Mair v Lampp

[2025] NZHC 3013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CIV-2025-483-31

[2025] NZHC 3013

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

TE KENEHI MAIR

Applicant

AND

WARWICK LAMPP

First Respondent

WHANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL
Second Respondent

MANAWATŪ DISTRICT COUNCIL

Third Respondent

Hearing:

8 October 2025

Appearances:

R A Siciliano for Applicant

H P Harwood, A C Mander and B A G Russell for Respondents

Judgment:

10 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

[Results only]

[1]    The Whanganui District Council (WDC) and the Manawatū District Council (MDC) are holding polls on whether those councils will each have a Māori ward  (the Polls).

MAIR v LAMPP [2025] NZHC 3013 [10 October 2025]

[2]    The Polls are being held under the transitional poll mechanism for councils that either resolved to establish or established Māori wards since 2020, without holding a poll.1

[3]    The outcome of the Polls for both WDC and MDC will apply to the 2028  and 2031 triennial elections.

[4]    The Polls are being held at the same time as the 2025 elections of the mayor and councillors for both districts (Local Elections).

[5]    Voting in the Local Elections and the Polls opened on 9 September 2025 and is open until 11 October 2025.

[6]    Warwick Lampp, the first respondent, is the Electoral Officer appointed under s 12 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (Act) with responsibility for conducting the Polls and the Local Elections for WDC and MDC.

[7]    Mr Lampp’s general duties as Electoral Officer are contained in s 15 of the Act and include responsibility for the preparation, production and distribution of voting documents; the process and counting of votes; and the declaration of results.

[8]    Under the Act, the Electoral Officer conducting an election or poll must count the votes cast immediately after the close of voting2 and give public notice declaring the official result of the election or poll in the prescribed manner as soon as practicable after the validity of all special votes has been determined and all valid votes have been counted.3

[9]    Te Kenehi Mair, tangata whenua and an elector in the Whanganui District, has filed an application under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 (JRP Act) challenging decisions made by the first respondent in carrying out his statutory duties as Electoral Officer for WDC and MDC.

1      Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024.

2      Local Electoral Act 2001, s 84(1).

3      Section 86.

[10]   The decisions challenged relate to the provision by the Electoral Officer of candidate profile information to electors. In particular, the decisions made by the first respondent:

(a)not to send relevant information regarding Māori ward candidates to all electors in the WDC, following their omission from the original candidate profile information and voting information provided to electors (the Whanganui omission); and

(b)not to send relevant information regarding the sole Māori ward candidate to all electors in the MDC (the Manawatū omission).

(collectively, the decisions)

[11]   In his substantive claim, Mr Mair says the decisions were material errors of law because, in summary, the first respondent:

(a)failed to take into account the principles set out in s 4 of the Act;

(b)incorrectly considered there to be no prejudice to the Polls as a result of the decisions;

(c)incorrectly deemed the information about current candidates as not directly relevant to the subject of the Polls;

(d)failed to recognise and adequately provide for Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi rights of Māori within the Whanganui and Manawatū Districts; and

(e)failed to give effect to and apply Te Tiriti and to consider tikanga in respect of the Whanganui omission and the Manawatū omission.

[12]   The applicant says that, as a result of those errors of law, the outcome of the Polls is compromised.

[13]   In the substantive proceeding, the applicant seeks declarations that the decisions were unlawful and declarations that the Polls are void. The applicant also seeks a direction that the first respondent reconsiders his decisions in order to properly take into account the principles set out at s 4 of the Act and overall fairness, on terms that:

(a)enable fair and effective representation for Māori as part of the Whanganui community and the Manawatū community, respectively;

(b)ensure all eligible voters have all relevant information from which to cast an informed vote regarding the referendum; and

(c)promote public confidence in and public understanding of, the electoral process and referendum through transparent voting methods with certainty of electoral outcomes.

[14]   The applicant also seeks an order directing that the first respondent takes all necessary steps to remedy the errors in the decisions in accordance with tikanga.

[15]   The applicant applied for urgent interim orders, pending the outcome of his substantive claim. The interim orders sought are to restrain the first respondent from:

(a)making any announcement concerning the preliminary results4 of the poll in respect of Māori Wards for WDC, including any announcement to the Whanganui District Council (the second respondent);

(b)making any announcement concerning the preliminary results of the poll in respect of Māori Wards for MDC, including any announcement to the Manawatū District Council (the third respondent);

(c)giving public notice declaring the official result of the Poll in respect of Māori Wards for WDC; and

4      As counsel for the respondents noted, if the Court were minded to make interim orders the Court might wish to include progress results, in addition to the preliminary and final results of the Polls.

(d)giving public notice declaring the official result of the Poll in respect of Māori Wards for MDC.

[16]   Mr Mair says the interim orders are necessary to maintain the status quo in respect of the Māori ward in both the Whanganui and Manawatū Districts, so that the decisions challenged can be substantively addressed by the Court without additional hara (harm) being caused to him, to Māori and to the community, through the publication of the results of a flawed process.

[17]   I heard argument on the applicant’s application for interim orders on an urgent basis on 8 October 2025. Urgency was necessary because progress results of the Polls and the Local Elections are expected to be available from mid-afternoon on Saturday, 11 October 2025.

[18]   As I indicated to counsel at the hearing, given the urgency of the situation,     I would issue a results only judgment in the first instance, with reasons for my judgment to follow.

[19]   Having considered the evidence filed by and on behalf of the applicant, and by the first respondent, and the written and oral submissions of counsel for the parties,   I have reached a decision on the application for interim orders.

[20]   I have concluded that the interim orders sought are not necessary to preserve the position of the applicant, as required under s 15 of the JRP Act.

[21]Accordingly, the applicant’s application for interim orders is dismissed.

[22]The reasons for my judgment will follow in due course.

[23]   My judgment on this interim application is not an indication of the Court’s view on the merits of the substantive application and is not intended to diminish the significance of the constitutional rights in question and the novel nature of the issues. It will be for the applicant to advise the Court whether he wishes to proceed with his substantive application, in which case the Court will hear the parties on timetabling directions.

[24]Costs are reserved.

Gwyn J

Solicitors:

McCaw Lewis Limited, Hamilton for Applicant Simpson Grierson, Wellington for First Respondent