The Board members of the UNITED VOICE Community Trust, a platform of over 100 organizations held a meeting last week, to have a detailed discussion on the Electoral Reform Recommendations by Independent Review Panel. (Link provided below).

https://electoralreview.govt.nz/about-us/independent-review-panel/

In response to the feedback invited on the matter, a collective response was drafted and submitted by UNITED VOICE team to strongly oppose some of the recommendations made by the independent review panel, mentioned under "Voter Eligibility" Clause -22 in particular which stipulates that,

" Permanent residents, which for electoral purposes means someone living in Aotearoa New Zealand who can stay here indefinitely, may vote after living in Aotearoa New Zealand for a year. We recommend extending this period to one electoral cycle, to provide enough time to establish a sufficient connection to Aotearoa New Zealand. The amount of time that permanent residents can spend overseas without losing the right to vote should stay at 12 months"

The Organization members are of the view that this recommendation is made on the false premise that new migrants who gain permanent residency status need extended periods of stay to prove their connection to Aotearoa New Zealand. There are some considerations to be taken into account such as:

A) A vast majority of the permanent residents come from the pool of workers who have already lived and stayed in the country for years and years before gaining residency status. Only a small minority gains residency from offshore based on their credentials. As such it will be unfair to devoid the vast majority of their right to vote given that they contribute to the economy substantially.

B) Majority of the permanent residents are Taxpayers and fulfill all obligations as a resident of this country. The robust immigration process of granting residency is based on character requirements besides other qualifications. As such, doubting their eligibility and affiliation to NZ is demeaning and derogatory. The ethnic residents are fully aware of their voting rights and under democracy, they are entitled to enjoy their voting rights at par with the other eligible citizens/residents, given that the government policies have an equal impact on everyone's livelihood, irrespective of their residential status.

C) There is a major push throughout the globe in favor of strengthening democratic values in the countries where democracy thrives. Such recommendations undermine our commitment and resolve to work in the right direction & actually raise a serious concern over our intentions to promote democratic values.

D) Further, Clause 19 of the "Voter's Eligibility" refers to voting rights by stating :

"The right to vote is a fundamental right, recognized and protected by international and New Zealand law. Having reviewed the evidence before us, we recommend lowering the voting age to 16. The small risk of giving the vote to some young people who may not be ready to exercise that right is outweighed by the potential benefits of enfranchising those who are ready."

Whereas lowering the age to 16 is seen as a small risk, it is surprising that the imagination of " permanent residents having weaker connections" is seen as a bigger risk, the fact is that a vast majority of the permanent residents choose NZ as their destination place and come here to live forever.

E) It is also interesting to see another recommendation made by the Independent Review team, under R18 which states that :

"R18- Extending the time that New Zealand citizens can spend overseas without losing the right to vote to two electoral cycles”

If one has to look at these two recommendations in tandem, it would imply that "Offshore New Zealand Citizens have stronger connections compared to the Onshore permanent residents". Such a wide contrast between these two recommendations not only surprises the reader but also raises doubt on the level of understanding of context in which these proposals have been made.

It is in the context of these facts that the members believe that the recommendation as per Clause -22 are unfair and would potentially discriminate against a major section of the adult ethnic population in New Zealand. A submission has been made to electoral body out rightly rejecting Clause -22 and requesting its removal even before the document is tabled in the next stage of discussions.

© Scoop Media