The purpose of electoral boundary divisions is to ensure that each electoral district has roughly the same number of people. The Electoral Act requires an independent entity, the Representation Commission, to review and set parliamentary electoral boundaries after each five-yearly census. The census triggers the review of electoral boundaries and operates as the statutory trigger for a range of other related processes.

The Government is working to modernise the census through an “administrative-data-first” census approach. The approach entails use of administrative data for key census variables.¹ It would be supplemented by an annual census survey of a proportion of the population and tailored solutions designed to meet the needs of groups that are harder to measure.

The Census Bill would amend the Data and Statistics Act 2022 to enable a census to be conducted annually, beginning from 2030. As the Electoral Act stands, shifting to an annual census would result in boundary divisions being triggered annually, which would be unsustainable and unworkable. The Electoral Bill would amend the Electoral Act to decouple the timing of electoral boundary divisions from censuses. From 2030, electoral boundary divisions would instead be tied to every second electoral cycle. Boundary divisions would continue to be based on population data from the most recently available census.

Clauses 4(3) and 6(3) of the bill would amend section 3 of the Electoral Act. Clause 4 would insert a definition of “counting day” for the purpose of determining the General electoral population, while clause 6(3) would replace the definition of “counting day” when it is applied to the Māori electoral population.

The bill contains slightly different definitions for each term. We consider that using the same term for two related, but distinct, concepts could make the provisions confusing. To distinguish between them, we recommend replacing “counting day” in clause 6(3) with “calculation day”. We note that our proposed amendment would only affect the term used and not the substance of the definition.

At present, the Representation Commission uses the total ordinarily resident population as shown in the last census to calculate the General electoral population. Clause 4(1) would replace the definition of the “General electoral population” to mean the total ordinarily resident population on counting day, excluding the Māori electoral population.

The General electoral population would still be calculated using census data. However, because the census will be published annually, the legislation needs to set clear parameters as to which data to use. The bill would enable the most recently available census data to be used, provided that it can be available in time for the Representation Commission to meet its statutory deadline for formally completing the boundary divisions. Clauses 9(1) and 13(5) would replace sections 40(1) and 45(9) of the Electoral Act, respectively. They would insert provisions requiring the Representation Commission to fix the boundaries of the General electoral districts and Māori electoral districts no later than 12 months before a relevant parliamentary term is scheduled to expire.

Clause 4(3) provides that the counting day used to determine the General electoral population would need to use census data depending on one of two potential scenarios. In the first scenario, the Representation Commission would use the most recent data with a reference date² that was in the specified parliamentary term but before the start of a 20-month exclusion period. The relevant census data would also need to have been published before the exclusion period started. The second scenario would apply if the relevant data was not published before that exclusion period started. The Commission would need to use the most recently published census with a reference date from before that parliamentary term. The purpose of the exclusion period is to require the Commission to use the most recently available population data, while allowing time to complete its processes and meet its statutory deadline. Clauses 6 and 13 would apply similar provisions for the purposes of determining the Māori electoral population and the boundaries of Māori electorates.

We note that data from the first census conducted after the Census Bill commenced would be published in 2030/31, with a reference date of 30 June 2030. The first boundary division, which is scheduled to begin in 2030, could therefore only use population data from that first census. The boundary division expected before the 2032 General Election could not be completed in time if later census data (with a reference date of 30 June 2031) was used. However, there is a risk for the first boundary division that the 20-month exclusion period could start before the 2030 Census was published. If this happened, the Representation Commission would not have up-to-date census data that it could legally use. To address this, we propose amending the start of the exclusion period for the first boundary review to make it impossible for it to begin before the latest date by which the Statistician must publish the census.

We therefore recommend inserting a transitional provision, clause 13(2) into Schedule 1AA of the Electoral Act, to specify that the exclusion period would commence on 1 July 2031 for the first boundary division after the bill came into force.

Section 35(6) of the Electoral Act requires the Government Statistician to report the results of the census and their calculation of the Māori electoral population to the Representation Commission. The Government Statistician must do so when they have the census results, and the Electoral Commission has given them the information needed under section 79(1). That section relates to the determination of the Māori electoral population.

Clause 5(4) of the bill as introduced would replace section 35(6) of the Electoral Act. It specifies that the Government Statistician must report to the Representation Commission the figures calculated for the Māori and General electoral populations as soon as reasonably practicable after the Electoral Commission has supplied the information about the Māori electoral population.

We consider that the bill should provide more certainty as to when the population reports should be provided to the Representation Commission. We think that a period of no later than 8 months before the Commission’s 12-month statutory reporting deadline would allow it time to complete the remaining steps of a boundary review. We recommend replacing section 35(6) of the Electoral Act with new subsections (6) and (6A) to provide for this.

Section 79(1) of the Electoral Act states that the Electoral Commission must, as soon as practicable after counting day, provide certain information to the Government Statistician. The information is related to the total number of Māori electors on the Māori and General electoral rolls and on the dormant rolls, as on counting day.

Clause 6(3) of the bill provides that counting day:³

• is a date that is during a term of Parliament in which a boundary review is due, outside a 20-month exclusion period; and

• is the same date as the reference date for the most recently published census if it is also published before the 20-month exclusion period commences.

If both criteria cannot be fulfilled, counting day is the day after the return of the writ for the last general election.

The Census Bill provides that the Government Statistician must, in each financial year, publish statistics from the census of population and dwellings about a specified reference date in the previous financial year. It is therefore possible that more than one census will be published before the exclusion period commences in a parliamentary term. In this situation, the Electoral Commission would need to use the reference date for the most recently published census. We note that there is uncertainty about publication time frames, so the Electoral Commission would not know when counting day was until the relevant census was published. The Representation Commission’s time frames to complete a boundary division would also be constrained if a census was published close to the commencement of the exclusion period. Consequently, we propose an amendment to provide more certainty about the Electoral Commission’s responsibilities under section 79 of the Act and avoid unnecessary delays to the start of the boundary review.

We recommend that clause 15 replace section 79 with a provision that would require the Electoral Commission to automatically supply the relevant Māori electoral data to the Government Statistician at fixed dates. These would be each reference date in the specified Parliament before the exclusion period commenced, and the day after the return of the writ for the most recent general election.

As noted earlier in our commentary, new sections 40(1) and 45(9) (inserted by clauses 9(1) and 13(5), would require the Representation Commission to complete a boundary division no later than 12 months before a relevant parliamentary term expired. Clause 17 would insert a transitional provision as new Part 5 into Schedule 1AA of the Electoral Act (new clauses 11, 12, and 13). New clause 13(2) in Schedule 1AA of the Electoral Act would provide that the Representation Commission must complete the first boundary division no later than 8 months before the expiry of the parliamentary term. The transitional arrangement is intended to allow additional time for stakeholders to adapt to any challenges that may emerge as part of the first boundary division.

We sought advice on how to extend the statutory deadline for the first boundary division to 12 months before Parliament expired. We are concerned that 8 months is too short and does not allow sufficient time to prepare for an election. Processes that would be affected with an 8-month deadline include candidate selection, community outreach, socialisation of new boundaries, and early election campaigning.

We received advice that the timing of two events would have the most effect on the time frame for the first boundary division. The events are the immediately preceding general election, which determines the statutory deadline, and the completion of the census to provide population data for the boundary review.

The completion of a boundary division hinges on the availability of the Government Statistician’s reports of the counts of the electoral populations. These are reported to the Representation Commission under section 35(6) of the Electoral Act. Under the standard boundary division process, boundaries are usually fixed about 8 months after the Government Statistician’s electoral reports are prepared.

Statistics New Zealand has stated that it can provide reports of the electoral populations no later than 28 February 2031. Given this, we were advised the following about the feasibility of a 12-month statutory deadline for the first boundary division:

• It would be feasible if Parliament was scheduled to expire between late October and December 2032, or earlier in October 2032. However, in the second scenario, the Commission would need to run an expedited review process.

• It would not be possible if Parliament was scheduled to expire before 30 September 2032. This is because it is difficult to provide certainty that an electoral report could be made available in time to enable the completion of a boundary division on this time frame.

We recommend inserting new clause 13(5) into Schedule 1AA to enable a staggered transitional arrangement if the relevant term of Parliament was scheduled to expire on or before 30 September 2032. Our proposed amendment provides for the first boundary division to be completed:

• no later than 8 months before the scheduled expiry of Parliament if the Parliament is due to expire on or before 31 July 2032

• no later than 10 months before the scheduled expiry of Parliament if the Parliament is due to expire between 1 August 2032 and 30 September 2032

• no later than 12 months before the scheduled expiry of Parliament if the Parliament is due to expire on or after 1 October 2032.

Officials confirmed that provision for a transitional boundary review before 2029 was their preferred approach, noting it would meet public expectations and increase the perceived legitimacy of representation, and that the benefits of excluding a transitional review did not outweigh the costs. See the Regulatory Impact Statement 20251008-RIS-Census-Modernisation-and-the-Electoral-Act-1993_Redacted_.pdf.

We understand that at this stage, even if the 2028 full enumeration census was to be carried out, official advice is that there would not be time to collate data and conduct electoral boundaries review in time for the 2029 election. However, we strongly believe that if these issues had been considered at the beginning of this term of Government, resources could have been applied to make it happen.

Several submitters placed the bill in a broader political context. Under the current National–ACT–New Zealand First coalition government, Māori political representation has faced multiple forms of constraint, including legislation affecting enrolment restriction to before voting begins, prisoner voting, and now the timing of electorate boundary reviews. The cumulative effect reduces Māori political influence.

The NZ Council for Civil Liberties, submitting jointly on the Electoral (District Boundaries) Bill and the Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill, opposed both bills primarily on the grounds that data will inevitably decline in quality, especially data about Māori, Pasifika, and other minorities thus undermining the very population data used to set electorate boundaries.

There is a complexity that this bill changes entrenched provisions and thus requires a 75 percent majority of Parliament whereas the related Census Bill merely requires a simple majority. We suggest that changes around census and electoral processes such as the recent Electoral Amendment Act, also need more cross-party consensus than a simple majority.

The Green Party recommends that neither bill pass in their current form and that a Census is carried out in 2028 with urgency and sufficient resources for an iwi-led data approach.

Submitters consistently told the committee that the public was given too little opportunity to engage with a reform of this scale. Mr Len Cook, a former Government Statistician, noted that recent census reviews were conducted largely within the public sector, and that this select committee process has been one of the few real opportunities for experts and the wider public to test the proposals. Research Association New Zealand made a similar point on behalf of the research and insights sector. Labour shares the view that the consultation undertaken by departmental officials, constrained by the timeframes they were given, has not been adequate for a decision of this importance. The same concern applies to the Electoral (District Boundaries) Amendment Bill, where the consequences for the timing and work of the Representation Commission have not been sufficiently explained or consulted on. We are sympathetic to the proposal of an independent review of the proposed changes, and that review being made available for further public scrutiny.

The central question is whether the enactment of an administrative data-first model as proposed by this bill can produce statistics that are accurate and reliable enough to replace the census. Submitters were not confident that it can. Numerous submitters cautioned that administrative records collected by different agencies are not held to consistent standards and can be out of date. They warned that the quality of information for small areas and for smaller population groups is likely to suffer, and that the continuity of statistics New Zealand has relied on for generations could be broken.

We are particularly concerned about the effect this could have on Māori, Pasifika, rainbow communities, disabled people, and hard-to-reach rural communities. We concur with the submission from Te Kāhui Raraunga that Statistics New Zealand’s proposed tailored solutions to address these issues rely on trust, and that they are not a sufficiently certain basis for a decision of this importance. We also note that officials have themselves acknowledged that accuracy and coverage would reduce in the early years of the new model. Until there is far greater certainty on these points, we do not accept that the case for ending the census has been made.

A recurring theme across submissions was the disproportionate impact these changes may have on Māori. The census is a key source of the data that supports Māori development and the fair allocation of resources, and it underpins the calculation of the Māori electoral population. Submitters, including Māori organisations, were concerned that a model that is less accurate for communities that are less easily reached risks undercounting Māori in a way that is harder to see and therefore harder to challenge. They also emphasised that a change of this nature should be developed in genuine partnership with Māori, consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principles of Māori data sovereignty, rather than through limited consultation. Labour considers these concerns have not been adequately addressed.