The Referendums Framework Act 2025 provides a single, comprehensive framework for holding one or more referendums alongside the first and second general elections after commencement. It prescribes how referendums are declared (Order in Council), how voters mark ballots (first‑past‑the‑post with a single tick per option), how papers are handled and counted, and how results are declared.
The Act also imposes a detailed regime for referendum advertising: definitions of advertisements and expenses, promoter registration and public registers, expense limits and returns, recordkeeping, and criminal and civil penalties for breaches. It creates a petition route to the High Court (200 electors threshold) and gives the Governor‑General power to validate procedural irregularities except where the High Court finds material effect on the result.
At a Glance
What It Does
Declares referendums by Order in Council and requires they be held on general election polling day using a first‑past‑the‑post ballot (one tick per option). It separates referendum ballot handling from candidate ballots for counting and centralises result determination in the Electoral Commission.
Who It Affects
Electoral Commission staff, returning officers and polling officials, registered and unregistered referendum promoters (including advertisers and their agencies), domestic campaign groups (overseas promoters are ineligible), and any group considering a High Court petition challenging results.
Why It Matters
The Act bundles voting rules, operational procedures, advertising limits, transparency obligations, and enforcement into one temporary statute—shaping how political speech is financed and policed during referendums conducted with national polls and setting compliance priorities for campaigns and administrators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act creates a purpose-built process for referendums held with the next two general elections after it comes into force. A referendum becomes subject to the Act when the Governor‑General, on the Minister’s recommendation, issues an Order in Council that both declares the referendum and sets the question wording and available options.
The law requires the referendum to occur on polling day for the designated general election and treats referendum voting, in many respects, like the polling for that election while carving out specific procedural differences.
Voting and counting are straightforward on paper but precise in practice. The Act mandates first‑past‑the‑post: voters place a single tick next to the chosen option; the option with the most valid votes wins.
Returning officers and polling‑place managers appointed under the Electoral Act 1993 administer referendums alongside the general election but must separate referendum papers from candidate ballots during preliminary procedures and forward referendum papers to returning officers for a stand‑alone count in the presence of a Justice of the Peace. Returning officers return local counts to the Electoral Commission, which aggregates totals, declares results in the Gazette and must do so by the latest day for the return of the writ for that election.Advertising and financial transparency receive detailed treatment.
The Act defines what counts as a referendum advertisement and what costs are referendum expenses, extends the regulated period used for general elections to referendums, and requires promoters who cross registration thresholds to register with the Electoral Commission. Registered promoters must keep records, file returns if expenses exceed a set threshold, and may be required to obtain an auditor’s report.
The Act sets maximum expense limits tied to the Electoral Act 1993 formulas, creates a public register of promoters and public inspection of returns, and prescribes criminal and civil penalties for illegal or corrupt practices, including substantial fines and, for corrupt practices, possible imprisonment.Where results are contested, the Act channels challenges to the High Court. A group of at least 200 electors may petition within a tight statutory window to allege that the declared result was wrong or materially affected by irregularities; the court can recount, adjust totals, or declare the referendum void.
If voided, the Act requires a fresh referendum within set timing parameters using the same roll. Separately, the Governor‑General has a regulated power to validate procedural irregularities, but that power cannot be used to cure irregularities the High Court finds materially affected the result.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act requires referendums held under it to use first‑past‑the‑post: each elector ticks one option and the option with the most votes wins.
A promoter is ineligible for registration if they are an 'overseas person' (reside outside New Zealand and are not a citizen or registered elector, or their organisation is headquartered overseas).
Registered promoters whose regulated‑period expenses in relation to a referendum exceed $100,000 must file a return within 70 working days of the referendum.
A petition to the High Court challenging a referendum result must be brought by at least 200 electors and filed within 28 days of the Gazette notice declaring the result.
The Act treats serious breaches as 'corrupt practices' punishable by up to 2 years’ imprisonment and fines up to $100,000; many other violations attract fines up to $40,000.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Scope, purpose, and commencement
Part 1 sets the Act’s short title, immediate commencement on the day after Royal assent, and an express repeal date (close of 31 October 2031). It limits application to referendums held at the first or second general election after commencement, defines key terms by reference to the Electoral Act 1993, and makes the Act bind the Crown—so governmental actors are expressly caught by its duties and restrictions.
How referendums are declared and the voting system
Section 8 makes an Order in Council the trigger that converts a referendum required under another Act into one governed by this Act; the Order must specify question wording, options, and which general election will carry the referendum. Section 11 fixes first‑past‑the‑post for referendum questions, concretely defining that electors cast a single vote and the highest‑vote option wins, removing preferential or alternative counting methods.
Operational rules: issuing, separating and counting referendum papers
Polling staff use the same personnel and polling places as general elections but follow special handling: issuing officers give a referendum voting paper alongside the ballot paper; managers separate referendum papers when unsealing boxes; returned referendum papers are parcelled and sent to returning officers; and counts are conducted in the presence of a Justice of the Peace. The Electoral Commission aggregates district returns, publishes totals in the Gazette by the latest return‑of‑writ day, and may declare results for multiple referendums separately within that period.
Challenging results and ordering fresh referendums
The Act channels challenges to the High Court via a petition brought by 200+ electors on limited grounds (wrong result or material irregularity) with specified filing and registry rules. The High Court can recount, adjust totals, or void the referendum. If voided, the Registrar notifies the Commission and the Governor‑General must, by Order in Council, appoint a fresh referendum date within statutory limits and require use of the same electoral roll.
Referendum advertising: definitions, registration, accounting and returns
This extensive Part defines 'referendum advertisement,' 'referendum expenses' and 'regulated period' (aligned with the general election regulated period), sets who may promote ads and when registration is required, and creates a public register of promoters. It prescribes how to count joint and jointly promoted advertisements for expense allocation, obliges recordkeeping (retention periods), requires promoter statements on ads, sets return thresholds and timelines (including audit powers), and makes returns publicly inspectable for six years.
Enforcement, offences, and administrative duties
The Act retools many Electoral Act 1993 offences for referendums, establishes illegal and corrupt practices with steep penalties (fines, imprisonment for corrupt practices), creates time limits for prosecutions, and requires the Electoral Commission to report suspected offences to Police (subject to a public‑interest discretion). It also grants regulation‑making powers to declare classes of ads out of scope and to prescribe forms and administrative details.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters — receive a clear, standardised process: a single voting paper, a simple first‑past‑the‑post choice, and statutory timelines for official results.
- Electoral Commission — gains explicit authority to determine aggregate results, maintain a public register of promoters, require audited returns, and coordinate enforcement and publication duties.
- Domestic campaign organisations and advertisers — get legal clarity on who must register, what counts as referendum expenses, and how joint or cross‑referendum advertisements are apportioned, enabling budgeting and compliance planning.
- High Court — receives a defined judicial route for contesting results, with specified grounds, procedures and powers to recount or void a referendum, creating a clear dispute resolution path.
Who Bears the Cost
- Registered and unregistered promoters — face compliance costs (registration, records, returns, possible audits) and potential liability for fines or criminal charges if they breach expense or disclosure rules.
- Electoral Commission and returning officers — absorb administrative overheads for new registers, public inspections, auditing requests, segregated handling and counting of referendum papers, and reporting obligations to Police.
- Government (public purse) — may bear the cost of holding referendums alongside elections and the expense of ordering and conducting a fresh referendum if the High Court voids results.
- Media and advertising agencies — must adjust practices to meet promoter‑statement requirements, apportionment rules for joint ads, and retain invoices/receipts for significant payments, increasing compliance burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between administrative efficiency and democratic safeguards: the Act makes it easier to run referendums alongside general elections and to police money and speech through registration, returns and criminal sanctions—but those same controls concentrate discretion in executive and administrative actors, risk chilling legitimate advocacy, and create procedural traps for smaller participants that may undermine the inclusive debate referendums are meant to foster.
The Act concentrates several powerful and operationally sensitive tools in administrative and executive hands. The Governor‑General’s Order‑in‑Council mechanism decides which referendums fall under the Act and can validate irregularities retrospectively; the Electoral Commission aggregates results, maintains registers, and initiates referrals to Police.
That configuration speeds administration but raises questions about checks and transparency around validation and the interaction between executive remedial powers and judicial review.
The advertising and expense counting rules are detailed but complex. Joint advertisements (election plus referendum, or multiple referendums) require expense apportionment that can produce double‑counting risks or inconsistent attribution between election law and referendum law.
Small groups face perverse incentives: the distinction between registered and unregistered promoters hinges on expense thresholds and residency, which could encourage organisational fragmentation or lead campaigns to outsource advertising in ways that complicate enforcement. Finally, tight filing windows and multi‑year record retention increase the compliance load on civil society groups and media suppliers, while the prosecutorial time limits and broad penalties may chill political expression in edge cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.