'Blunt tool': Government to strengthen election 'treating' offences
Photo:
RNZ / REECE BAKER
The government is moving to strengthen the offence of treating, by creating a buffer zone around polling stations where free food, drink and entertainment is banned.
It is a move officials said was "blunt" and "superficial", but would make it more straightforward to identify offending.
Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It is already an offence, but the law is poorly understood and rarely prosecuted.
New Zealand has strict rules in place aimed at preventing voters from being unduly influenced.
Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself.
It means voters can head to the ballot without someone else trying to change their mind.
But the line between hospitality and influencing is where the confusion comes in, and what the government is hoping to clear up.
"There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating. This will make the rules crystal clear," Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said.
Rather than clarify what is or is not treating - or whether it amounts to corrupt intent - the government has instead established a new offence, creating a 100-metre buffer around polling stations.
Within that buffer, free food, drink and entertainment will not be allowed, with a maximum penalty of $10,000.
In a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo.
"The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said.
But it was not their preferred option.
"A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area."
In its inquiry into the 2023 election, the Justice Committee heard concerns from submitters that there may have been
breaches of the treating rules at Manurewa Marae
.
The marae was used as a polling booth at the 2023 election. The marae's then-chief executive,
the late Takutai Tarsh Kemp
, won the Tāmaki Makaurau seat that year.
The Electoral Commission had looked into complaints about the provision of food at the marae, and found it did not meet the test for treating.
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said this had likely influenced the government's decision to strengthen the offence.
"Because of concerns about how that particular polling place was operating, they've decided to put in this law that says if you're basically trying to do something nice for voters within 100 metres of a polling place, that will become an offence," he said.
"There's a lot of reasons why you might want to have things like free barbecues, someone on guitar singing, making it more of a community, communal experience. Because that actually might get people to engage with the electoral process more.
"So I do wonder if this is another example of where a problem arose, and in response to that a hammer has been taken out to smash the walnut, and we end up overreacting."
Officials recommended clarifying the law to make it easier to understand and more enforceable, as well as a lower intent threshold and penalty.
"A lower threshold would make a clear connection between the incentive given and the outcome sought by providing it. This option seeks to make it clearer that genuine intent is required to improperly influence a voter, and this is different to customary practices such as manaakitanga."
The controlled areas option was seen as having the potential to have a disproportionate effect on voting places that serve Māori communities.
"It is consistent with the practice of manaakitanga to welcome and show appreciation for people with food, drink, and/or entertainment. This option would prohibit and criminalise these cultural practices in the areas around voting places."
The ministry's preferred option was to amend the bribery offence to prohibit the use of food, drink or entertainment.
"Treating is similar to bribery in the sense that an incentive is provided with the intention of procuring a specific outcome. The key difference is the incentive that is offered - for bribery, it is something of pecuniary value, and for treating it is food, drink, or entertainment. The purpose of combining these into a single offence is to remove the distinction to make it easier to understand and apply."
Under this option, officials said it was unlikely manaakitanga would be inappropriately captured.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Six Māori words spark a debate over how children learn to read
The removal of a learn-to-read book has infuriated teachers, experts and parents – and may prove a political misstep for National, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Educationalists call book withdrawal an overreaction The government's decision to remove the learn-to-read book At the Marae from classroom circulation has triggered a storm of criticism from teachers, principals and literacy experts. The book, designed for five-year-olds, includes six Māori words – marae, karanga, wharenui, koro, hongi and karakia – which officials argued sat uneasily within the structured literacy model now mandated in schools. Yet literacy researcher Professor Gail Gillon, who developed the wider Best Start Literacy Programme, told RNZ's John Gerritsen there was 'absolutely no evidence' children found the reader confusing. 'And in fact, our data would suggest the opposite.' Teachers have been scathing too. Writing in The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Tansy Oliver calls the decision 'insulting to our children, our teachers and our nation', warning it risks deepening the alienation Māori have long felt within the education system. A political misstep? The reaction hasn't been confined to classrooms. In the Sunday Star-Times (paywalled), editor Tracy Watkins argues the government is playing 'culture-war politics with children's learning', positioning itself alongside its more extreme coalition partners rather than the moderate voters who kept John Key in power for nearly a decade – and whom National needs in order to win next year. The removal of six kupu Māori is, Watkins says, a misjudgment that damages National more than it helps. For education minister Erica Stanford – widely seen as one of National's more centrist, liberal-friendly figures and even touted as a future leader – the row looks like an unforced error. Watkins' assessment is cutting: 'It's hard to know which will hurt National most. Being seen as aligning itself with the bigots, or making itself a laughing stock.' The structured literacy defence Stanford has been clear that the policy is not an outright ban on te reo, noting that Māori words still appear in other Ready to Read titles and are taught explicitly from Year 2 onwards. But she argues that structured literacy – rolled out nationally from the start of this year – relies on tightly sequenced phonics instruction, and kupu Māori fall outside that progression. As Oliver explains, because words such as karakia or wharenui cannot be decoded (sounded out) at the five-year-old level, they are categorised as 'heart words' that must be memorised. In Stanford's view, limiting their presence in Year 1 decodable readers is consistent with literacy science. Stanford has also pointed to an apparent parallel, reports Gerritsen: English words do not feature in readers for te reo Māori immersion schools, so it makes sense, she said, to likewise avoid Māori words in English-medium early readers. But Māori educator Rawiri Wright said that's not a fair comparison, since mainstream schools are supposed to be places where all official languages are recognised. Does te reo even need structured literacy? Beyond the current row lies another question: whether structured literacy is the right tool for teaching te reo at all. In a Conversation article, education academics Brian Tweed and Pania Te Maro criticise the 'blanket application' of the approach in kura Māori, noting that because Māori spelling is entirely phonetic, children don't face the same decoding challenges as English learners. 'Instead, pushing structured literacy into Māori-medium schools seems to be driven by an ideological commitment to this teaching approach rather than an actual need,' they write. The pair also point to the Waitangi Tribunal's 1986 declaration that 'te reo Māori is a taonga (treasure) that Māori must have control of. It's for Māori to decide on changes and innovations in the teaching and learning of the language.' That principle underscores why this debate has become so fraught: it is not only about reading pedagogy, but about who has the authority to shape the future of the Māori language.
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Unions launch legal action over pay equity changes
When Associate Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith wrote his advice on whether the Government's pre-Budget changes to the pay equity regime breached human rights, he – likely unwittingly – provided those affected with a roadmap. 'The changes made by the Bill can be expected to have the effect of tightening access to the pay equity process and pay equity settlements,' he wrote in the document, known jargonistically as a BORA vet. These changes may result in someone facing discrimination based on their gender, he said. 'I have considered whether the combined effect of these changes may discriminate on the basis of sex by making it more difficult for a person to access a non-discriminatory rate of pay or to take steps to maintain pay equity.' But if that's the case, they could file a legal claim. 'On balance, I have concluded that these provisions do not engage s 19 because a person in this situation could still take court proceedings in order to obtain an effective remedy through other means – for example, seeking a remedy in the High Court for a breach of s19 of the Bill of Rights Act.' Cue the court case. On August 29, a collection of five unions will file their legal case with the High Court, claiming the coalition Government's controversial changes to pay equity legislation breach three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process. This comes hot on the heels of Māori health providers and the greyhound racing industry calling on the court to declare the coalition Government's changes have broken the law. The claim will see New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO), Public Service Association (PSA), Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), NZEI Te Riu Roa primary teachers' union, and the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) seek declarations from the court that the Government's changes to pay equity law are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They will be represented by Rodney Harrison KC and Peter Cranney – the lawyer who argued Kristine Bartlett's precedent-setting pay equity case. These unions represent 24 of the 33 claims that were wiped when the coalition introduced legislation without consultation, and passed under urgency, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill ahead of the May Budget. The 33 claims are estimated to have covered more than 150,000 workers. The Government says this change has saved them from paying $13 billion of taxpayers' money in future wages and salaries to those working in female-dominated workforces, whose work has been historically under-valued due to gender-based discrimination. The Government also tightened the framework, by lifting the threshold for the percentage of women workers in a sector from 60 percent to 70 percent and changed the way equitable pay is determined through the comparator system. So far, no claims have been filed and all-but the nurses say they see no way towards bringing a successful claim under the new regime. 'This is about more than pay' In a press release, TEU national secretary Sandra Grey said: 'If Brooke van Velden and Christopher Luxon thought avoiding a select committee process would allow them to dodge accountability for stealing $12.8 billion from low paid women workers, we've got news for them.' Other union heads called it a 'kick in the guts'. And now the Government is faced with striking secondary teachers and nurses. On Budget Day, when talking about her decision to overhaul the pay equity regime, in the context of delivering a 'responsible budget', Finance Minister Nicola Willis said: 'In addition to pay equity settlements, the Government will fund future pay rises for women-dominated public-sector workforces through the normal collective bargaining process.' Last month, Health NZ offered nurses a 2 percent pay increase this year, followed by 1 percent next year. They then moved to strike. High school teachers were offered 1 percent. They have voted to begin rolling strikes next month. And primary teachers are due to meet this week over collective negotiations. The Government has come out swinging at striking public sector employees – by holdings press conferences scolding the nurses' and teachers' unions. Meanwhile, Public Service Minister Judith Collins has also made comments suggesting the coalition could be considering limiting the options open to those wanting to take industrial action; if true the Government could be looking to dampen one more mechanism used by female-dominated workforces to secure pay increases. Pay equity changes and the recent strike action are no doubt linked. The new regime effectively locks out the 25,000 secondary teachers who would have been covered by the teachers' pay equity claim, as the workforce doesn't reach the new 70 percent women workers threshold. 'Our claim was built on years of rigorous, evidence-based work, carried out in good faith under a process agreed with previous governments. To have that work discarded by political decree is a betrayal—not just of teachers, but of every woman in Aotearoa New Zealand whose work has been historically undervalued,' PPTA president Chris Abercrombie said. 'This is about more than pay. It's about whether our country honours its commitments to fairness, equity, and the rule of law. We will not stand by while those principles are trampled. Our members deserve better. Our students deserve better. And our democracy deserves better.' Govt 'undermined the judiciary' PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimmons told Newsroom this litigation was about getting a fair hearing. 'We know that the High Court will give us a fair hearing, and we will be advocating similar arguments in the High Court that we would have advocated had the government run a proper select committee process.' This legal action stood alongside the country's first ever people's select committee, which was hearing from communities affected by the pay equity changes. The committee, which kicked off last week, received more than 1500 submissions. The unions' claim would asks the court to rule the changes breached section 19 of the human rights law that says everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination – in this case, gender-based discrimination. But Fitzsimmons said the Government had also breached women workers' right to a fair legal process and the executive had 'undermined the judiciary'. The executive's decision to cancel claims that were about to be heard by the Employment Relations Authority was inconsistent with the country's constitutional foundations, which clearly stipulated a separation of the different arms of government. A Treasury paper from December, released last month, laid out the Government's options for closing the funded sector contingency – the money set aside for covering pay equity settlements for those working in privately owned businesses, but in sectors that provided a public good and were largely funded by the Government, such as the aged care sector. The paper revealed that of the $12.8b estimated total pay equity costs over the forecast period, the funded sector contingency accounted for $9.6b of that (75 percent of estimated pay equity costs). Care and support workers (and one other redacted workforce) were described as the 'key claims with significant estimated costs' in the funded sector. The care and support workers claim had already been deemed to have merit under the previous pay equity framework, and Treasury officials pointed out the Employment Relations Authority had indicated it would hear the claim during the first week of May. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the changes on May 6, without prior warning or consultation – as care and support workers were preparing briefs of evidence for the authority. The legislation passed through all stages under urgency, with no select committee process. 'We have separation of powers in New Zealand,' Fitzsimmons said. 'And what we saw from the Government, under the cover of darkness and through urgency, was the cancelling of claims that the judicial arm was about to hear through the Employment Relations Authority.' Now many of these care and support workers were back on the minimum wage, she said. While the Government released pay equity documents at the end of last month, many of them included heavy redactions – especially when it came to legal advice. Fitzsimmons said this court process would uncover elements of those documents that had been withheld. 'We will see the full horror of the betrayal of New Zealand women by this government, and we will be taken seriously, and women will be given a voice.' What a win in court could mean While the High Court could rule that the Government's pay equity changes had breached human rights law, that doesn't mean the Government has to change the law. And the court has no power to tell the Government what it can and can't do when it comes to legislating. But Fitzsimmons tells Newsroom a win would still be a big deal. It would also add an immense amount of scrutiny to the law and the legislative process. If the court was to declare the pay equity changes are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act then Attorney-General Judith Collins would have to notify Parliament within six sitting days. From there, the matter would be referred to a select committee for scrutiny, where they would have four months to report back to Parliament. The Government would then have a further six months to present its response to the declaration and the committee's report, and from there a parliamentary debate would be held within the next six sitting days. 'The consequences for the Government and for Parliament are significant.' Legal challenges piling up The unions' legal challenge comes as the Government faces off in court against other aggrieved communities. The pay equity case will come after a High Court hearing of an unprecedented claim from a group of Māori health providers over the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. The providers, led by Lady Tureiti Moxon, are also calling on the court to declare the shutting of the Māori Health Authority breaches the Bill of Rights Act. And, in the first case of its kind, the group is also asking the court to declare the move inconsistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi. Last week, Greyhound Racing NZ had its case for interim relief heard, ahead of a more substantive judicial review of Cabinet's decision to ban greyhound racing in New Zealand. The decision, which was announced without consultation with the industry, didn't follow the proper process, making it unlawful, former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson KC told the High Court last Thursday. But those acting on behalf of the Crown – and ultimately Racing Minister Winston Peters – said the Government was within its rights to make a decision to ban greyhound racing on political ground, then legislate to do so. Crown lawyer Katherine Anderson KC raised the example where the Government had made a political decision to legislate, without consulting the affected communities, saying it was the executive's right to do so. This coalition has also faced a series of challenges at the Waitangi Tribunal, and it's unlikely these legal cases will be the last to come. Earlier this year, Newsroom revealed the Government would be reinstating a full prisoner voting ban. And last month the coalition announced it was overhauling voter registration, meaning voters would not be able to enrol or update their details in the 12 days ahead of election day. This move is expected to impact more than 100,000 people and disproportionately affect young people, Māori and Pasifika. Jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor, alongside the Human Rights Commission, successfully sought a declaration of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act last time a Government removed prisoners' right to vote. This led to a process that ultimately resulted in the previous Labour-led Government giving the vote to everyone who was serving a sentence of less than three years. It would be unsurprising to see someone take essentially the same case back to court when this new prisoner voting ban comes into effect, given the court's already ruled it breaches human rights law once before. Meanwhile, Attorney-General Judith Collins told her colleagues, including the minister responsible and her associate attorney-general Paul Goldsmith, that the proposed changes to voter enrolment breach the Bill of Rights Act, saying Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities will pay the 'heaviest price' by being disenfranchised. Once the law has passed, someone could call on the court to declare inconsistencies with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. A win in any of these cases doesn't necessitate a law change, but they will put the spotlight on the coalition's process and the weight it puts on human rights. The union's case will be filed at the High Court on August 29, alongside a protest rally held by women whose claims were cancelled.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Do those who manage rugby want to see a crowd? I have listened to RNZ with growing concern
What is wrong with the people responsible for such genuinely awful planning? Had they started the early fixture a bit later and ensured a wait between games of, say, just 15 minutes before a 4.35pm kickoff for the NPC game, the crowd of probably 12,000 or so people would likely have stayed and enjoyed both games. The vast majority of the significant crowd immediately left at the first game's final whistle and the remaining crowd by the time of the next kickoff, as seen on TV, was the proverbial 'two men and a dog'! This was the first time we had attended at Eden Park for many years. We won't be back. In retrospect, it was 'the smart move' to leave as soon as the schools game ended as, when I gave up in disgust and turned the telly off, Taranaki were giving Auckland a good old-fashioned thrashing. Roger Hawkins, Herne Bay. Covid inquiry I am wondering why the citizenry of New Zealand are surprised when some politicians will not attend the Royal Commission on the Covid response. We elect our leaders to act on our behalf. Normally, everything is transparent and follows due process. A pandemic is an interruption to the normal business of a country; it requires instant, sometimes repugnant outcomes for the people and makes the deliverer of the message very unpopular. Being told to isolate and how and when we may leave our homes is anathema to New Zealanders but in the instance of a pandemic of the severity of Covid, it was necessary. Decision-makers did do what they thought right at that time, with what expert information and scientific knowledge was available to them. Why is the 'rightness or wrongness' of those decisions now being queried? It was over and above the parameters of normal governance. It was a pandemic! Life-threatening. A once-in-a-lifetime event. Yes, money was spent. How much and for how long was those leaders' decision to make. It is not now the privilege of today's political cohort to question the minutiae of detail of the whys and wherefores. New Zealand did not have coffins lining the streets. Perhaps our island nation was saved by the unpopular isolation tactics returning citizens endured but they can be proud they contributed to the safety of all. Do not turn this to a dollar mentality when measuring outcomes. A democratic society pays what is necessary to house and feed its criminals; provides succour to the needy, cares for the elderly – why pillory the decision-makers for money spent saving the nation in the time of a pandemic? Robyn Tubb, Millwater. RNZ's decline As a former senior NZBC announcer, I've listened to RNZ National's decline with growing concern. Richard Sutherland's recent criticism (Media Insider, August 16) confirms what many listeners know: standards have slipped dramatically. Today's RNZ presenters gabble through scripts, mangle pronunciations ('flowan' for 'flown,' 'pardy' for 'party'), and rush through te reo Māori with obvious discomfort. This undermines both our official language's mana and RNZ's credibility as New Zealand's public broadcaster. The problem runs deeper than technical issues. RNZ has drifted toward commercial radio tactics. There is much gabbling and puerile banter, chasing ratings rather than serving its unique public mission. But public radio shouldn't sound like The Rock or ZM, it should offer something better. Excellence means clear, accurate presentation with proper pronunciation of both English and te reo Māori. It means substance over filler, cultural competence and an authentically New Zealand voice that maintains professional standards without stuffiness. The solution isn't complicated: establish clear broadcasting standards, provide ongoing professional development and create a culture valuing craft over ratings. Experienced broadcasters should mentor newcomers, passing on both technical skills and understanding of public radio's role. RNZ National should be the best of New Zealand broadcasting; thoughtful, substantial and respectful of audience intelligence. The talent exists; what's needed is leadership willing to set and maintain standards. Our public broadcaster should make us proud, not require excuses. James Gregory, Parnell.
