top of page

Debate | Prisoners in New Zealand Should Not Be Subject to a Voting Ban

  • Writer: Public Policy Club
    Public Policy Club
  • Oct 3
  • 9 min read

Updated: 1 day ago


We’re proud to launch the PPC Debate Series 2025 as part of Politics Week. Across three debates, our writers explore opposing sides of timely prompts, replying to one another in short essays designed to challenge assumptions and open up dialogue. These pieces are the result of collaboration over the semester, and we’re excited to share them with you. 


Meet the Writers

Binu Goonatillake is studying a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts conjoint, majoring in Politics and Philosophy. She is interested in welfare policy, civic rights and education, and regulatory policy, and has written “Explainer | Exploring the Regulatory Standards Bill” for the PPC this year.


David Neal is completing a Graduate Diploma in Arts, specialising in Politics. He has a keen interest in Ukraine, foreign policy, and defence issues, and has written “Opinion | The NZLAV Upgrade Program: A Step in the Right Direction” and “Opinion | The Anzac Frigate Life Extension Program” for the PPC.

With that, let's jump in!


Binu:

In April 2025, the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, announced the Cabinet’s decision to reintroduce a blanket ban on prisoner voting, altering the previous legislation that allowed prisoners serving sentences below 3 years to vote (New Zealand Government, 2025). 

I believe that prisoners in Aotearoa should not be subject to a blanket voting ban. Goldsmith provided two reasons behind this decision that I will counter:

1. To restore law and order (New Zealand Government, 2025).

In our current criminal justice system:

  • 56.5% of individuals reoffend within 2 years of release (Department of Corrections, n.d.).

  • Approximately 52.5% (Department of Corrections, 2025) of the prison population and 17.4% (Stats NZ, 2025) of the national population are Māori.


It does not address the driving forces behind crime, such as poverty, abuse, and trauma. It is also rife with institutionalized racism as reflected in the statistics provided. It isolates individuals from their communities, creating inter-generational cycles of harm, incarceration, and poverty (Ministry of Justice, n.d.).

This ban is punitive and harmful. The ability to vote encourages civic engagement and gives prisoners a sense of self-determination. Furthermore, incarcerated individuals also vote for their communities, bringing autonomy to marginalized communities (Hapai Te Hauora, 2025). 

2. To emphasise that democratic participation should only be afforded to members of society who don’t break the law (New Zealand Government, 2025).

Both the Attorney General and the Supreme Court declared that a blanket ban is in conflict with the ICCPR 1967 and the Bill of Rights Act 1990, which provide electoral rights for all Aotearoa citizens of or over the age of 18 with “reasonable limits”. It was declared that a total ban on prisoner voting rights cannot be justified as it is both "under and over inclusive" and therefore does not meet the punitive objective of disenfranchisement. (Courts of New Zealand, 2018).

David:

The counter position I will present here is that prisoners can justly be barred from voting. This arises from the fact that, as identified by my colleague, voting rights are not absolute. They are a right arising from membership in society. Per the New Zealand Government’s statement on the subject, “Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities. People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.” (New Zealand Government, 2025)  Having committed crimes against members of society, such as forms of assault, robbery, sexual assault, or homicide, categories that makes up the majority of the incarcerated population (Department of Corrections, 2025), prisoners have violated the social contract, and so lost the benefits of that contract.

Further, having been removed from society via imprisonment, prisoners are necessarily far less involved in society. Even if we accept that voting rights arise from being impacted by decisions made, prisoners are less likely to be impacted by decisions on wider social issues. While some prisoners can engage in voluntary work programs in the community, the eligibility criteria for such programs are very strict, even more so than for voting rights under the previous system (Department of Corrections, n.d.), making them less likely to interact with labour laws, with public transport funding, tax policy, etc.

While political rights are guaranteed under international and domestic law, it is widely accepted that rights can be curtailed or removed by a court. The ICCPR itself allows states the right to deprive citizens of the right to life, via capital punishment, and lays out restrictions on the treatment of prisoners, which incidentally make no mention of prisoners having a right to vote, implicitly supporting the right of states to curtail rights to liberty via imprisonment (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1967, p. 4). 

Arguing that voting rights cannot be curtailed as part of a legal penalty places them in a category beyond the right to life, which can in international law be curtailed by the death penalty, and the right to liberty, which can be curtailed by imprisonment.

Binu:

In my response, I will address two points made by my colleague. Firstly, although both the ICCPR 1967 and the Bill of Rights Act 1990 broadly allow limitations on rights, they do require that these limits “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Using the same process that the A-G used when interpreting this standard, I can determine that although punishing individuals for breaking the law by disenfranchising them is an objective that aims to uphold the social contract and the democratic values of our society, this blanket ban does not rationally or proportionately provide for this objective (Courts of New Zealand, 2018).

The main issue is that the disenfranchisement of individuals will depend entirely on the day of sentencing. An individual who committed a more serious crime and served a 2.5-year sentence between two general elections would not be impacted by this ban at all. Meanwhile, an individual who may be imprisoned for a few weeks over the election period for a petty crime will be affected by the ban. This makes it both over- and under-inclusive. The ban, therefore, is not justifiable and it does not uphold the values of a democratic society (Courts of New Zealand, 2018).

Secondly, prisoners are still impacted by the outcomes of general elections as they decide who forms the legislature and the executive council. The broader executive that the corrections and court systems are part of is led by ministers in the executive council, generally made up exclusively of members of the leading parties in government. (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2025).  For example, the National Party Minister of Corrections oversees funding, allocation of resources, research, and life quality within the prison system (Department of Corrections, n.d.).

The legislature has supreme law-making power, and this can have major impacts on prisoners' lives. This current issue at hand of prisoner disenfranchisement is the perfect example. Therefore, although corrections and justice system issues are not usually at the forefront of election campaigns, the parties in power still have significant impacts on the lives of prisoners. 

David:

My colleague’s argument rests chiefly on three pillars: That variation in sentencing based on date of offending/sentencing is unfair, that prisoners are still impacted by decisions made in government, and that the blanket voting ban has been found to be inconsistent with NZBORA. These are deeply unstable foundations.

There are always ways in which the date of offending/sentencing influences plenty of other factors in a sentence: if the law is changed after sentencing to lengthen sentences, for example, then the same crime, with the same circumstances can result in different sentences. It would be very strange to argue that, because past murderers were hanged, it is unfair that other murderers received different sentences when the law changed to abolish the death penalty. Likewise, if hate crime laws were to be passed, then more severe sentences might be handed down for the same actions, based on when the new law came into effect. We do not denounce all law changes based on the principle that all sentences must be consistent with each other in these other cases. If the objection is that voting restrictions would continue to be uneven in effect, that still doesn’t avoid the problem, since there is substantial variation in lengths of sentences for the same offence as is; for example large possible sentence reductions for the personal mitigating factors, guilty pleas, etc. (Ministry of Justice, 2025). Unless my colleague is arguing for mandatory sentencing as well, there will always be strong variations in sentence.

Secondly, I must reiterate: the overwhelming majority of government business does not impact prisoners, who are by definition removed from society. Additionally I must reiterate, as most inmates are imprisoned for serious crimes against the person, e.g. sexual assault, homicide, assault, robbery, etc. these are people who have definitely through their actions violated the social contract, and placed themselves outside of society. Having violated the contract, they cease to have their right to vote provided by it.

Thirdly, we reach the declaration of inconsistency with NZBORA. Parliament can pass any law it likes. Should they amend NZBORA to mend the inconsistency? Perhaps, but ultimately a declaration of inconsistency cannot be grounds to bind parliament, or we arrive at judicial sovereignty where courts can override parliament, rather than parliamentary sovereignty, and so a fundamental alteration in the constitution of the country. If the declaration is simply an alert that a past piece of legislation conflicts, then that is as much a call to amend the past legislation as to cancel the current one.

Binu:

In my closing statement, I will directly respond to the three points of contention recognised by my colleague and recap my arguments.

Firstly, I am arguing that the date of offending/sentencing affects voting after the bill is passed. Substantial variation in sentence length for the same offence is due to personal mitigating factors that are relevant to each case.  The voting ban, however, would apply arbitrarily, defeating its purpose of punishing people according to how they break the social contract. This is why it is fundamentally flawed.


Moreover, in my opening, I questioned this punitive approach. Our main priority as a society when we deal with crime should be to protect victims. Our current punitive justice system is ineffective at decreasing recidivism rates. Furthermore, it causes harm to communities through perpetuating cycles of intergenerational harm, especially to Māori communities, who are disproportionately represented in the prison population.  An approach more likely to protect victims and build up communities is a rehabilitative approach.

Secondly, although prisoners are removed from society, they are held within executive institutions where their sentences and everyday lives are ultimately determined by ministers who generally follow the agendas of their parties. I.e., Justice Minister Goldsmith applying the National Party’s tough-on-crime approach with this voting ban. Is it democratic to have people who are impacted by our political representatives not be represented by them?


Thirdly, I am not arguing that the courts should supersede parliamentary supremacy. What I am saying is that the court’s power to make declarations of inconsistency is important, as scrutiny is essential for producing good quality legislation.  The courts have pointed out fundamental flaws that will make this amendment poor quality, and that advice is valuable and worthy of consideration. Further, the Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a piece of legislation in NZ's unwritten constitution that protects our basic human rights. It holds significant weight and should not be so easily put aside. 


For these reasons, I conclude my argument that prisoners in New Zealand should not be subject to a voting ban.

David:

Throughout this debate, we have established that voting rights can be argued as stemming from either participation in society, or via the social contract. In the former case, prisoners are definitionally not participating in society. In the latter case, prisoners have been convicted of violating the social contract. In either case, voting rights are capable of being legitimately removed or curtailed as a result.


In the case of declarations of inconsistency, these should not be considered a legitimate argument against this policy, as the New Zealand House of Representatives is representative of, and answerable to, the people. If the people want the law to change in this way, they have the right to have it change in this way. What imperfections there may be are those that stand in the way of democratic lawmaking. NZBORA was passed decades ago, in the FPTP era, on party lines, with an 8 vote majority, as a normal law (New Zealand Parliament, 1990, pp. 410-411). It should not be considered a sacred and immutable text.


While our justice system has significant flaws and need for reform, the purpose of incarceration is, in large part, to protect communities from those who have seriously harmed them. That harm is the breach of the social contract. Those who commit that harm, those who refuse to be bound by our society’s laws, mark themselves out as not part of society, and hence not party to social decision making.


In this situation, it is entirely acceptable to curtail their voting rights.

References

Binu - Reply 1:

Attorney-General v Taylor <2018> NZSC 104. https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2018/2018-NZSC-104.pdf p38

Hapai Te Hauora. (2025, May 9). Prisoner Voting Ban – What You Need to Know https://hapai.co.nz/explainer-prisoner-voting-ban-what-you-need-to-know/

Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). He Waka Roimata; Transforming Our Criminal Justice System https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/He-Waka-Roimata-Report.pdf

New Zealand Government. (2025, April 30). Government to reinstate prisoner voting ban https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-reinstate-prisoner-voting-ban

Public Policy Club. (2025, June 6). Exploring the regulatory standards bill https://publicpolicyclub.com/explainer-exploring-the-regulatory-standards-bill/


David - Reply 2:

New Zealand Government. (2025, April 30). Government to reinstate prisoner voting banhttps://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-reinstate-prisoner-voting-ban

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1967) https://treaties.un.org/doc/treaties/1976/03/19760323%2006-17%20am/ch_iv_04.pdf


Binu - Reply 3:

Attorney-General v Taylor <2018> NZSC 104. https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2018/2018-NZSC-104.pdf p38

Department of The Prime Minister and The Cabinet, (2025, May 31). Ministerial List https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/ministers-and-their-portfolios/ministerial-list

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM224792 United Nations. (1967). International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights https://treaties.un.org/doc/treaties/1976/03/19760323%2006-17%20am/ch_iv_04.pdf


David - Reply 4:

Ministry of Justice (2025) Sentencing Act changes now in forcehttps://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/sentencing-act-changes-now-in-force/


David - Reply 6:

New Zealand Parliament (1990), "New Zealand Bill of Rights Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 510.

Comments

bottom of page