An Electoral Review Panel may recommend it, but the National Party insists it still won't support reducing the voting age to 16.
National's opposition means the super majority of 75% needed for this reform would not be obtainable in parliament.
National is, however, withholding comment on most aspects of the full set of electoral reform proposals, of which the voting age is just a small part.
The proposed reforms were developed by a six-person Independent Electoral Review Panel, chaired by the lawyer and director, Deborah Hart.
Besides giving people the right to vote at the age of 16, it suggests reducing the threshold for parties to enter parliament from 5% of the party vote to 3.5%. In addition, the panel says the Waka Jumping legislation should be reversed.
It adds there should be strict controls on financial donations to political parties which would be augmented by some state funding for parties. Prisoners would also have right to vote.
The public are being asked for feedback on these ideas and the full report will be ready by November.
Asked to comment on this lengthy suite of proposed reforms, the National leader Christopher Luxon says there are far more important things to talk about right now.
"I am not supportive of lowering the (voting ) age, and I am not supporting of extending (voting rights) to prisoners, but that is not the issue at the moment for New Zealanders," he says.
"Right now, Kiwis want to know what we are doing about the cost of living, and what we are doing to deliver better health and education and law and order.
"Electoral reform is not the priority right now, New Zealand is in crisis and it needs to get back on track."
Meanwhile Prime Minister Chris Hipkins is withholding judgement on most aspects of the panel's report.
"There are clearly some issues where we have said it will be difficult to progress them, the voting age for example.
"I am not sure there will be a super majority in parliament in the forseeable future, so I am not sure there is much point in talking a lot about that.
"Issues around whether there should be a longer (parliamentary) term, that is a matter for New Zealanders, not for parliament, in my view."
On the question of donations to political parties, Hipkins says his Government has already made this matter far more transparent. And on the questions of capping donations, as is proposed by the panel, Hipkins says Labour will be working out a position on this and presenting it to the public at the next election.
Meanwhile, the Act Party is adamant in its opposition to the panel's ideas, and its leader David Seymour says the review has been presented in a biased manner.
"I think it is a total waste of time, it is supposed to be independent review but its chair (Deborah Hart) was campaigning (in favour) on the radio like a populist politician," he says.
"I heard the chair on the radio this morning riffing and rhyming and campaigning as though she is somehow running for office."
Seymour then goes on to attack the entire suite of proposals.
"None of the recommendations deal with the problems that New Zealand is facing today," he says.
"It is just a grab bag of Green Party policies that won't make anyone's life better anytime soon or in the long term."
Seymour concedes his party did not put in suggestions to the review when it was being formulated, but says that was because the electoral system did not need to undergo major change in the first place.
One exception would be having a referendum on a four year term which he says he is campaigning for already.
Meanwhile, the chairperson of the panel, Deborah Hart, is rejecting Seymour's allegation of partiality on her part.
And she adds she is not campaigning for the proposals her team has come up with.
"This review is not about me, I am certainly not campaigning, and it's not about me.
"The Independent Electoral Review Panel has really been about ensuring our electoral system is fair and clear and more acceptable, so more people can take part.
"We have really been seeking some guiding principles....to ensure the rules are clear and consistent and to make sure we have an effective Government and an effective and representative parliament.
"It is not about me, it is about our electoral system."
Meanwhile, the Green Party is enthusiastically endorsing all the ideas of the panel.
Its Justice and Electoral Reform spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman says the proposed changes should be introduced in their entirety.
"We need to take party politics out of electoral reform. The current rules ....have always been in favour of the big parties, so we really do need to take these independent recommendations seriously."
Some changes to electoral law, such as votes for 16 year olds, need a super majority and have been voted down before.
Ghahraman concedes this constitutional convention presents a big hurdle, but she insists it does not invalidate the whole suite of changes unveiled by the panel.
"For many of the recommendations, we only need a bare majority (in parliament). For example, prisoner voting was taken away by a member's bill, the political funding reforms like capping.......can be done by Government."
The Opportunities Party says it is very pleased with the proposals, saying they will strengthen this country's democracy and its electoral system, and follow international best practice.
“At the heart of a strong democracy is fairness," says the leader of The Opportunities Party, Raf Manji.
"It ensures that every citizen’s voice is heard and that the electoral process reflects the will of the people.
“The current 5% threshold is simply undemocratic. Our electoral system undermines the sacred principle that every vote counts - and at the last election 7.9% of voters were not represented in Parliament because they voted for parties who did not make the threshold. That must change.”
Business New Zealand is not commenting on these proposed reforms.
But the Council of Trade Unions supports many of them, especially lowering the voting age.
It says people aged 16 can work and pay taxes, so should have some say in how the country is managed.
23 Comments
I think many people vote against the party that least aligns with there views. Anyway I am not sure if I would like the threshold reduced it gives to much power to small parties. But then again every ones vote should count. I would much prefer a ranked system where everyone could freely vote for the party they preferred most, while still effectively blocking the parties they disliked the most.
My political preference is not binary and my vote should reflect that.
If he wins Ilam. I'm an Ilam boy through and through (grew up there, voted there for most of my adult life until I moved away recently). He's definitely got brand recognition and he actually did well as an independent at one point, but Ilam is blue through and through apart from the aberration that was 2020. The Labour MP is nowhere to be seen ... does she even exist?
Don't forget as well there are plenty of people in Ilam with big houses (or, more accurately, big patches of land) who might be feeling a bit sick when they plug their address into the TOP tax calculator and find out that young Raf reckons they should cough up just on the unrealised, decreed value of the land they may have lived upon for yonks and have no intention of selling. It's a hard sell, for example, to the retiree brigade down at Bakermans cafe that they should rack up some massive deferred tax bill that presumably comes off their kids' inheritance.
I know on Interest.co.nz an LVT is the solution to all of society's ills, but many people don't see it that way and convincing them otherwise could be an uphill battle - particularly in an electorate like Ilam.
What he should be doing is getting on the phone to Chippy to work a wee deal out. The current Labour MP is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike, and Raf would be a better voice for Ilam in the sense that at least he seems to put in work, but I suspect Labour will win enough of the vote that could go to TOP that it will split that voting bloc.
All well and dandy give the 16 yrs old the vote. But it comes Wirth responsibilities if you break the law you go to jail if there is a war you go fight. Actually they could use the right to vote at that age to better society gob forbide they could say you must hold down a job or be at school to be able to cast your vote. Until you are 18 then there is no restrictions. Oh how the great unwashed would seethe at those rules
More time/money wasting... Who can I vote for that that gets people out of hotels and the tax payer off picking up the tab for said hotel bills. As a swing voter Im only voting in regards to this issue this year and the smaller parties are really peeing into the wind here..
It shouldn't be up to politicians of the day to decide what is best for democracy. National and ACT should not be able to stand in the way of what is best for democracy overall.
The legislation should be changed so the electoral commission, as an independent body, has the right to set what is best for democracy after it has consulted with the community.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.