Papatoetoe by-election decision awaited amid fraud claims

A district court judge has reserved his decision on whether Papatoetoe could face a rare by-election, following serious allegations of voting irregularities in Auckland’s most recent local body elections. The ruling, expected before Christmas, could have significant implications for public confidence in New Zealand’s postal voting system.

The case was heard at Manukau District Court and stems from a petition lodged under the Local Electoral Act by former Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board member and deputy chair, Lehopoaome Vi Hausia. Hausia, who failed to be re-elected, alleged widespread issues in the Papatoetoe subdivision, including stolen voting papers, votes cast without voter consent, and unexplained statistical anomalies in turnout.

The respondent to the petition is Dale Ofsoske, an independent electoral officer for Auckland. At a preliminary hearing in November, Judge Richard McIlraith ordered five ballot boxes to be transferred from Auckland District Court to Manukau District Court for close examination. The scrutineering process took place in the presence of the judge, legal counsel for both parties, and Ofsoske himself.

During this examination, 79 voting papers were identified as having been cast without the knowledge of the rightful voters. At the most recent hearing, counsel for Ofsoske acknowledged that irregularities had occurred in some ballots, though the scale and impact of those irregularities remain contested.

Papatoetoe stood out as the only Auckland electorate to record a significant rise in voter turnout during the election. While turnout fell across most of the city, Papatoetoe experienced an increase of more than seven percent equating to around 3,000 additional votes, according to Hausia’s lawyer, Simon Mitchell. None of the previous local board members were returned, with all four Papatoetoe seats won by first-time candidates from the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team.

Mitchell argued that the surge in voting was inconsistent with historical patterns and could not reasonably be explained by a sudden increase in civic engagement. He suggested that the only plausible explanation was mass voter fraud, pointing to allegations of stolen ballots, misuse of voting papers, and irregularities involving special votes and voter records.

Judge McIlraith acknowledged the seriousness of the claims but pressed Mitchell for evidence that thousands of votes were unlawfully cast. Mitchell cited at least one police case involving alleged theft and argued that the scale of the turnout increase demanded closer scrutiny. He also noted that none of the winning candidates or representatives from the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team attended the hearing, which, he said, limited insight into how such a dramatic rise in participation occurred.

Representing Ofsoske, lawyer David Collins argued that established case law did not automatically justify overturning an election due to irregularities. Hausia lost by approximately 1,200 votes, Collins said, and even if some ballots were unlawful, they may not have materially affected the outcome. He also pointed to alternative explanations for missing ballots, such as voters changing addresses, not being enrolled, or ballots being collected by others for legitimate reasons.

Legal expert Andrew Geddis, a professor at the University of Otago, described the situation as “certainly very worrying.” Speaking separately, Geddis said the case highlighted vulnerabilities in the postal voting system used in local elections and raised fundamental questions about whether all procedures were lawful.

Geddis noted that election petitions are rare because petitioners must meet a high legal threshold and cover their own legal costs. Under the Local Electoral Act, a by-election can only be ordered if enough unlawful votes are proven to have changed the result. Given the winning margin of around 1,200 votes, this would require evidence of widespread wrongdoing.

He also raised concerns about the potential outcome if irregularities were proven but not enough to mathematically change the result. Allowing an election to stand despite confirmed systemic issues, he said, could further erode public trust.

Separately, police have confirmed they are investigating 16 complaints of electoral fraud forwarded by Election Services. Additional allegations have included claims that voters were told how to vote in public places, including at a Sikh temple in Papatoetoe. These claims have been firmly rejected by Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team spokesperson Kunal Bhalla, who described them as baseless and politically motivated.

As Papatoetoe awaits Judge McIlraith’s decision, the case is being closely watched nationwide. A ruling in favour of a by-election would be rare and could prompt broader debate about the integrity and future of postal voting in local elections.

FAQs

What is the judge deciding?

The judge is determining whether alleged unlawful votes were serious enough to overturn the Papatoetoe election and trigger a by-election.

How many irregular votes were found?

So far, 79 voting papers were identified as having been cast without the voter’s knowledge.

Why is Papatoetoe significant?

It was the only Auckland electorate to record a substantial increase in turnout while others declined.

What margin did the losing candidate face?

Lehopoaome Vi Hausia lost by about 1,200 votes.

Are by-elections common in local elections?

No, by-elections resulting from election petitions are rare in New Zealand.

Are police involved?

Yes, police are investigating 16 complaints of alleged electoral fraud related to the election.