ACT MP Cameron Luxton has raised concerns that the Electoral Commission is failing in its duty of neutrality by directing voters to a website that promotes pro-Māori wards messaging.
In a video released this week, Luxton walked viewers through the Commission’s official site, vote.nz, where voters might naturally expect impartial information on upcoming local elections and referendums. When clicking through to a section titled “about Māori wards and constituencies,” users are redirected to another page.
That page, however, is not operated by the Electoral Commission at all. At the bottom of the site, it is revealed that the content is managed by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and Taituarā, Local Government Professionals Aotearoa. Both groups have publicly opposed allowing referendums on Māori wards and have actively campaigned to entrench them without voter approval.
The page in question presents Māori wards in a distinctly positive light. One highlighted section states:
“Establishing Māori wards and constituencies provides an inclusive and democratic avenue for councils to collaborate with Māori, fostering positive relationships and ensuring decisions benefit the entire community.”
Luxton argues this is not impartial information but advocacy, and worse, it is being promoted through the Commission’s trusted platform. “This site looks official. It uses the Commission’s orange colouring, but at the very bottom we find out the page is not part of the Commission’s website,” he said.
The ACT MP has written to the Auditor-General, calling for the Electoral Commission to remove the link and for a full review into whether its neutrality obligations have been breached. At the time of his statement, Luxton had not received a response.
The issue strikes at the heart of public trust in election authorities. Voters expect the Electoral Commission to remain above politics and provide balanced information, not redirect them to organisations with a clear agenda. By promoting LGNZ and Taituarā as “trustworthy sources,” critics argue the Commission risks undermining confidence in the democratic process.
The controversy comes at a time when debates over Māori wards remain deeply divisive across New Zealand. While supporters argue they strengthen representation and uphold Treaty commitments, opponents like myself say voters should retain the right to decide the matter through referendums.
For Luxton, the principle is simple: “Are voters getting impartial information on Māori wards referendums? Apparently not, at least not from the Electoral Commission.”
The response from the Auditor-General, and any changes by the Commission, will determine whether this latest challenge becomes a minor controversy or a serious credibility problem for the body tasked with safeguarding New Zealand’s elections.
