Live, Work or Play Rule

The live, work or play rule refers to the third qualification set out in the New Zealand Constitution for someone to hold elected office. The rule requires that a elected representative either lives, works or plays in the district from which they have been elected. The qualification has come under scrutiny since it was included in the New Zealand Constitution in 2018.

### History

The qualification was introduced as part of the Constitutional Convention during the drafting of the New Zealand Constitution in 2018. Intent was to prevent those who has little affiliation to a community being elected because of partisanship, without having to meaningfully campaign to voters. This issue was considered particularly problematic due to the small size of districts, meaning it was more feasible that a person with no community ties could be elected. During the Constitutional Convention, proponents cited the UK Parliament where members regularly represented constituencies without living in them or having any meaningful ties. Opponents of the rules criticised it as a restriction of personal freedoms for individuals to run for elected office.Subsequent legal and political analysis of the origins of the rule have focused on analysing how the Constitutional Convention envisioned the rule being enforced.

As with the other qualification for office, the Electoral Commission must establish a party's nominee meets the qualifications for office before their nomination is accepted. If a nomination is accepted and the candidate wins election, the person will be sworn in. However, the House of Representatives or Senate can still challenge a members qualification through a motion in writing with 10% of the chamber as signatories. A challenge is successful if 75% of the relevant chamber supports it. A challenge to another members qualification does not revoke their membership but rather results in case between the chamber and the member before the Supreme Court.

### Interpretation

#### 2018 - Electoral Commission Guidance

After the introduction of the Constitution in mid-2018, the Electoral Commission introduced guidance on the rule. The Commission considered that qualification had to be met at the time that a representative or senator was sworn in. Any further consideration of whether a person met the qualification was retrospective and would relate to the previous six months before the swearing in date. Hence acceptance of a candidates nomination would be contingent on them proving they met the qualification in the period between the nominating being filed and the date they would be sworn in if elected. The Electoral Commission also indicated they would decline nominations of candidates that in their view failed to meet the qualification.

#### 2024 - *Davidson v Electoral Commission*

After *Davidson v Electoral Commission*, the Electoral Commission issued new guidance in line with the Supreme Court's ruling. The qualification related to whether there was a reasonable expectation that the candidate would live, work or play in their district throughout their elected term. This made the qualification forward-looking so the candidate had to demonstrate they met the qualification during the time they were elected and not in the six-months before being sworn in. The Electoral Commission also indicated they would no longer decline the nomination of candidates that failed to meet the qualification and instead provide guidance to each candidate.

### Eligibility Challenges under the Rule

#### Helen Davidson

In 2024, Davidson won the National Party for Isthmus's 3rd District unopposed. At the time she was living in Sydney, Australia and had been for the previous three years. She had moved to Sydney after living in the District for almost a decade and was intending to return to District in early January 2025. The Electoral Commission declined her nomination for the district.