Winston Peters called voting a “privilege” that should be reserved for citizens. Counterpoint: it’s actually our foundational democratic right.
New Zealand First put forward an original idea to fix the country’s problems on Sunday. It wasn’t to do with housing, the health system crisis or even the ungodly price of mince. Instead the party has found a way to reduce the scourge of democracy that’s been troubling this land. “[Voting] should be a privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand, and who have made the commitment to make New Zealand their home and their future,” said party leader Winston Peters, in an announcement in Warkworth. He pledged to restrict the franchise to New Zealand citizens, removing the vote from permanent residents, along with people who have lived in New Zealand for at least a year and are not required to leave within a specific time frame.
Peters isn’t alone in his efforts to reserve voting for the right kinds of people. Tamping down the flickering embers of democracy has been a favourite pastime of the coalition government. In 2025, it banned not just same-day, but almost same-fortnight enrolment, with the Electoral Amendment Act setting the last day for voter registration at 13 days out from the election. It reinstated a total ban on prisoners voting in the same act, reversing past Labour government legislation which extended the franchise to people serving a sentence of three years or less.
At the time, the Electoral Commission estimated the voter registration changes alone would stop 55,000 people from voting at all and more still from casting a ballot for their electorate MP. Justice minister Paul Goldsmith justified the move as an effort to speed up the vote count. But the commission helpfully clarified that the count would take the same length of time, meaning the government’s intervention would simply stop people voting for no appreciable benefit.
Goldsmith’s coalition partners were more direct about the actual motivation behind the restrictions. Act leader David Seymour said they would only impact “dropkicks” who presumably wouldn’t have cast worthwhile votes anyway. His justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson talked up the democratic benefits of widespread disenfranchisement, arguing our political system is more healthy when we exclude those with the temerity to want the wrong kind of policy. “Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously,” he insisted. “It’s outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people’s money away.”
Combined, these comments betray a troubling attitude to democracy. Though Peters described it as a “privilege” to be earned, voting is our most foundational democratic right. As election law expert Andrew Geddis has argued, it has generally been regarded as “a good thing”. It’s not something for politicians to dole out in exchange for good behaviour once you’ve proved you’re not a dropkick, a layabout or someone who might vote for a policy prescription that smells vaguely left-wing.
Some might point out that other countries place stricter limits than us on voting. But that’s both not universally true and not the point. The US may have voter ID laws and increasing restrictions on advance voting but we shouldn’t be clamouring to emulate what’s seen as a “flawed democracy” beset by low turnout rates and a rising tide of authoritarianism. The strongest democracies are generally the ones that view the vote as a necessity to be extended to everyone with a stake in the country, and only taken away for extremely good reason, not as something you get given if you meet the right criteria, with an emphasis on right.
Increasingly, it seems our politicians are getting things backwards, seeing voting as a gift rather than a vital bulwark of society. But we’re meant to pick them. They’re not meant to pick us. There’s a reason they can be classified as public servants. The public are supposed to be their bosses, able to make them redundant every few years if they’re not up to scratch. It shouldn’t be for Peters, Seymour or anyone else to start handpicking the panel assessing their performance. Thankfully, despite the trend, most of us still have a voice. It’s worth having a say while you still can.
