Integrity Briefing: Manurewa Marae and the Integrity crisis at the heart of NZ democracy
We are often told that there is no corruption in New Zealand, and that our public service and electoral system are robust and free from manipulation and conflicts of interest. But the two official reports released yesterday about the allegations of misuse of resources and data by organisations aligned with Te Pāti Māori should put such myths to bed.
That New Zealand has a complacency problem on integrity issues was also reiterated by the new Public Service Commissioner, Sir Brian Roche, who rightly said yesterday that the scandal was a “wake up call”, and that the problems that have been identified called into question “the integrity of our democratic process”.
The Background to yesterday’s reports
Yesterday’s reports came after allegations emerged last year that three Māori community organisations around the Manurewa Marae had misused their contracts with government agencies to aid the electioneering of Te Pāti Māori in that electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau. It was reported that the organisations – run by John Tamihere, who is also the president of Te Pāti Māori – had taken government contracts and data to help with Covid-19 vaccination rollout and the Census 2023 operations but had harvested the data from these operations to help with electioneering, including targeting voters on the Māori electoral roll and directly texting voters.
Te Pāti Māori, allegedly with the help of the community organisations, was able to run a highly successful campaign to win the electorate off the incumbent Labour MP, Peeni Henare. Te Pāti Māori candidate Takutai Moana Natasha Kemp, who had until the election been the Chief Executive of the Manurewa Marae, won by 42 votes. The Marae was also used by the Electoral Commission as a polling booth, therefore producing further allegations of corrupt practices and serious conflicts of interest.
Two reports that raise significant questions
The reports are not the definitive word on whether corruption has occurred. The court of public opinion will decide that. But it will be helped by a Police investigation that is still ongoing, amongst other serious state inquiries, including the Privacy Commissioner and the Serious Fraud Office. The release of the first two government reports yesterday was, therefore, not the end of the matter.
The two reports released yesterday by two government agencies are very limited in scope and power. Yet they still appear to have vindicated the claims that a significant integrity problem has occurred in South Auckland, and that these are also major democratic problems for the rest of the country.
The Statistics NZ report
The first investigation, released by Statistics New Zealand, which was carried out by former deputy state services commissioner Doug Craig, addressed the allegations that state data has been captured for the electoral use of Te Pāti Māori. This report concluded that “it was more likely than not” that completed census forms were left unsealed, stored at the Marae, and then photocopied, and that information from them was harvested into a database for other purposes.
This investigation, therefore, looked directly at the claims of former Manurewa Marae staff who had become whistleblowers. According to the report, those former staff provided photographic evidence “supporting their allegations that census forms were not stored securely.” Approximately 1800 South Auckland census forms were involved.
The Public Services Commission report
The second report, for the Public Services Commission, produced by Michael Heron KC and Pania Gray, did not look at the allegations that data was misused by the Māori community organisations, but focused instead on the government agencies involved. The brief of these investigators was to find out whether Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Health, Te Whatu Ora/Health New Zealand, Statistics New Zealand, Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development had used proper procedures in their contracts with the three Māori community organisations, and whether they had made sure that sensitive data was adequately protected.
The 73-page report found that there had been significant failings by the six government agencies, as they didn’t put in adequate safeguards to manage potential conflicts of interest, nor to protect private data from being misused.
For example, the report found that the community organisations could download the national immunisation databases from health authorities, with no ability to monitor or regulate the use of that data. The report labelled the Ministry of Health’s due diligence to the community organisations as a “light touch”.
Amongst the litany of failings of the six agencies, the investigation also found that no systems were in place to ensure providers met ethical and contractual obligations, conflicts of interest were ignored, despite clear risks, and Stats NZ removed key confidentiality safeguards for Census data.
Commenting on this, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he was shocked by the report’s findings, and he complained that it amounts to an “unacceptable breach of public trust”.
Given that the report found that Statistics New Zealand had the most significant failings, it was unsurprising that the Government Statistician, Mark Sowden, announced he was stepping down.
Electoral integrity under suspicion
One of the most explosive aspects of this report is its implications for New Zealand’s electoral integrity. The allegations that data collected from Covid-19 vaccinations and the Census may have been used for political purposes – specifically to benefit Te Pāti Māori – are deeply concerning.
Given the failings in what happened, questions are now being raised about how fair and free elections are in New Zealand. Labour leader Chris Hipkins rightly says that yesterday’s reports are “an alarm bell... a warning sign” about New Zealand’s reputation for holding fair and independent elections.
Hipkins claims that given the new information, Labour’s loss of the Tāmaki Makaurau “was unfair”. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters goes further and said yesterday that he now has “no doubts that Peeni Henare’s seat was stolen from him”.
Indeed, when you look at voting data at the various voting booths in the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate, the trend is suspicious. Te Pāti Māori’s Kemp received 323 more votes than Labour’s Henare, which went against the pattern everywhere else in the electorate. Analysis by The Facts website shows that “in the next 7 largest polling booths after Manurewa Marae, the Labour candidate, Peeni Henare, won all of them.”
The Electoral Commission has already apologised for allowing the Manurewa Marae to host the polling booth, saying that the perceived conflicts of interest were not sufficiently managed.
Te Pāti Māori and the Waipareira Trust dispute any wrongdoing
It’s important to emphasize that Te Pāti Māori and the Waipareira Trust continue to plead their innocence. John Tamihere fronted the media this morning, asserting that any data used was ethically sourced and belonged to his organisation. He has suggested that these allegations are politically motivated, aiming to undermine Māori autonomy and participation in the democratic process.
Tamihere told Waatea News that “we have been singled out because we're Māori, because we are honest enough to advise that we're members of Te Pāti Māori”. He complained that authorities are “trying to turn Māori into an organised crime group”.
Regarding the conflict of interest problems of a Te Pāti Māori marae hosting a polling booth, he suggests that other voting venues are equally conflicted: “if they don't have polling booths on marae they should not have them at church. They should not have them in rural areas where the Federated Farmers groupings control them and run them. They shouldn't have them in rich guys areas where the employers and businessman and unions work and control them.”
Tamihere has also suggested that government agencies are against Te Pāti Māori, including the Brian Roche, the new Public Service Commissioner, who Tamihere has insinuated is simply doing the bidding of the Prime Minister. In contrast, Tamihere says that the Government Statistician, Mark Sowden, shouldn’t have fallen on his sword: “I've had meetings with him and I find him as a very a decent Kiwi, right. He's a good Pakeha. Lot of naughty Pakehas out there. A lot of good ones. And I just feel sad and sorry that his reputation has been blemished for no other reason than he entered into a contract”.
The Public Service Commission report also cited that Te Pāti Māori believed that the principle of “conflicts of interest” shouldn’t apply in this case: “Te Pāti Māori submitted... that Māori participation in electoral politics alongside community mahi empowering whānau Māori should not be regarded as giving rise to any appearance of a conflict of interest”.
The problem of integrity complacency
Public Service Commissioner Brian Roche called the findings of his agency’s investigation “very sobering reading” – a phrase barely capturing the scale of dysfunction at play. It needs to be pointed out that what has been unveiled isn’t just a failure of process – it’s a failure of principle. These agencies were entrusted with sensitive information, yet their failures have exposed New Zealanders to potential privacy breaches and political manipulation.
At the heart of the problem is a complacency in New Zealand about integrity issues, including in the public service. We see this in how agencies dealing with the Manurewa Marae cited that they relied on a “high trust model” – a system that is clearly no longer fit for purpose and too often an excuse for sloppiness and weak oversight.
What’s truly shocking, however, is that these failures are not new. They are part of a pattern of public service complacency that is coming to define governance in New Zealand. But it is no longer enough for politicians and bureaucrats to offer apologies and vague commitments to “do better”. The real question is: why do these sorts of failures keep happening? New Zealanders are getting used to seeing official reports that expose integrity failures, but then seeing that real consequences are rare and mild.
In the case of Stats NZ Chief Executive Mark Sowden, he will step down from his job at the end of the month when his current contract finishes, and he won’t apply to continue. But is this a real accountability measure, or just a quiet departure to save face? Arguably, if he was found wanting, Sowden should have been dismissed immediately. For the sake of public accountability, top public servants who let us down should face real consequences rather than simply exiting their roles with minimal damage. The public will rightly wonder: Is anyone ever really held accountable?
The real danger is that the public stops believing in the system altogether. If the Government repeatedly tells people that their institutions are robust and fair while delivering clear evidence to the contrary, cynicism will take hold. And cynicism is a powerful political force, as we are seeing play out in many democracies worldwide at the moment.
The Integrity reckoning
New Zealand is at a crossroads. For decades, the country has prided itself on the myth of being a corruption-free country, boasting high levels of transparency and public trust. But this latest scandal should serve as a massive wake-up call.
The idea that “it can’t happen here” is dead. It is happening. And if we do not respond with real reforms, it will happen again.
Trust in government is fragile. It takes years to build, but it can be shattered overnight. The Manurewa Marae scandal is a symptom of a much bigger problem: a government culture that tolerates ethical failures, ignores warning signs, and engages in integrity washing instead of real accountability.
The next election will be fought in the shadow of this crisis in confidence about political authority and elites. Whether the Government and public service learn from it – or simply hope the public forgets – will define the future of governance in New Zealand.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of The Integrity Institute
Depending upon the ultimate findings , we I think, need a by election in this seat.
These events should spark some consideration of the wisdom of contracting out the powers of government. A career public servant whose whole life and future well being depends on the institution of government would immediately, instinctively and without hesitation see that in copying census forms for non-government purposes he or she was crossing a red line and jeopardizing their own future.
Someone working for a contractor which has interests of its own quite separate from the interests of government may have a different view. In fact the first reaction may be to think "Does this serve the interests of my employer?". If that person had wisdom, that is to say if that person was capable of taking a wide and long view, then he or she would say "No, it would actually be unethical and illegal and therefore contrary to my employer's long-term interests and so I should not do this". But, unfortunately, a significant proportion of us would say "It seems to be in the interests of my employer to copy these forms, so that is what I should do".
It would be idle to suggest that this principle applies only to census workers. It applies to every other sphere of government including those personnel who are seconded to the New Zealand military and intelligence services by foreign states.
This incident may be only the tip of the iceberg in which the interests of government are subverted by contracting or seconding agencies, and the primary blame for the situation lies with government itself.