CIVICUS discusses New Zealand’s new electoral law with Lara Greaves, a political scientist at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, who specialises in democracy, Māori political participation and human rights.

New Zealand’s parliament recently passed controversial changes to the electoral rules that could disenfranchise over 100,000 people. The changes include closing voter registration 13 days before elections, reinstating a blanket prisoner-voting ban and restricting free food and entertainment near polling places. Critics argue these measures disproportionately target excluded communities, particularly Asian, Māori and Pacific Islander people, undermining democratic participation.

What changes does this electoral law introduce and why are they problematic?

The new electoral law introduces several restrictions and procedural hurdles that may seem technical on paper but directly limit political participation in practice. For instance, it shortens the timeframe for enrolment and voting, which disproportionately affects people with fewer resources or inflexible schedules. It also strips back prisoner voting rights, excluding yet another group from political life.

Instead of empowering excluded communities, the law discourages their participation altogether. Communities that are already facing structural disadvantages – Māori, Pacific Island, migrant, disabled and low-income people – will be hit the hardest. The groups most in need of a stronger voice are being pushed further to the margins.

For many, this isn’t just a neutral reform but a calculated political strategy. By reshaping the electorate in ways that weaken progressive-leaning groups, the government is manipulating outcomes under the guise of technical change. It’s a serious setback for New Zealand’s democratic tradition.

How does this law conflict with New Zealand’s constitutional framework and international obligations?

This law undermines the Bill of Rights and the constitution. By removing or restricting access to voting, the government compromises the right to political participation, a freedom both documents recognise as fundamental.

This law also breaches the Treaty of Waitangi, which recognises Māori authority over their affairs and guarantees them the rights of all citizens, including equal political participation. By passing reforms that restrict Māori voting, the government is disregarding its treaty obligations. Legal scholars and community leaders have already announced that claims will be taken to the Waitangi Tribunal, which investigates potential breaches of the treaty’s principles.

On the international stage, these reforms clash with human rights standards New Zealand has long promoted. The government is chipping away at the reputation it built as a global defender of democracy, sending the message that some voices at home simply matter less.

How has civil society responded to these changes?

The backlash was immediate. Civil society organisations, academics, unions and left-wing parties have come together to oppose the bill. Many see it not just as a bad electoral reform but as part of a broader pattern of hostility towards rights. Over the past year, there have been frequent attacks on the Māori language, cultural recognition and education, and this electoral law is the most serious escalation so far.

The Māori Party has been actively mobilising, framing the bill as an attempt to suppress Māori political voice. Leaders emphasise that it compounds longstanding socioeconomic barriers that already limit participation, turning what could have been a technical discussion into a confrontation over racial inequality and structural discrimination.

At the same time, fatigue is a real challenge. While Māori communities are drawing on a long history of resistance and using this moment to reaffirm their political rights, many people just feel exhausted from having to constantly resist new restrictive measures.

What are the bill’s prospects?

With its current majority, the government has the numbers to pass the bill and its approval seems almost certain. However, politics can shift quickly. If Labour wins the next election, repealing this reform will likely be at the top of its agenda, and civil society will push to make sure it’s treated as a priority by any future government.

In the meantime, advocacy is moving on two fronts. At home, organisations are focusing on awareness campaigns to help people navigate the new rules and building coalitions among affected communities. Abroad, activists are working to gain international attention. Exposure of these changes in global media challenges New Zealand’s self-image and increases pressure on the government.

Ultimately, this struggle is about more than a single law. It is about safeguarding the principle that democracy belongs to everyone. This law has reminded people that rights are never secure unless they are actively defended.