Document 1
1982
ACT
s9(2)(a)
INFORMATION

OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

Document 2
From: Smith, Sheridan
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 3:56 PM
1982
To: s9(2)(a)

Cc: s9(2)(a)
; [email address]; Denoual, Hayley ; Fraser, Shea ; Smith, Sheridan
Subject: BP: Electoral Commission
Kia ora s9(2)(a) ,
ACT
Please find attached the briefing paper on the Electoral Commission.
Happy to discuss, Sheridan
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

1982
Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice
Electoral Commission matters
ACT
Date
21 February 2025
Action Sought
Timeframe
Note the contents of this briefing.
As soon as you are
able
Discuss next steps with officials.
Contacts for telephone discussion (if required)
Name
Position
Phone
1st
contact
Sheridan Smith
General Manager, Strategy,
s9(2)(a)

Performance and Relationships
INFORMATION
Shea Fraser
Principal Advisor, System
s9(2)(a)

Performance and Monitoring
Hayley Denoual
Policy Manager, Democracy and
s9(2)(a)

Open Government
Minister’s office to complete
  Noted
  Approved
  Overtaken by events
  Seen
  Withdrawn
  Not seen by Minister
OFFICIAL
  Referred to:
____________________________________
Minister’s office comments  THE
UNDER
IN CONFIDENCE
RELEASED

Document 2.1
IN CONFIDENCE
1982
Purpose
1.
This briefing provides information and advice on three key matters regarding the Electoral
ACT
Commission (the Commission), including your request for advice on a review or inquiry
and information on other matters which are currently in the public domain:
• The Commission’s selection of Manurewa marae as a voting place and whether an
inquiry is necessary;
• Out of scope
Concerns have been raised about the use of Manurewa marae as a voting place for the 2023
General Election
INFORMATION
2.
As part of the 2023 General Election, the Commission received a small number of
complaints and enquiries from members of the public about the selection of Manurewa
marae as a voting place given the then chief executive was an election candidate.
3.
Prior to its use as a voting place, Manurewa marae was used to assist with Census 2023
data collection and for the provision of COVID vaccines. Al egations that information
collected by the marae was misused for political purposes were investigated by the PSC
inquiry into the protection of personal information. The release of PSC report on
18 February 2025 has resurfaced questions as to the appropriateness of selecting
Manurewa marae as a voting place.
OFFICIAL
4.
Before confirming the use of the marae as a voting place, the Commission sought
assurances that the candidate would not be involved in any way in the voting place. The
Commission secured agreement that the candidate would not enter the voting place other
than to vote and the Commission was provided with an alternative designated contact
person to deal with. This is referred to at page 77 of the Commission Report on the 2023
THE
General Election1.
5.
As part of the Commission’s review of the election, it reflected on those arrangements.
When asked about the arrangements at the Committee hearing on 3 December 2025, the
Chief Electoral Officer accepted that he did not give enough weight to potential conflicts
of interest.
UNDER
1 Report-on-the-2023-General-Election.pdf
RELEASED

6.
The decision on selection of voting venues rests with the Commission. The design of the
process for selection of venues is an operational decision confirmed by the Commission’s1982
Chief Executive. The process includes:
• Analysis by the Local Election Managers of local voting patterns and, population
changes;
ACT
• The Local Election manager prepares a plan for the local election area, looks for
possible voting venues, and undertakes detailed assessments of potential venues
against criteria including accessibility, Health and Safety standards, natural hazard
risks or disruptions, and political neutrality; and
• A list of potential voting places is compiled and sent to all political parties represented
in parliament at the time. Parties can provide feedback and they regularly do so. This
is a process followed by convention.
7.
Following the Commission’s informing political parties of potential voting places in 2023,
one party outlined concerns with the potential use of Manurewa marae as a voting place.
The Commission responded advising of the rationale for its selection. Separately the
Commission engaged with the voting place as noted in paragraph 4.
8.
The appropriateness of the decision to have Manurewa marae as a voting venue has been
scrutinised as part of several review processes. These include:
INFORMATION
• The Commission’s May 2024 post-election report to Parliament;
• The Justice select committee’s (the Committee’s) inquiry into the election; and
• The Committee’s annual review of the Commission.
9.
In line with the Chief Electoral Of icer’s comments, the Committee noted “we consider the
selection of the marae by the Commission to have been unwise”. The Commit ee made
two recommendations relating to the selection of voting places:
OFFICIAL
• We encourage the Electoral Commission to better monitor the connection of polling
sites to particular candidates or political movements and views, and avoid booths on
premises that have direct connections with candidates or parties; and
• Consider stronger restrictions on polling booth sites, for example, requiring them to be
THE
policy- and viewpoint-neutral.
Operational improvements to the guidelines
10.
In line with the Committee’s recommendations and the Commission’s own post-election
report commitments, the Commission has reviewed its voting place selection criteria,
including how conflicts of interest are identified and dealt with. Updated guidelines are
expected to be provided to the Commission Board in April 2025, following which they will
UNDER
be made public. The Commission has also undertaken to strengthen the analysis done by
local election managers on political neutrality.
RELEASED

Document 2.1
Ministry view
1982
11.
Given voting place selection has already been scrutinised as part of several reviews, and
recommendations for improvement are underway, the Ministry does not consider a further
inquiry into the decisions taken in 2023 to be necessary. Given the level of interest in
venue selection process, we recommend you invite the Board to consider how it can seek
independent insight/assurance on the updated guidelines and proposed processes for
ACT
managing conflicts of interest ahead of the 2026 General Election. We will include this in
your upcoming Letter of Expectations which we are preparing for you.
Options to initiate further reviews are available to you
12.
The Ministry is interested in understanding the scope of any review that you may wish to
undertake. We do not consider it necessary to conduct a further review into the selection of
Manurewa marae as a voting venue given previous reviews and work underway to improve
guidelines. It is therefore unclear what the nature and extent of any inquiry would be.
13.
The Ministry also notes concern that such a review may detract Commission's resources
and attention away from planning and preparation for the General Election 2026. This
includes implementing the policy and service delivery changes you have asked the
Commission to focus on to improve timeliness and reduce costs ahead of the next election.
INFORMATION
14.
Should you seek a more formal review of the Commission, including its voting place
decisions, you could direct a narrowly focused, independent, and time-limited review of the
Commission’s decision-making processes regarding voting places. This could provide an
independent, external view of the appropriateness of the Commission’s internal decision-
making processes and provide greater visibility of issues to be remedied ahead of the next
General Election.
15.
You would need to be clear on what the expected outcome of any such review would be
and what it might achieve that hasn’t been canvassed already. The risk here is that the
OFFICIAL
selection of voting places is a statutorily independent function of the Commission and care
must be taken to ensure any review is:
• Conducted at arms-length;
THE
• Avoids any perception of government interference in statutorily independent functions;
and
• Preferably has a statutory basis to ensure its mandate is clear.
16.
If a review was to occur, we recommend it be concluded by September 2025 so that it is
well ahead of the General Election 2026. This timing would also allow any insights from the
review to be factored into the Commission’s voting place selection process for 2026.
UNDER
17.
A review would also need to be scoped carefully to ensure that it takes into account the
Commission’s stated objective under the Electoral Act 1993 “to administer the electoral
system impartially, efficiently, effectively, and in a way that—
(a) facilitates participation in parliamentary democracy; and
(b) promotes understanding of the electoral system and associated matters; and
RELEASED

Document 2.1
(c) maintains confidence in the administration of the electoral system.”
1982
18.
With these considerations in mind, there are four statutory and one non-statutory basis
for reviewing the Board’s performance:
• Public Service Act 2020;
ACT
• Crown Entities Act 2004;
• Inquiries Act 2013;
• Public Audit Act 2001; and
• Non-statutory ministerial inquiry
19.
These options are outlined in further detail in Appendix One. Based on the reviews and
inquiries that have occurred so far, and noted above, if there is to be a review, of icials
recommend the Office of the Auditor-General, given its statutory independence. An
alternative would be a PSC review although we have not yet discussed this with the PSC.
Out of scope

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
Pages 6 and 7 of this document are removed as out of scope
RELEASED

Out of scope
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

35.
We are also preparing a revised Letter of Expectations for you to approve that will explicitly
include an expectation that the Commission review its processes and procedures with1982
regard to voting venues. A draft LOE is expected to be provided to your office within the
next week.
Next steps
ACT
36.
Of icials are available to discuss these matters with you, including any further actions you
may wish to take.
Recommendations
37.
It is recommended that you:
1. Note the contents of this briefing.
2. Discuss next steps with officials
YES / NO
INFORMATION
_____________________________________
Sheridan Smith
OFFICIAL
General Manager, Strategy, Performance and Relationships
APPROVED / SEEN / NOT AGREED
THE
______________________________
Hon Paul Goldsmith
UNDER
Minister of Justice
Date: / /
RELEASED

Document 2.1
Appendix One: Options on forms of reviews
1982
Form of Review
Description
Examples of Recent Reviews
Who would conduct
Pros
Cons
and pay for the
review
ACT
I.
Public Service
The Public Service Commissioner, if directed to do so by the
2019 - Inquiry into the Treasury’s  Public Service
Relatively easy to establish.
It risks the results being regarded as less
Act 2020
Prime Minister or requested by a Minister responsible for an
Budget related Information
Commission
Public Service Commissioner may
transparent than type III or type IV and being
agency, has the power to conduct investigations and inquiries,  Security Systems
appoint an independent person to
political y guided/ informed.
(Schedule 3, clause 5)  and make and receive reports, that the Commissioner thinks
conduct the review.
necessary or desirable or that the Minister directs.
• Report is provided to the responsible Minister.
II. Crown Entities
A responsible Minister may review the operations and
2018 - Human Rights
Ministry of Justice
Relatively easy to establish with the
It risks the results being regarded as less
Act 2004
performance of a Crown entity at any time. Before a Minister
Commission in relation to the
control of the Minister fol owing
transparent than type III or type IV and being
undertakes a review under this section, they must consult with  internal handling of sexual
consultation with the Commission.
political y guided/ informed. This may
(Section 132)
the entity on the proposed review. The entity must take all
harassment claims and its
An independent person can be
undermine the acceptance of the finding and
reasonable steps to co-operate with the review.
organisational culture
appointed to conduct the review.
recommendations and result in reduced trust
Terms of reference and timing to
that changes wil  maintain the integrity of the
• Report is provided to the responsible Minister.
produce a report is set by the Minister.  electoral system.
III. Inquiries Act
The Act facilitates an inquiry into a matter of public
2023 - Government Inquiry Into
Inquiries are usual y
Al  inquiries established under the
May take some time to set up as this usually
2013
importance.
the Response to the North Island  funded by an increase  Inquiries Act have statutory
involves other agencies and Cabinet.
Severe Weather Events
in appropriation to the  independence; the power to take
Inquiries generally hold public hearings which
(Section 6)
Public Inquiries (including Royal Commissions) are
Vote of whichever
evidence on oath or affirmation; and to  may lengthen the time of the inquiry, though
INFORMATION
appointed by and report to the Governor-General.
2020 – Public Inquiry into the
agency is tasked with
require any person to provide
this is not a requirement.
Earthquake Commission
supporting the Inquiry,  information to the inquiry and to
May encroach on issues more appropriately
• Report must be tabled in Parliament.
typically by a charge
summon witnesses.
considered through the Justice Select
Government Inquiries are appointed by the responsible
against the Budget
Terms of reference set by Minister and  Committee processes.
Minister. The intention is that these are simpler and quicker to
contingency.
may also include the role of the
establish.
monitoring department.
One or more independent persons can
• Report is provided to the responsible Minister.
be appointed to undertake the inquiry.
Both types of Inquiry have the same legal powers. The type of
inquiry is decided upon after discussions between Ministers
and officials, with advice from Crown Law Office and Public
Service Commission as required.
OFFICIAL
IV. Public Audit 2001 The Auditor-General can inquire, either on request from any
2024 – At the request of the
Auditor General
Role is independent of the Executive.
Auditor-General has discretion over whether to
person or organisation or on the Auditor-General’s own
Electoral Commission, an
Broad powers of inquiry.
start an inquiry, over the scope and how the
initiative, into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of its  independent review of counting
Upholds independence of the
inquiry is run and for how long, which may
resources.
errors occurring during the 2023
Commission.
extend the timeframe that a review is
General Election.
Scope may also involve role of the
concluded.
THE
The Auditor-General may also at any time examine the extent
monitoring department.
The Official Information Act 1982 does not
to which a public entity is carrying out its activities effectively
2021 – Inquiry into the Ministry of
apply to the Auditor-General.
and efficiently.
Social Development’s funding of
private rental properties for
• Report is tabled in Parliament.
emergency housing
V. Non-statutory
It may be appropriate at times for a Minister to establish a non- 2013 - Novopay inquiry
Ministry of Justice
Ease of establishment.
A non-statutory inquiry lacks the powers to
inquiry
statutory inquiry into an area for which they have portfolio
Terms of reference and timing to
summon witnesses and to take evidence on
responsibility.  Such inquiries have no coercive powers and
produce a report is set by Minister.
oath.
thus rely on cooperation.
A non-statutory inquiry would have
It risks the results being regarded as less
UNDER
greater flexibility about its procedures.  transparent than type III or type IV and being
• Report is provided to the responsible Minister.
political y guided/ informed, undermining the
acceptance of the finding and
recommendations and resulting in reduced trust
that changes wil  maintain the integrity of the
electoral system.
RELEASED

Document Outline