High Court urged to acknowledge Bill of Rights breach in recent electoral changes

Courts do not need to declare recent electoral changes breach the Bill of Rights, because any future government would already know, according to the Crown.But Christopher Carrol - who is seeking a declaration of inconsistency in the High Court regarding the government's controversial 13-day voter enrolment deadline - says given the concession from the Crown the Bill of Rights had been breached, there was a need for the court to both acknowledge and respond in some manner.Justice David Boldt, presiding over the case, said he would not be silent on the "seriousness" of the breach: "The only question is whether that needs to be a declaration, or whether something… a bit lower voltage will do the trick."Peter Gunn, representing the Attorney-General, said Carrol's argument was "unconvincing"."What is the court actually going to be telling Parliament, even a new Parliament, that it doesn't already know?" he said.Justice Boldt also asked what "value" it would add to tell Parliament something it "plainly already knows", given the law was passed knowing it breached the Bill of Rights.Parliament's "eyes were wide open, and it made that decision anyway", he said.Justice Boldt was concerned about "potential eye rolling" on the part of the Parliament, but indicated he was "certainly not going to remain silent about the breach or the seriousness of it".The case was heard at the Wellington High Court on Monday and focused on the Electoral Amendment Act, which among other things ends same-day voter enrolment and requires people to enroll at least 13 days before the election.The legislation was found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and the changes to enrolments could prevent 100,000 or more people from voting.The Government said the bill would improve the timeliness, efficiency and integrity of elections.The Electoral Commission has said official election results would not be available any sooner based on changes, but Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith argued without any changes, it could get worse.Carroll, a law student at Waikato University, wanted the declaration to state the 13-day enrolment deadline was inconsistent with the right to vote in the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) because people will be disenfranchised."It's really important that people hear from the court that a right fundamental to our democracy has been breached by Parliament," he told RNZ."If the court is essentially saying that Parliament hasn't given due weight to the right to vote, then that's an important finding, and I think New Zealanders will see that as an important finding."He was concerned for those people most impacted by the change.Gunn, the Crown lawyer, acknowledged the legislation was not BORA compliant, but noted that did not prevent Parliament from passing laws.In July 2025, then Attorney-General Judith Collins found the bill to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and indicated 100,000 or more people could be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by the rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an election."Taking into account these factors, I conclude the proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA," she wrote in her report, noting Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, and younger people would be more affected by the deadline.Gunn said on Monday the attorney-general's report was accepted by government and formed part of the parliamentary debates on the legislation.Declarations serve as a formal judicial mechanism to show a law infringes on basic rights in a way that can't be justified in a "free and democratic society".Carroll argued the declaration would go before a new parliament and to deny it one would deprive a new Parliament of an "authoritative understanding of the inconsistency and demonstrability of the enrolment deadline in relation to the right to vote".He said he was thinking of the future and how the court's decision informs a future Attorney-General of apparent inconsistency.Gunn said that argument was "unconvincing", and there was no need.Justice Boldt said he likely would not reach a decision ahead of the election, and no decision would have an impact on the law itself.Minister for Justice Paul Goldsmith has been approached for comment.