Mr. Ian Power:

As regards how the money in New Zealand is spent, the New Zealand Electoral Commission has 25 permanent staff and the majority of the budget is related to enrolment services. It outsources updating of the electoral register to the postal service in New Zealand. The 25 permanent staff make up one-third of its budget, which is around NZ$6 million.

From our perspective, we would see the electoral commission investing a sizeable proportion of its budget in information technology, seeking to streamline the registration process online. For a start, that might include uploading scanned documents online so that people can get the form, fill it out and upload it. That is what the New Zealand Electoral Commission does for its citizens abroad. That is one of the innovations available.

In New Zealand, they also have something called "real me" whereby a person can verify their identity online for a range of public services. We currently do not have that but it has to start somewhere. Through the electoral commission, we could potentially start that process of being able to verify one's identity online for use in a variety of ways for public services.

A huge spend would be needed on engaging with marginalised or target groups, particularly young people and those from migrant communities. As my colleague from TCD students' union, Mr. McGlacken-Byrne, said, it is hard to assess the effect of the youth vote on sustaining the marriage equality referendum, given that the referendum was about an issue which people could connect to in their lives. That potentially differentiated it from previous referendums which were about Oireachtas inquiries and judges' pay, matters that are not particularly interesting for, or relevant to, young people. From a politician's perspective the challenge will be to relate to young people, speak to their issues, address their concerns, and ensure that election promises are kept. That is very important to young people.

The National Youth Council of Ireland has done a lot of work on supporting votes at 16 years of age. We support the idea that young people should get involved in the civic process earlier. We view CSP as quite a superficial treatment of civic education. There is no argument against 16-year-olds engaging in the civic process.