Voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand

Last updated

The voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand have changed numerous times since the first election in New Zealand in 1853, with prisoners experiencing varying degrees of enfranchisement. The only time that all prisoners have been allowed to vote in elections in New Zealand was from 1975 to 1977. In 2010 the Electoral Act 1993 was amended to disqualify all prisoners from voting (regardless of the length of sentence imposed). In 2020 this law was amended so that only persons serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more are disenfranchised. [1] [2]

Contents

History to 2010

The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 set out the requirements for enfranchisement. Prisoners were expressly excluded from registration for voting where they were serving a sentence for "any treason, felony, or infamous offence". [3] Prisoners who had completed their sentence were eligible to vote. In 1879, prisoners were further disenfranchised by the Qualification of Electors Act, which provided that prisoners who had completed their punishments were not able to register to vote again until 12 months had passed since the end of their sentence. [4]

The Electoral Act 1905 changed the scope of enfranchisement, removing the 12 month post-imprisonment disqualification period, but widening the ambit of what kind of prisoner would be disqualified. Rather than focusing on the kind of crime, this Act looked at the length of sentence, with anyone sentenced to death or a year or more of imprisonment being ineligible to vote. [5] The law changed again in 1956, removing the one year threshold, thus disenfranchising all who were prisoners at the time of an election. [6] The trend was very much towards increasing disenfranchisement of prisoners. This was reversed briefly with the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, which amended the 1956 Act and completely removed the provision that took away the right of prisoners to vote. [7] This change did not last long. By 1977, the law had reverted to the original 1956 position of complete disenfranchisement for anyone serving a custodial sentence at the time of an election. [8]

In 1993, New Zealand underwent an electoral system overhaul in which the rights of prisoners changed again. The Electoral Act 1993 re-enfranchised some prisoners, only excluding those sentenced to three years or more, including life sentences and preventive detention. [1] This remained the position until 2010.

Law from 2010 to 2020

2010 legislation

The Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament as a private member's bill by Paul Quinn of the National Party on 10 February 2010. [9] The Bill's first reading occurred on 21 April 2010. It was then referred to the Law and Order Select Committee to review the legislation and make any changes necessary. [9] The decision to send the Bill to the Law and Order Select Committee was criticised by opponents of the Bill, with members of the Labour Party walking out of the committee meeting on the first day. [10] This is because the Law and Order committee is primarily staffed with members from the Department of Corrections who traditionally deal with "matters relating to corrections, courts, criminal law, police, and serious fraud." [11] It was contended by opposition members that a more appropriate committee would have been the Justice and Electoral Committee. This committee is aided by staff from the Ministry of Justice and deals with "matters relating to Crown legal and drafting services, electoral matters, human rights, and justice." [12] The select committee received a large number of submissions on the Bill, with the majority being opposed to the legislation's passage. There were two submissions made in support of the Bill, one of which was by the legislation's introducer, Paul Quinn. However, some of the submissions made were as part of assessment for an Otago University paper, and this could have skewed the results slightly. [13] Despite the overwhelming number of submissions opposed, the Bill was returned to the House with little changed. The Bill had its second reading on 20 October 2010. Its final reading was on 8 December 2010 and it received royal assent on 15 December 2010. The legislation took effect from 16 December 2010. [14]

Under the legislation, anyone detained in a prison on a sentence of imprisonment was unable to register as an elector. [1] This was achieved by the deregistration of prisoners, meaning they would have to reregister to vote when released from prison. The legislation was not retrospective in effect, so any prisoners who were convicted to a less than three-year sentence before the enactment of the new law, would still be allowed to vote. [15] In its original form, the legislation did not include a saving provision of this nature, so it would have had the effect of disenfranchising everyone convicted after the commencement of the Act, but also of re-enfranchising everyone convicted before the Act. This drafting oversight was amended by way of supplementary order paper, as it would have completely undermined the point of the legislation if enacted in that form.[ citation needed ]

Paul Quinn based his justification for the legislation loosely on social contract theory. This is the idea that prisoners have breached the contract with the state, and therefore some of their rights can be validly restricted. This was the view advanced by many supporting members in their speeches but perhaps put most clearly by Jonathan Young during the bill’s Third reading. [16] "The social contract that undergirds every stable society must balance human rights with human responsibilities, or said essentially, in order to participate in the process of selecting our lawmakers who shape our society, one ought not to be a serious lawbreaker." [17] Removing the right to vote is essentially another form of punishment for criminals. In reality, there was little substantive argument made in favour of the legislation as it passed through Parliament, something which did not go unnoticed by commentators. [18]

Criticisms of the law

Under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) if there is an apparent inconsistency between legislation being introduced and the NZBORA, the Attorney-General must bring this to the attention of the House as soon as possible. [19] There was a section 7 report filed in respect of this legislation by Christopher Finlayson. [20] There was, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, an inconsistency between the Bill and section 12 of NZBORA, which affirms the voting rights of New Zealand citizens. [21] Under section 5 of NZBORA, rights are not absolute, but can be limited so long as those limits are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." [22] There are two questions that the Attorney-General and the courts will look at in determining whether the limit comes under section 5. Firstly, whether the "provision serves an important and significant objective" [23] and secondly whether there is a "rational and proportionate connection between the provision and the objective." [23] The Attorney-General considered that although the objective of the Bill (to prevent serious offenders from voting) may have been in fact important, there was no rational connection between the limit and that objective. [23] A blanket ban effects not only serious offenders, but all offenders regardless of the nature of their offending, so the limit is more related to the time of the offending in relation to an election. This is not a rational or proportional limitation. Academic Andrew Geddis notes that in the debates surrounding the Bill, this report was scarcely mentioned by supporters of the legislation, and there was no justification of the rights limitations made substantively by supporters either. [24]

The uneven application of the Bill was a concern for the Attorney-General and also opposition members. An example that came up frequently in debates was the disparity between a sentence of home detention and of imprisonment and the effect that would have on offenders. [25] It is possible to have offenders who have committed the same offence in similar circumstances have a disparity between their sentences as one may be eligible for home detention, whereas the other is not because of a difference in personal circumstances. An offender given a sentence of home detention will not be caught by this legislation and as such will not be removed from the electoral roll. The opposition also noted the position was not changing for prisoners housed in a hospital instead of a prison. [26] Under previous legislation, they were both treated the same, but the new legislation disenfranchises offenders housed in prisons, but those housed in secure hospitals are still allowed to vote if their sentence is less than three years. [27]

Another issue that was mentioned by opponents to the legislation and in the submission of the Electoral Enrolment Centre was the fact that prisoners are removed from the electoral roll completely. [28] The concerns revolved around the fact that it is already difficult to get people who are marginalised onto the electoral roll, so their removal could mean that many people simply wouldn't bother to re-enrol after their release, which would mean their disenfranchisement could possibly extend much further than just the length of their sentence. [29] The EEC suggested that the Bill be amended to include a requirement for Prison Superintendents to send the EEC a completed enrolment form when offenders are released. [30] This was considered by the Select Committee but not adopted into the law, preferring to let the departments organise this as between themselves. [31]

In 2014, the law was challenged in the High Court by a number of serving prisoners. [32] The challenge was founded on a number of grounds, including inconsistency with multiple provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, inconsistency with the ICCPR and inconsistency with the Treaty of Waitangi. It was alleged that not only was the legislation inconsistent with the right to vote in NZBORA, but that it would also disproportionately affect Māori, who make up around 51% of the prison population, thereby becoming a form of discrimination against Māori. [33] The court noted that similar laws in other countries had been struck down by their higher courts, something which New Zealand courts do not have the jurisdiction to do. [34] The court found that there was no way to read the section in a manner consistent with the NZBORA, however, because of s 4 of that Act, the provision must still be applied in full. [35] It was also held that it would be difficult to say that the provision was in line with New Zealand's international law obligations, and that it was likely to be inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, although the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on that matter. [36] The judge said that the criticisms of the provision were "numerous and weighty" [36] but also noted that, despite the "constitutionally objectionable" [37] nature of the provision, "Parliament has... spoken" [37] and declined a remedy for the applicants.

In the decision Taylor v Attorney-General on 24 July 2015 Justice Heath in the Auckland High Court issued a formal declaration that the blanket ban on prisoners' voting was inconsistent with section 12(a) of the Bill of Rights. This is that every New Zealand citizen over the age of 18 years has the right to vote in periodic elections of member of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage. [38]

The appeal to the finding that the 2010 blanket ban was inconsistent with the section 12(a) of the Bill of Rights was dismissed on 26 May 2017 in Taylor v Attorney General NZCA 215. Additionally, the appellant was made to pay the second to fifth's respondents' costs for a complex appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements. [39]

On November 9, 2018 the Supreme Court of New Zealand also agreed with the High Court's decision in favour of Taylor in Taylor v Attorney General NZSC 104. [40]

On August 9, 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." [41]

Re-enfranchisement of short-term prisoners in 2020

On 23 November 2019, the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, announced that the Sixth Labour Government would introduce an Electoral Amendment Bill to allow prisoners who had been sentenced to less than three years in prison to vote, in time for the 2020 New Zealand general election, reversing the previous National Government's decision to disenfranchise all serving prisoners in 2010. [42] The Government's policy shift had been preceded by Taylor and other prisoners' legal challenge, a High Court ruling that the law change violated the Bill of Rights Act and Treaty of Waitangi, and a Waitangi Tribunal report that the prisoner voting ban disproportionately affected Māori prisoners. While Little's announcement was welcomed by Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, National Party leader Simon Bridges criticised the Government for being "soft on crime" and vowed that a National Government would reverse any such law change. [43] [44] [45] The bill passed and received royal assent on 29 June 2020. [2]

Related Research Articles

Disfranchisement, also disenfranchisement or voter disqualification, is the restriction of suffrage of a person or group of people, or a practice that has the effect of preventing a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement can also refer to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community or being to the natural amenity they have; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, through intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting. High barriers to entry to the political competition can disenfranchise political movements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Parliament</span> Supreme unicameral legislature of New Zealand

The New Zealand Parliament is the unicameral legislature of New Zealand, consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament) and the New Zealand House of Representatives. The King is usually represented by his governor-general. Before 1951, there was an upper chamber, the New Zealand Legislative Council. The New Zealand Parliament was established in 1854 and is one of the oldest continuously functioning legislatures in the world. It has met in Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, since 1865.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand House of Representatives</span> Sole chamber of the New Zealand Parliament

The House of Representatives is the sole chamber of the New Zealand Parliament. The House passes laws, provides ministers to form Cabinet, and supervises the work of government. It is also responsible for adopting the state's budgets and approving the state's accounts.

The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics of New Zealand. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title. These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi. On 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, was enacted on 24 November 2004. Some sections of the act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of New Zealand</span> Uncodified national constitution

The constitution of New Zealand is the sum of laws and principles that determine the political governance of New Zealand. Unlike many other nations, New Zealand has no single constitutional document. It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an "unwritten constitution", although the New Zealand constitution is in fact an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources. The Constitution Act 1986 has a central role, alongside a collection of other statutes, orders in Council, letters patent, decisions of the courts, principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and unwritten traditions and conventions. There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law"; no law is accorded higher status. In most cases the New Zealand Parliament can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing acts of Parliament, and thus has the power to change or abolish elements of the constitution. There are some exceptions to this though – the Electoral Act 1993 requires certain provisions can only be amended following a referendum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral system of New Zealand</span> System by which New Zealand parliament is elected

The New Zealand electoral system has been mixed-member proportional (MMP) since the 1996 election. MMP was introduced following a referendum in 1993. It replaced the first-past-the-post (FPP) system New Zealand had previously used for most of its history. Under MMP, New Zealanders have two secret ballot votes to elect members of Parliament (MPs). The first vote is for a candidate from an electorate, a geographic electoral district. The second is the party vote for the political party the voter wants to form the government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Suppression Act 2002</span> Act of the Parliament of New Zealand

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is New Zealand counter-terrorism legislation passed under the Clark-led Labour government. Enacted following the September 11 attacks in the United States, the Act was designed to better address contemporary terrorism issues, both domestically and abroad. Until May 2019, the Act had not been formally used in a prosecution; however there were several failed attempts by the Crown to do so. Many individuals and organisations have however been designated as "Terrorist entities" under the Act's provisions, in line with UN Security Council designations. The Act was amended in 2007. In May 2019, a charge of engaging in a terrorist act was laid against Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque attacks, under section 6A of the Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Enforcement Act of 1870</span> United States federal law

The Enforcement Act of 1870, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1870 or First Ku Klux Klan Act, or Force Act, is a United States federal law that empowers the President to enforce the first section of the Fifteenth Amendment throughout the United States. The act was the first of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress in 1870 and 1871, during the Reconstruction Era, to combat attacks on the voting rights of African Americans from state officials or violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Quinn (New Zealand politician)</span> Former New Zealand rugby union player and politician

Bernard Paul Quinn is a New Zealand businessman, former rugby union player and former politician. He captained the Wellington Rugby Football Union team from 1981 to 1983 and the New Zealand Māori national team from 1980 to 1982. From 2008 to 2011, he was a Member of the New Zealand House of Representatives for the National Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in New Zealand</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in New Zealand

Human rights in New Zealand are addressed in the various documents which make up the constitution of the country. Specifically, the two main laws which protect human rights are the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, New Zealand has also ratified numerous international United Nations treaties. The 2009 Human Rights Report by the United States Department of State noted that the government generally respected the rights of individuals, but voiced concerns regarding the social status of the indigenous population.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) requires that the attorney-general report to the New Zealand Parliament on any bills that contain provisions that appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

Suffrage in Australia is the voting rights in the Commonwealth of Australia, its six component states and territories, and local governments. The colonies of Australia began to grant universal male suffrage from 1856, with women's suffrage following between the 1890s and 1900s. Some jurisdictions introduced racial restrictions on voting from 1885. Such restrictions had been eradicated by the 1960s. Today, the right to vote at all levels of government is held by citizens of Australia over the age of 18 years.

Local government bodies in New Zealand have responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to perform a wide range of functions, and provide a wide range of services to the communities they represent. There is not an explicit focus on human rights in New Zealand local government, or any direct reference to human rights under the LGA. Local bodies in New Zealand are required to act in a way that is consistent with the rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). Internationally there is growing consideration of how local government does and could promote and protect fundamental rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felony disenfranchisement in the United States</span> Prohibiting criminals from voting in elections in the United States

In the United States, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens. As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. As suffrage rights are generally bestowed by state law, state felony disenfranchisement laws also apply to elections to federal offices.

Prisoners in New Zealand are afforded numerous, but not all, human rights. Criticisms by a United Nations report in 2014 highlighted various issues that constitute ill-treatment of prisoners, such as remand prisoners being routinely held on lock-down for 19 hours per day, an increasingly strict prison regime, and the mixing of adult and youth prisoners.

<i>Taylor v Attorney-General</i> New Zealand High Court judgment

Taylor v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1706 is a New Zealand High Court judgment which made a formal declaration that a statute that prohibited prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The action was brought by Arthur Taylor, a high-profile prison inmate. This was the first time a court had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act states, "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In his decision, Justice Heath declared that the Electoral Amendment Act 2010 which stripped all voting rights in general elections from prisoners was an unjustified limitation on the right to vote contained in s 12 of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision after the Attorney-General appealed the jurisdiction of the courts to make declarations of inconsistency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010</span>

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, now repealed, was an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that denied parole to repeat violent offenders, and imposed maximum terms of imprisonment on repeat offenders who commit three serious violent offences - unless it would be manifestly unjust. The law was known informally in New Zealand public, media and government circles as the "three-strikes law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Act 2022</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Amendment Act 2022 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that will provide a regulation-making power to set up safe areas around specific abortion facilities on a case-by-case basis. The Bill passed its third reading on 16 March 2022 and received royal assent on 18 March.

<i>Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General</i> 2022 New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General is a 2022 landmark decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in which the court held that the country's current voting age of 18 was discriminatory. The court found that the provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 and Local Electoral Act 2001 that set the voting age of 18 years was an unjustified limitation on the right to be free from age discrimination in section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA).

References

  1. 1 2 3 Electoral Act 1993, s 80(1)(d)
  2. 1 2 Scotcher, Katie (25 June 2020). "Prisoner voting bill passes in chaotic night at Parliament". RNZ. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
  3. ↑ New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, s 8
  4. ↑ Qualification of Electors Act 1879, s 2(4)
  5. ↑ Electoral Act 1905, s 29(1)
  6. ↑ Electoral Act 1956, s 42(1)(b).
  7. ↑ Electoral Amendment Act 1975, s 18(2)
  8. ↑ Electoral Amendment Act 1977, s 5
  9. 1 2 New Zealand Parliament, Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill Information Page Wellington. Retrieved on 12 April 2015
  10. ↑ Clayton Cosgrove (20 October 2010) 667 NZPD 14689
  11. ↑ New Zealand Parliament, Law and Order Select Committee Information Page Wellington. Retrieved on 23 April 2015
  12. ↑ New Zealand Parliament, Justice and Electoral Select Committee Information page, Wellington. Retrieved on 23 April 2015
  13. ↑ See Patrick Fitzgerald "Submission to the Law and Order Select Committee on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill 2010" at [3]
  14. ↑ Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010, s 2
  15. ↑ Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010, s 6
  16. ↑ "Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill- Third Reading".
  17. ↑ Jonathon Young (20 Oct 2010) 667 NZPD 14689
  18. ↑ Geddis, Andrew (2011). "Prisoner Voting and Rights Deliberation: How New Zealand's Parliament Failed". New Zealand Law Review (3): 467.
  19. ↑ New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 7
  20. ↑ Christopher Finlayson (17 March 2010). Report of the Attorney-General Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill
  21. ↑ Finlayson, 2010 p. 2
  22. ↑ New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 5
  23. 1 2 3 Finlayson, 2010 p. 3
  24. ↑ Geddis, 2011 p. 444
  25. ↑ Lianne Dalziel (21 April 2010) 662 NZPD 10341
  26. ↑ Charles Chauvel (21 April 2010) 662 NZPD 10343
  27. ↑ Electoral Act 1993, s 80(1)(c)
  28. ↑ Electoral Enrolment Centre "Submission to the Law and Order Select Committee on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill 2010" at 2.2
  29. ↑ Chris Hipkins (21 April 2010) 662 NZPD 10348
  30. ↑ EEC, at 2.2
  31. ↑ Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill (117-1) (Select Committee Report) at 3
  32. ↑ Taylor v Attorney-General[2014] NZHC 2225
  33. ↑ Taylor at [13]
  34. ↑ Taylor at [14]-[15]
  35. ↑ Taylor at [79] and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 4
  36. 1 2 Taylor at [79]
  37. 1 2 Taylor at [80]
  38. ↑ "Taylor at [1]" (PDF).
  39. ↑ "Taylor at NZCA 215" (PDF).
  40. ↑ "Taylor at NZSC 104".
  41. ↑ "Waitangi Tribunal Decision Wai 2472, Wai 2842, and Wai 2867" (PDF).
  42. ↑ Little, Andrew (23 November 2019). "Prisoner voting rights to be restored ahead of the 2020 General Election". Beehive.govt.nz (Press release). New Zealand Government. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
  43. ↑ Christian, Harrison (23 November 2019). "Prisoner voting rights to be restored ahead of 2020 election". Stuff.co.nz . Retrieved 24 November 2019.
  44. ↑ "Justice Minister announces prisoners serving less than three years in jail will have voting rights restored". Radio New Zealand . 23 November 2019. Retrieved 24 November 2019.
  45. ↑ Sherman, Maki (23 November 2019). "Exclusive: Government to restore prisoner voting rights in time for 2020 Election". 1 News . Retrieved 24 November 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.