
48
To help mitigate this impact, I expect that the administrative processes established
in the last five years between Corrections and the Electoral Commission will
continue to help facilitate enrolment for people being released from prison.
Human Rights
49
As noted above, a complete ban of prisoner voting has been found to be both
inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi and with the electoral rights in BORA.
A ban has already been found to be inconsistent with section 12, and may also be
inconsistent with section 19(1) and the Human Rights Act 1993
50
The proposal limits the right to vote affirmed in section 12 of BORA. A full ban has
already been found not to be justifiable under section 5 of BORA, as it is not
rationally linked to the objective of punishing serious crime, given that people who
are not serious offenders, for example fine defaulters, would also be
disenfranchised. The proposed ban unduly constrains the right to political
participation.
51
In addition, the data on the extent of the disproportionate impact on Māori identified
during the Waitangi Tribunal proceedings could support the view that the law is also
inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race,
national or ethnic origin affirmed in BORA. It may therefore engage section 19(1) of
the BORA, and if so, is unlikely to be justifiable under section 5 of BORA.
A ban will affect our international standing on human rights
52
The right to vote is recognised by Article 25 of the ICCPR, to which New Zealand is
a signatory. The UNHRC has noted that the Article 25 right to vote must only be
restricted where such restrictions are "objective and reasonable”, and that if a
country decides that a "conviction for an offence is a basis for suspending the right
to vote" the suspension must be "proportionate to the offence and the sentence".
53
In this context, the UNHRC sees blanket prisoner voting bans as inconsistent with
the ICCPR and as serving no rehabilitative purpose. It has specifically noted the
"significant racial implications" of prisoner voting prohibitions, given the
disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities in most prison populations.
54
The proposal may also be inconsistent with New Zealand's obligations under the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(especially article 5(c), which affirms the right to be free from discrimination in
respect of voting rights), and the Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples.
Use of external resources
55
No external resources were engaged in the preparation of the advice in this paper.
12Evidence presented by claimant witnesses Dr Ann Sullivan and Professor Janine Hayward.
He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report, page 22
9
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
I N C O N F I D E N C E
Consultation
56
Due to time constraints, no departmental consultation has been undertaken. The
Electoral Commission, the Department of Corrections, the Ministry for Regulation,
the Department of Internal Affairs (Local Government), the Treasury and the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Policy Advisory Group) have been
informed about the proposals in this paper.
57
Further consultation with relevant agencies will be completed ahead of seeking
Cabinet approval to introduce the Bill.
Ministry of Justice comment
58
The Ministry of Justice does not support the proposal to disqualify all prisoners
from voting. The Ministry notes that disqualifying all prisoners from voting is
inconsistent with NZBORA, our international human rights obligations and the
Crown’s Treaty obligations.
59
The Ministry considers that removing the right to vote is an additional punishment
on top of incarceration, rather than incidental to it, yet there is no evidence that
suggests disqualifying all sentenced prisoners from voting deters people from
committing crimes, or helps victims feel safer.
60
The Ministry also notes that, if the proposals in this paper proceed, the prisoner
voting rules will have changed four times over seven elections. The Ministry is
concerned that continual changes to the voter eligibility rules undermines voter
trust in, and respect for, our core democratic values. The Ministry states its
preference for a slower, more consultative approach to electoral reform. This
would honour the convention that substantive changes to democratic rights should
be enduring and occur only following careful consideration and with broad public
support.
Communications
61
I propose to issue a press release announcing the re-introduction of the prisoner
voting ban shortly, following Cabinet policy approvals.
Proactive Release
62
I will proactively release this Cabinet paper, with appropriate redactions, on or
within 30 business days of the proposals being announced, in accordance with
Cabinet Office circular CO (23) 4.
Recommendations
63
The Minister of Justice recommends that the Committee:
1
agree to amend the Electoral Act so that anyone convicted and detained in prison
under a sentence of imprisonment is disqualified from voting;
2
agree that the existing prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years at the
time the bill commences would not be disqualified for registration on the grounds
10
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
I N C O N F I D E N C E
of their existing sentence of imprisonment, and that prisoners who would have
been disqualified under the 2020 Act would remain so;
3
note that the Minister has sought advice on whether people who have committed a
crime but who may not be in prison on mental health grounds or due to an
intellectual disability should also be disqualified from voting, and will report any
changes when seeking approval to introduce the bill;
Human rights inconsistencies
4
note officials’ advice that a full ban on prisoner voting is not consistent with the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, nor with Article 25 of the ICCPR, to which New
Zealand is a signatory, nor with the Crown’s Treaty obligations;
Legislative implications
5
note that these proposals will be given effect through the Electoral Matters Bill,
S9(2)(f)(iv)
6
invite the Minister of Justice to issue drafting instructions to give effect to the
decisions in these recommendations; and
7
authorise the Minister of Justice to make further related policy decisions in line
with the policy proposals in this paper as well as minor and technical amendments
that may arise during the drafting process.
Authorised for lodgement
Hon Paul Goldsmith
Minister of Justice
Appendix 1: History of prisoner voting in New Zealand (1956-2023)
Appendix 2: Sentenced prisoners by offence seriousness, sentence length and ethnicity
11
I N C O N F I D E N C E
54to2p397a 2025-04-11 17:03:11
link to page 27 link to page 27
I N C O N F I D E N C E
CAB-25-MIN-0122
Cabinet
Minute of Decision
This document contains information for the New Zealand Cabinet. It must be treated in confidence and
handled in accordance with any security classification, or other endorsement. The information can only be
released, including under the Official Information Act 1982, by persons with the appropriate authority.
Electoral Matters Bill (Paper 4): Further Policy Approvals
Portfolio
Justice
On 14 April 2025, Cabinet:
1
agreed to amend the Electoral Act 1993 so that anyone convicted and detained in prison
under a sentence of imprisonment is disqualified from voting;
2
agreed that the existing prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years at the time the
Electoral Matters Bill commences would not be disqualified for registration on the grounds
of their existing sentence of imprisonment, and that prisoners who would have been
disqualified under the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2020
would remain so;
3
noted that the Minister of Justice has sought advice on whether people who have committed
a crime but who may not be in prison on mental health grounds or due to an intellectual
disability should also be disqualified from voting, and will report any changes when seeking
approval to introduce the bill;
4
noted officials’ advice that a full ban on prisoner voting is not consistent with the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, nor with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, to which New Zealand is a signatory, nor with the Crown’s Treaty of
Waitangi obligations;
5
noted that the policy under CAB-25-SUB-0122 will be given effect through the Electoral
Matters Bill, S9(2)(f)(iv)
6
invited the Minister of Justice to issue drafting instructions to the Parliamentary Counsel
Office to give effect to the decisions under CAB-25-MIN-0122;
7
authorised the Minister of Justice to make further related policy decisions in line with the
decisions under CAB-25-MIN-0122, as well as minor and technical amendments that may
arise during the drafting process.
Rachel Hayward
Secretary of the Cabinet
1
54to2p397a 2025-04-15 09:05:52
I N C O N F I D E N C E
Aide memoire: Paper 4: Electoral Matters Bill – Policy
approvals (disqualification of sentenced prisoners from
voting)
Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice
Cabinet 14 April 2025
Purpose
1.
This aide memoire is to support discussions at Cabinet (CAB) on Monday 14 April on your
paper, titled
Paper 4: Electoral Matters Bill – Policy approvals (disqualification of sentenced
prisoners from voting) (the
paper). Some Talking Points are attached as
Annex 1 below.
The paper proposes disqualifying sentenced prisoners from voting
2.
The paper is part of a suite of papers relating to the Electoral Matters Bill (the
Bill); S9(2)(f)
(iv)
3.
Paper 4 seeks agreement to ban all sentenced prisoners from enrolling and voting in both
general and local elections, and consequentially from standing as candidates.
4.
Under current settings, prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more are disqualified
from voting. The paper proposes taking a similar position to the Electoral (Disqualification of
Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010, which prevented all prisoners from enrolling as
an elector and therefore from voting in elections.1 The paper proposes to include these
amendments in the Bill, S9(2)(f)(iv)
5.
The ban on voting:
•
will apply to prisoners sentenced after commencement of the Bill (i.e. is not
retrospective);
•
will not apply to people detained on remand or serving a sentence of home detention;
and
•
will not change the existing processes between Corrections and the Electoral
Commission which support prisoners to enrol to vote upon their release.
You have sought further advice on people committed to a hospital or secure facility
6.
Under the Electoral Act 1993, a person who has committed a crime but is detained for more
than three years in a hospital or secure facility on mental health grounds or due to an
intellectual disability, also loses the right to vote.
7.
The paper notes that you have asked officials for further advice on whether the voting ban
should also apply to people committed to a hospital or secure facility. You have sought
delegated authority to make policy decisions on this matter, subject to confirmation by
Cabinet before the Bill is introduced.
[Cabinet paper, paragraph 15]
Banning all sentenced prisoners from voting raises significant human rights issues
Potential inconsistencies with NZBORA
8.
A full ban on prisoner voting is expected to attract a section 7 report under the New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) for being inconsistent with section 12 (the right to vote) and
possibly section 19 (freedom from discrimination). It is unlikely this will be justifiable under
section 5 of NZBORA.
1 For more information on some of the key developments with prisoner voting, see
Appendix 1 of the
paper.
Approved by: Hayley Denoual, Policy Manager, Democracy and Open Government
BUDGET SENSITIVE
9.
Following previous decisions of the Supreme Court2 it is likely that, if challenged, the Courts
will declare that a prisoner voting ban is inconsistent with the electoral rights set out in
NZBORA.
[Paragraphs 17-19]
A ban on prisoner voting would impact more Māori than non-Māori
10.
Given Māori over-representation in New Zealand’s prison population, a prisoner voting ban
would impact Māori more than non-Māori. It may compound an already below-average rate
of democratic participation by Māori.
Appendix 2 of the paper provides more information on
the impact of a prisoner voting ban on Māori (see in particular
Figures 2 and
3).
11.
The Waitangi Tribunal has found that the 2010 ban on prisoner voting:
•
was inconsistent with the purpose of the corrections system;
•
prejudiced the rehabilitation and reintegration of Māori prisoners; and
•
was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.3
[paragraphs 20-23]
A ban on prisoner voting has implications for international and domestic human rights
12.
A ban on prisoner voting will affect New Zealand’s international standing on human rights:
•
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has found that a ban on prisoner voting
is contrary to the right to vote recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights; and
•
It may also be inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Declaration
on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples.
13.
As the ban on prisoner voting wil have a disproportionate impact on Māori, the policy may
also be inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, national
or ethnic origin as affirmed in NZBORA. The policy may therefore engage section 19(1),
which relates to everyone’s right to be free from discrimination (including on the ground of
race, ethnic or national origin).
[paragraphs 49-53]
Financial implications
14.
There may be some additional upfront costs for the Electoral Commission and/or Corrections
to implement these changes. These will need to be absorbed into existing baselines.
[paragraphs 29-30]
S9(2)(f)(iv)
15.
You are proposing that the prisoner voting changes are included in the Electoral Matters Bill.
S9(2)(f)(iv)
2
Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor – The High Court issued a declaration that the prohibition
on prisoner voting was inconsistent with the electoral rights guaranteed in NZBORA in 2015. This was
upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2017 and the Supreme Court in 2018.
3
He Aha i Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report
BUDGET SENSITIVE
Annex 1
Talking points
• I seek Cabinet agreement to amend the Electoral Act to disqualify all sentenced
prisoners from voting in local and general elections.
• The voting ban will not apply to people being detained on remand or serving a sentence
of home detention.
• I am seeking delegated authority to make policy decisions on whether people who have
committed a crime but may not be in prison on mental health grounds or due to an
intellectual disability, should also be disqualified from voting.
• The proposal will reverse changes the previous government made to the Electoral Act in
2020, which restored voting rights for all prisoners serving a prison sentence of less than
three years.
• My proposed change will establish a consistent approach to prisoner voting, regardless
of the length of sentence.
Human rights implications
• Officials have advised that re-introducing a full ban on prisoner voting is likely to attract a
section 7 report for being inconsistent with section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act, which sets
out the right to vote in elections. A total ban is unlikely to be justifiable under section 5.
• I consider a potential section 7 report to be outweighed by the signal that a temporary
loss of voting rights sends to those convicted of a crime, and wider society, about the
value of the right to vote.
• I am also aware that a ban on prisoner voting wil affect New Zealand’s international
standing on human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It may also be inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Declaration
on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples.
