As an independent panel begins to hear from the public on potential changes to our electoral system, the role of the monarchy may be in the headlines following the Queen’s death – but it is off the table for the review
Kiwis can now share their views on the future shape of New Zealand’s elections framework, as a group of experts begins its consideration of what changes should be made to our electoral system.
However, any move away from a monarchy will have to be discussed separately, with Aotearoa’s constitutional arrangements out of scope for the work.
The Government announced last October it would review the country’s electoral laws ahead of the 2026 general election, with an independent panel reporting back with recommendations for change by late 2023.
Kris Faafoi, the justice minister at the time, said that while New Zealand’s electoral system was “world class”, changes still needed to be made.
“Much has changed since the 1950s but most of our electoral rules haven’t. We want to make election rules clearer and fairer to build more trust in the system and better support people to exercise their right to vote,” Faafoi said.
Now, the independent panel has formally asked for submissions from the public on what changes they would like to see made, with the review covering everything from the voting age and overseas voting, the funding of political parties, the length of the parliamentary term, and reform (but not replacement) of MMP.
Panel chair Deborah Hart told Newsroom the panel would host a number of public meetings and speak to targeted interest groups, while people could also send submissions via the review website.
“That is one of the challenges for the panel to grapple with, because you do want to be able to future-proof the electoral process for what may come, but you also want to give certainty as to what our electoral process is." - Deborah Hart, independent review panel chair
The safety and security of New Zealand’s electoral system was among the issues the panel would consider, Hart said, mentioning overseas attempts to interfere with elections through cyberattacks and other methods.
“It's one of the areas that we think we're going to have to pay very special attention to, because of course we want to safeguard our electoral process - our elections are a mainstay of our democracy.”
Much of the panel’s work would be about balancing different interests, with weighing flexibility against certainty among the specific requirements outlined in its terms of reference.
“That is one of the challenges for the panel to grapple with, because you do want to be able to future-proof the electoral process for what may come, but you also want to give certainty as to what our electoral process is.
“The panel hasn't even begun to consider that kind of balancing, we want to hear from New Zealanders before we get into any of these subject matters, so I don't know what will come out but we do know that that will be a challenge.”
However, while the death of Queen Elizabeth II has led to some murmurings about whether New Zealand should move towards becoming a republic, the country’s “broader constitutional matters” are specifically out of scope for the panel’s report.
“We may hear from people wanting to tell us about the role of the Governor General and the role of the King, but we’re not going to be able to do anything about that,” Hart said.
'Robust conversations' ahead
Other matters specifically deemed out of scope are online voting, alternatives to MMP, the retention of the Māori electorate seats, and the current size of Parliament.
Hart said she expected strong interest in areas like the voting age and funding of political parties, although it was possible other hot topics would emerge during the consultation process.
Submissions would close on November 14, with the panel then publishing a report with draft recommendations for further feedback in April next year before a final version went to the Government.
It was “a great privilege to be asked to do this work” and to work with the other panel members, Hart said.
“I have no doubt that we're going to have a very robust conversation around the table about what to do, and it's our job to really do our very best to provide recommendations that any government can pick up and [take] action.”
