DON BRASH: Is the Electoral Commission no longer neutral?

Outrageous.

That was the first word that came to mind when a supporter sent me a copy of an email they had received from the Electoral Commission. This is the Commission that is meant to be impeccably neutral, non-partisan, and completely removed from political advocacy.

A supporter recently applied to become an Election Day volunteer. Like thousands of New Zealanders, he was keen to help out by handing out voting papers, assisting with the count, and supporting the electoral process. It is a role many Kiwis have performed in every election cycle. This time, however, something has changed.

And it is not a minor change. It is an outrageous one.

The Electoral Commission is now insisting that anyone wishing to be involved in this election must, in its own words, "agree to learn about our values and grow your knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the workplace".

You read that correctly.

The body that is supposed to be scrupulously neutral is taking a very clear position on the Treaty of Waitangi. Make no mistake: this is a political position, right down to the use of the term Te Tiriti o Waitangi rather than the Treaty of Waitangi.

Anyone offering their services must go through an interview process, and at this stage applicants are required to agree to these conditions. In reality, they are not being asked. They are being compelled.

Learning about the Treaty of Waitangi has absolutely nothing to do with administering an election. It has nothing to do with voting, issuing ballot papers, counting votes, or reporting results. It plays no role in the practical tasks Election Day workers are being asked to perform.

Instead, this looks like an attempt to impose a particular ideological viewpoint. The goodwill of New Zealanders who simply want to help uphold our democratic process is being used as a vehicle for compulsory cultural and political education. Before being allowed to help run an election, volunteers are effectively expected to demonstrate acceptance of a position that has no direct connection to the role itself.

That is unacceptable.

We want to see immediate action from both the Electoral Commission and the Government. This kind of race-based political conditioning has no place in the public service, in professional organisations, and certainly not within the Electoral Commission.

As you know, we have recently been campaigning for the Government to adopt a Political Neutrality Bill through our Professionals Not Politicians campaign.

Across many professional associations, whether in real estate, medicine, architecture, or law, people are increasingly being required to accept particular political and cultural viewpoints through codes of conduct, training programmes, and professional standards. Freedom of conscience and the right to hold differing political views are being steadily eroded.

As people such as Janet Dickson discovered, professionals can find themselves facing a stark choice: embrace a particular interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi or risk losing their licence and livelihood.

It is entirely inappropriate that professional bodies can effectively pressure their members into accepting politically contentious positions as a condition of maintaining their careers.

The fact that the Electoral Commission has now joined this trend should concern every New Zealander.

It remains deeply troubling that the very institution responsible for safeguarding the integrity and neutrality of our electoral system is willing to compromise that neutrality by imposing a programme centred on political and cultural concepts that are unrelated to the practical administration of elections.

That is why this issue deserves scrutiny, public debate, and immediate action.

The above was written in Don's capacity as a Hobson's Pledge Trustee