MURIEL NEWMAN: Election Concerns

Last week I received an email from a colleague expressing outrage over his experience with the Electoral Commission.

The Electoral Commission is, of course, the independent Crown Entity tasked with running New Zealand’s General Elections. Since most of us are aware of the agency through the quirky antics of the “orange man” and his “orange dog”, let’s take a deeper dive to examine how they operate.

According to their website, they not only run our parliamentary elections and keep our electoral rolls up to date, but they also “work to provide an effective and impartial electoral system that New Zealanders understand and trust.”

Maintaining confidence in the electoral system is a key responsibility: “To keep confidence in the electoral system, we stay neutral, uphold and follow electoral law and work independently from government.”

All of this is what New Zealanders should expect from the organisation that runs our elections, which is why the outraged email was so unexpected.

I’ll let this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Dr Barend Vlaardingerbroek, a retired Professor of Education, tell the story:

“My wife urged me to apply for a job with the Electoral Commission for the upcoming elections. I’m rather limited in what I can do with regards to mobility, but I can be pretty handy sitting at a desk and doing some serious number-crunching or other administrative tasks. I was an Area Supervisor for the 1980 PNG National Population Census which involves admin skills similar to those required to run an election. So I went on-line and completed a form, stipulating that I was after a part-time position at the local elections HQ.

“A few days later, I received an email inviting me to an interview. The message contained the following: ‘At the interview, you will be asked… to agree to learn about our values and grow your knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the workplace…’

“‘To agree to learn about our values’…… Um, are we on about professionalism and integrity here? I have those already, I don’t need to ‘learn’ about them. In fact it’s just a wee bit offensive to suggest that I need ‘educating’ in those.

“But then the punchline: ‘…grow your knowledge of ToW in the workplace.’

“Now what in the blazes could a mid-19thC treaty (using the term loosely, as it did not meet the requirements of international law) between the British Empire and some chiefs of neolithic tribes have to do with running a 21stC national election the likes of which didn’t even exist in 1840?

“Answer: ZILCH. It’s just another opportunity for the ‘treaty’ zealots to have a crack at indoctrinating a captive audience.”

Indeed, Treaty zealots have been having a field day in New Zealand over the last nine years, as public institutions have been forced to embrace “Te Tiriti” – an extremist fabrication of the Treaty that’s been weaponised by separatists to deliver co-governance, partnership, and a Maori world view.

But here’s the real question: How can it be appropriate that the Electoral Commission — a public sector agency that’s meant to be politically neutral and independent of Government policy — entrenches the highly political doctrine of “Te Tiriti” and the values of Tuhonohono, Arataki, Uakaha, Manaaki, and Tika, and requires staff to demonstrate allegiance?

Since Te Tiriti underpins a radical Maori sovereignty agenda, wouldn’t embedding it raise concerns about the Commission’s ability to conduct fair elections – in particular, that they might be tempted to turn a blind eye to irregularities lest it offends a “Treaty partner”?

In fact, isn’t that what happened at the last election when the Elect­oral Com­mis­sion chose not to refer alleg­a­tions of “treating” by the Manurewa Marae – which was being used as a polling booth and where the Chief Executive was standing as a candidate for the Maori Party – to the Police, even though voters were being offered free hangi, dough­nuts, hot chocol­ate, coffee and even ice cream?

While that’s an important question, so too is a more fundamental one: Why is the Electoral Commission still pushing Labour Party ideology, when the new Government rejected such framing almost three years ago?

Let’s start with asking whether the law allows the Electoral Commission to push a political agenda?

The answer is an emphatic “no”.

According to the Electoral Act 1993, the Electoral Commission was established to “administer the electoral system impartially, efficiently, effectively, and in a way that facilitates participation in parliamentary democracy, promotes understanding of the electoral system, and maintains confidence in the administration of the electoral system.”

It states in section 7: “The Electoral Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties, and exercising its statutory powers, under this Act.”

Furthermore, the Electoral Commission is categorised as an “Independent Crown Entity” under Section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, which makes it “independent of government policy”.

That means that while the Ardern Labour Government’s Cabinet Priorities Committee resolution in March 2018, that “building closer partnerships with Maori” would be a priority outcome, triggered a seismic ideological shift across the State Sector led by the Office for Maori Crown Relations working in collaboration with iwi leaders, the Electoral Commission and other Independent Crown Entities were protected from such centralised “partnership” indoctrination by their statute.

To get around this, in 2019 – under the Crown Entities Act 2004 – the Minister of Finance issued Enduring Letters of Expectations to the chairs of all Crown entities to signal the Government’s long‑term priorities. This non-legislative directive from Grant Robertson, which superseded the previous Letter from 2012, effectively politicised the Electoral Commission:

“We expect your entities to embody the Government’s good-faith and collaborative approach to Maori Crown relationships by engaging appropriately with Maori, pursuing further opportunities for partnership with Maori entities, building staff Maori cultural capability including knowledge of tikanga Maori, te ao Maori, New Zealand history and how to address institutional racism, improving the Treaty-consistency of policy and practices, and supporting the revitalisation of te reo Maori.”

Whether it was the result of this directive to proactively adopt what was to become Labour’s He Puapua agenda, or other pressures, Budget 2022 funding enabled the Electoral Commission to appoint a Chief Maori Advisor and two staff as a dedicated team to entrench a Maori strategy and undertake cultural competency training of staff.

The Electoral Commission’s website explains: “Chief Maori Advisor Hone Matthews leads a team which helps embed a Maori worldview throughout the Commission to honour our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Hone’s team are committed to prioritising engagement and partnership with Tangata Whenua to build trust that influences positive long-term participation in Aotearoa’s democracy.”

By establishing a partnership with iwi and adopting a Maori worldview, the Commission has profoundly deviated from its statutory role of administering elections impartially and treating all voters equally. Its use of “Aotearoa” instead of “New Zealand” further signals an activist approach rather than the politically neutral role Parliament requires.

As we now know, the consequences of this shift are visible in the recruitment of election workers, where some job descriptions spell out that successful applicants are required to operate within a Maori cultural framework: “Demonstrate cultural competence by actively incorporating te reo Maori and tikanga Maori in interactions and upholding the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

Others explain: “We have an important role in supporting the Crown in its relationships with Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi.”

So, while the Electoral Commission is meant to be an autonomous statutory authority whose legitimacy depends on its independence from political influence, it appears to see itself as part of the Crown–Maori partnership machinery of Government.

The implications are important. The integrity of an electoral system depends not only on independence and fairness, but on the perception of independence and fairness. Once the Commission embeds a Maori worldview throughout the organisation, it risks eroding confidence amongst voters who expect impartiality.

As the body responsible for safeguarding our democracy, New Zealanders expect the Electoral Commission to stand above politics. But their Maori Strategy challenges that assumption.

Whether or not this has something to do with their declining voter confidence rating is not clear, but according to their 2025 Annual Report, the percentage of surveyed eligible voters who have ‘total or high’ confidence that Electoral Commission staff conduct Parliamentary elections impartially in New Zealand has declined from 71 percent in 2023/24 to 63 percent in 2024/25.

What is clear, however, is that in early 2024, Finance Minister Nicola Willis, issued a new Enduring Letter of Expectations to the board chairs of all statutory Crown Entities including the Electoral Commission, that redirected their focus away from Labour’s prioritisation of the Maori-Crown relationship onto financial restraint, cost-cutting, maximising organisational efficiency, and upholding the principle of political neutrality.

The fact that the Minister’s 2024 Letter was silent on Labour’s Treaty partnership agenda meant that objective was no longer an enduring expectation of the new Government.

Since Crown Entities are expected to align with the priorities expressed in the current Letter, by continuing to promote its Maori strategy, the Electoral Commission has in effect not only thumbed its nose at the Government, but it has also rejected its obligation to uphold its crucial commitment to political neutrality.

Furthermore, by linking “Te Tiriti” explicitly to “our values” in their email to election job applicants, the Electoral Commission is framing the Treaty as an organisational value that staff are expected to internalise. This risks driving away highly capable applicants who respect the statutory electoral framework but reject Treaty indoctrination.

In other words, the Commission’s actions do not align with the Government’s expectations of political neutrality – nor with their removal of Maori-Crown relationship priorities through their 2024 directive. Instead, the perception remains that the Electoral Commission is continuing to operate under Labour’s policy settings.

Following the 2023 General Election, the concerns raised about the performance of the Electoral Commission were so serious that multiple investigations were undertaken into alleged conflicts of interest, miscounts, data‑entry errors, misplaced ballot boxes, inadequate quality‑assurance checks, and an organisational culture that allowed basic safeguards to slip.

Now their Maori strategy and radical recruitment requirements raise concerns about the integrity of the 2026 election.

Has the Electoral Commission made a seriously wrong turn?

It is now up to the Government to determine if anything should be done.

What this whole sorry saga highlights is that the Coalition has not been direct enough when it comes to insisting the State Sector delivers their agenda and not that of the former Government. Because the only explanation for what is going on is that key staff in public institutions like the Electoral Commission, are still committed to delivering the political goals of the exiled Jacinda Ardern.

In effect, that means policy directives, including the Enduring Letter of Expectations, should not only promote the new Government’s agenda, but they should explicitly rule out the previous one.

In other words, the Electoral Commission should have been required to disestablish its Maori strategy in order to focus on political neutrality and equal rights.

This, of course, is exactly what voters expected when they gave a mandate to the Coalition at the last election to remove He Puapua and co-governance. But instead of specifying the necessary steps – namely, the complete de-funding and removal of race‑based programmes in the public sector – the Coalition appeared to assume the bureaucracy would “do the right thing.”

What these concerns over the Electoral Commission have highlighted is not only how deeply entrenched these separatist frameworks have become, but how fiercely the powerful vested interests are resisting disestablishment. That means that if neutrality is to be restored, sweeping structural change is now unavoidable.

Meanwhile the head of the Electoral Commission needs to explain what will be done to ensure the 28,000 New Zealanders applying to help run the 2026 election are not subjected to separatist indoctrination.

This article was first published at NZCPR. Dr Muriel Newman established NZCPR as a public policy think tank in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. A former Chamber of Commerce President, her background is in business and education.