Written by Rochelle O. and Seth Q.
Introduction
On the 30th of April 2025, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced that Cabinet would introduce legislation reinstating a total ban on prisoner voting. Debate surrounding prisoner voting bans has been fierce and frequent in recent decades. Ahead of the Bill’s introduction and implementation later this year, this analysis seeks to explain the ban’s history, the arguments for and against it, and the legal and te Tiriti implications.
History of the ban
Prisoners have experienced varying degrees and forms of disenfranchisement, the removal of the right to vote, since New Zealand’s first national election in 1853. New Zealand’s 1993 electoral reforms returned voting rights to prisoners serving sentences shorter than three years. In 2010, the National-led government introduced the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, banning all prisoners from voting. A number of legal challenges ensued, and in 2015, the High Court declared the law inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.1 The Supreme Court upheld this decision in 2018,2 with the Waitangi Tribunal later stating that it breached the Crown’s Treaty obligations (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019). The law was changed in 2020 to acknowledge these rulings, allowing prisoners serving less than 3 years in prison to vote.3 This is the current statutory framework. The proposed legislation would mean everyone in prison, regardless of their sentence length, would lose the right to vote.
Support for the ban
Successive National-led governments have taken the position that prisoners should be disqualified from voting as they have breached civil responsibilities and violated the rule of law, which are components of being a citizen in a modern, democratic society, which is loosely based on the ‘social contract theory.’ Thus, they contend that the removal of the right to vote and participate in shaping the law is justified. In Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s words, you cannot “choose to take the rights but not hold up the responsibilities” (Walters, 2025b). It also appeals to their ‘tough-on-crime’ rhetoric (Goldsmith, 2024). Although NZ First does not support a full ban regardless of term length, Minister Winston Peters says that the right to vote is a privilege, which people cannot enjoy if they cannot also be responsible (Mateariki, 2022). Furthermore, the political advocacy and lobby group, Sensible Sentencing Trust, supports the ban. They agree that prisoners have lost their right to be part of a ‘functioning society’ and contend that the ban should further apply to people on home detention (Hanly, 2025).
Concerning the reasons for the 2010 ban, the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) referenced the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which expressed some sympathy for the widely held view that certain prisoners should forfeit the right to vote. It noted that possible rationales that have been suggested include punishment, deterrence, or breach of social contract (Cheng, 2020).
Reasons against the ban
As previously stated, the existing controversy of a ban on prisoner voting is due to it breaching human rights, the commitment that we uphold the international human rights treaties New Zealand has signed, and inconsistency with te Tiriti o Waitangi. Firstly, in Taylor v Attorney-General, the High Court issued a formal declaration that the blanket ban on prisoners’ voting was inconsistent with section 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That section affirms the right of every citizen aged 18 or over to vote in parliamentary elections. The Court found that the law applied too broadly, affecting people who were not necessarily serious offenders, and led to arbitrary outcomes. For example, where two people convicted of the same offence received different sentences, only the one sent to prison lost their voting rights. Thus, they affirmed that it was not of the kind of reasonable limitations on human rights which can be justified in a free, democratic society. Further, critics argue that imprisonment is already the punishment, and there is no merit in additionally removing a person’s electoral rights. As noted by the RIA, “[t]here is no evidence that suggests disqualifying sentenced prisoners from voting deters people from committing crimes” (Cheng, 2020).
In 2019, the Waitangi Tribunal found that section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 breached the principles of the Treaty. The Tribunal further found that the Crown has failed in its duty to actively protect the right of Māori to equitably participate in the electoral process and exercise their tino rangatiratanga individually and collectively (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019). This finding reflected concerns about the disproportionate impact of prisoner disenfranchisement on Māori, who are overrepresented in the prison population. Statistics highlight that Māori are 11.4 times more likely to be disqualified from voting than non-Māori (Cheng, 2020). These legal conclusions have informed ongoing debate about the compatibility of prisoner voting bans with New Zealand’s human rights framework and Treaty obligations.
Conclusion
The reintroduction of a total ban on prisoner voting in New Zealand, set to be enacted in late 2025, continues a contentious debate. Historically, prisoner disenfranchisement has varied, with recent legal challenges citing inconsistencies with human rights and te Tiriti o Waitangi. Supporters of the ban often cite civic responsibility, while opponents highlight disproportionate impacts on Māori and a lack of evidence for deterrence. The proposed legislation, which will extend the ban to all prisoners regardless of sentence length, will bring renewed focus to the human rights and Treaty implications of denying voting rights based on incarceration.
Footnotes
1 Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706.
2 Attorney-General v Taylor [2018] NZSC 104.
3 Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2020.
References
Atereano Mateariki. (2022). Peters says full prisoner voting ban is “extreme.” Waateanews.com. https://waateanews.com/2025/05/02/peters-says-full-prisoner-voting-ban-is-extreme/
Cheng, D. (2020, February 25). Remedy to ban on prisoner voting still breaches human rights, Justice Ministry says. NZ Herald. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/remedy-to-ban-on-prisoner-voting-still-breaches-human-rights-justice-ministry-says/23IW3TBID5BKJ7ZVARF5EJI6HU/
Goldsmith, P. (2024, June 26). Tougher sentences coming for criminals. New Zealand Government. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/tougher-sentences-coming-criminals
Hanly, L. (2025, April 30). Removing prisoners’ voting rights backward step, says Labour, Greens. RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/559521/removing-prisoners-voting-rights-backward-step-says-labour-greens
Hāpai Te Hauora. (2025, May 9). Prisoner Voting Ban – What You Need to Know – Hāpai Te Hauora. https://hapai.co.nz/explainer-prisoner-voting-ban-what-you-need-to-know/
Jones, C. (2025, April 30). Reinstating a blanket ban on prisoners voting is retrograde and harmful. The Spinoff. https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-04-2025/reinstating-a-blanket-ban-on-prisoners-voting-is-retrograde-and-harmful
McConnell, G. (2025). “I do not care”: Christopher Luxon responds to concerns about prisoner voting ban. Stuff.co.nz. https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360670649/prisoner-voting-ban-be-reinstated-government
Waitangi Tribunal. (2019). Tribunal releases report on Māori prisoners’ voting rights | Waitangi Tribunal. https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-maori-prisoners-voting-rights
Walters, L. (2025a, April 29). Government to reinstate full prisoner voting ban. Newsroom. https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/04/30/government-to-reinstate-full-prisoner-voting-ban/
Walters, L. (2025b, May 6). Officials to minister: Give all prisoners the vote. Newsroom. https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/05/07/officials-to-minister-give-all-prisoners-the-vote/
