Overhangs and tactical voting
Kiwiblog raised an issue that I must admit I hadn’t considered when I wrote last week about why Maori Party voters who are leaning towards the Maori party should consider voting tactically with their party vote.  David Farrar suggests:
But what the Greens are calling for, is for Maori roll voters to vote in such a way to ensure over-hang, to gain parties of the left more seats in Parliament than their party vote entitles them to.
I should just quickly point out that I am not the Greens and don’t speak on the Green Party’s behalf, and that neither the Maori nor Green Party would define themselves primarily as on the left. But, I think Farrar is right that an overhang is a distortion of our proportional voting system. Although I would not go so far as to argue:
So the consequences of what the Greens are trying to do are severe. They are not only trying to frustrate the will of the voters, but they endanger MMP. For let me tell you that if they actually succeeded with their plan, and engineered a deliberate over-hang which changed the election result, the backlash would be nasty and massive.
At the time I wrote the post it was as a Green leaning voter articulating a reason why more people should consider giving their party vote to the Green Party. The reason I gave was a tactical one rather than a policy one. Having thought about it, I’m still not convinced this is manipulative. Or, at least no more than Rodney Hide telling National-leaning Epsom voters that they can have ‘two for the price of one’. (And in 1999 Hide’s predecessor Richard Prebble in Wellington Central, and Jeanette Fitzsimons in Coromandel both also got in due at least in part to some voters thinking ‘two for one’).
I think there is an ethical difference between trying to convince another party’s voters (to the extent that any party can ‘own’ voters) to vote for you, and deliberately splitting your own party’s votes in such a way as to manipulate an overhang.
The key difference in my mind is that the Greens have no idea how the Maori Party is likely to vote on any issues in the next three years. Indeed it is possible that the Greens and the Maori Party could end up on opposite sides of the house after post-election negotiations have concluded. Although the parties have some core issues in common neither the Maori Party nor the Greens have stated yet who they will work with after the election and it is not as clear as it might have seemed three years ago.
I think the point remains for Maori Party voters though that their party rather than their electorate vote is highly likely to be wasted if they vote for the Maori Party with it. If they agree with that premise it’s not much of a step to then looking around to another party to give their party vote to; be that the Greens, National or another party. Personally I think the logic points towards the Greens. I’m not convinced that would be a rort, otherwise everyone should be required to vote the same way with their party and electorate vote.
I was about to note that every party’s single job is to collect as much party vote as possible, but then realised that the Greens are the only parliamentary party for whom that is true as all other parliamentary parties will have an electorate vote component to their campaign as well, in some form or another.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I think the point remains for Maori Party voters though that their party rather than their electorate vote is highly likely to be wasted if they vote for the Maori Party with it.
I don’t think a vote is ever “wasted” if it is genuine. When people vote “strategically” the left over impression is that the party that got that “strategic” support makes the assumption the votes it gained were all about their policies, not the voter’s lack of choice or lack of power - which is what a strategic vote essentially means.
Let me assure you, if I end up voting National (and it would be the first time ever) then it would not necessarily be a ringing endorsement of National Policy, but a condemnation of Labour and Greens.
I am however, more likely to make my vote on the basis that whomever I support, will know that my vote counted towards its final numbers, and that may, if more people voted that way, inspire them to continue on into another election. This attitude may not seem so “wasted” to the Greens should they ever dip below the 5% threshold.
Regs, Zen
June 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Howzabout all the Green members who are starry eyed about the treaty join the the Maori Party (you’ll all know who they are) and then the Greens may gain in the polls .
June 9th, 2008 at 9:57 am
ZenTiger, a vote for National would but not a condemnation of Labour, NZ First and United Future, but of Labour and the Greens???
June 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Oh sure, throw them in too. But they’ve been fairly ineffectual in terms of advancing policy. You guys have done a great job of advancing policy. I just think most of it has been bad policy. You guys have also done a great job of supporting Labour when I thought it was time to step away. So Greens and Labour win the “Zen’s Top Two PITAs”.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Sorry StephenR, replace “You guys” with “The Greens” if you are not Green.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Although the parties have some core issues in common neither the Maori Party nor the Greens have stated yet who they will work with after the election…
Maybe true for the Maori Party…as for the Greens…yeah right!
June 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Our system does not guarantee exact proportionality. We would need 100% list seats to do that. What we have attempts to balance proportionality with constituent representation. So overhangs are a required part of the system.
No party can be held responsible for how the overall vote pans out. It is a fact that Maori will achieve greater representation if both the Maori Party and the Greens have greater numbers. The system provides a means of achieving this via strategic vote splitting, which is talked about all the time without this issue being raised. It is just unrealistic to expect any party not to promote itself among all its constituencies. Maori have often voted Green in greater numbers than Pakeha, so the Greens would be crazy not to campaign hard for their party vote.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Nope, not a Green. And yeah the Greens have been oddly effective for a party not in government, though - this is an old chestnut - not always ‘green’.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am
G’day ZenTiger,
You said “I just think most of it has been bad policy.”, and used that as your justification to oppose the Greens. Fair enough, this is your right and duty as a neo-liberal (assuming that’s what you consider yourself).
The thing is though, as far as I can see, the policies advocated by the Green Party are the most appropriate ones for our changing, de-globalising world. You’d have seen the news about oil prices going up, and how the debate around climate change is not on ‘if’ but ‘how much’ and ‘what to do about it’. These are issues that your chosen party, the Libertarianz have no coherent policy on. I’m guessing ACT is the same, though I couldn’t access their website just now.
You don’t like our policies, fine. What are your alternatives to peak oil and climate change? Because while the market will impose solutions, they’ll be brutal, messy and deeply unfair. In the same way that the free market couldn’t have navigated us through the Second World War, it cannot and will not see us through these even bigger crises.
For that, we’ll need something that looks a lot like current Green Party policy.
Cheers,
Tane Woodley
Wellington
June 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Strategically it is a very good idea to split votes. It increases the influence of each voter by 55%, if there is a worthwhile recipient electorate candidate.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I agree with unaha-closp on this one. If it was smart for Epsom voters to vote ACT (electorate) and National (party) last time, why is it so terrible for Maori Party voters to do something similar?
Mind you, David Farrar does have a point, in that actively campaigning for an overhang could be a manipulation of the system. I’m certain that most other parties would do this in a heartbeat if they had to, but we are meant to be a party of principle. We need to think this one through; pragmatism is all well and good, but there is a reason why principle is so important.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Of course it has to be remembered that half Maori voters cant vote for Maori Party candidates that are likely to be elected as they are not on the Maori roll. So any Maori that vote for Maori Party candidates in general seats are likely to have wasted votes as well. If such Maori want to support the Maori Party they`ll have to do a list vote just like any non Maori. What that effectively means that those who are not on the Maori roll - including half the Maori population - who want to support the Maori Party with two votes are likely to have both votes wasted.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Frog
I cannot see how you can claim not to be a green or speak for the green party, when your tag-line states . . . .
“a political blog from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand”
I believe it is crass and unethical of you to make the blatently false claim that you did in this posting and deny your roots, ESPECIALLY if it is just to avoid the blog’s 2008 expenses to be caught as part of the spend accounting of the green party under the dastardly EFA.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I think it is hard to argue that “logic” points to Maori Party supporters voting Green with their party vote.
The Green Party and the Maori Party MPs were diametrically opposed to each other on the Electoral Finance Act.
The Maori Party opposed the EFA and stood up fo the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to continue to be involved in the electoral process without restriction. The Greens did not.
Our Human Rights Commisison argued that the EFBill was “fundamentally flawed” and should be withdrawn. The Greens ignored the HRC and voted to push on. The HRC also said if parliament was to push on, it was essential that there be a furthur round of public consulation so as to avoid some of the stuff ups that have occurred. The Greens ignored the call of the Human Rights Commission again on this issue.
We now have a situation where it is quite likely that the 50,000 odd members of the EPMU will be denied a right to influence the outcome of the election , beyond a very nominal $12,000 or 25 cents each in election year.
The Maori Party stood up for their right to be invloved in the democratic process ( and the rights of all other Kiwis), whereas the Greens did not. On an issue so basic, I fail to see how it is “logical” for Maori Party supportters to vote for a party that was so happy ignore the pleas of the HRC.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The fact that the Greens and Maori Party sometimes disagree does not outweigh the fact that they vote together most of the time and particularly that they are the only two parties to accept Te Tiriti. There is more than enough common ground to seek the Maori vote.
Of course, John likes to shoehorn all issue into this one. He assumes his reasons are the ones the Maori Party based its decision on. There’s way more overlap between the Maori Party and the Green movement than there is between the Maori Party and the anti-EFA movement.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“a political blog from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand”
I’ve always assumed this was a Green Party publication.
What else can “a political blog from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand” possibly mean?
Can someone clarify?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I thought blogs were exempted - on the basis that they are a forum for conversation, or something.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Just another ludicrous aspect of the EFA, eh.
Define “blog”.
Does an online publication become a blog if I simply include the word “blog” on it somewhere?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Well I could be wrong. Anyway, just take a look at the legislation, surely there’s a definition there.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
It probably falls under The Law Of Common Sense….
June 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Nothing common about my cents mate!
June 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Nope Tane, not a Neo-Liberal. Not with a blog site called “NZ Conservative” at any rate :-).
And yep, I certainly am entitled to my views, and most of my reasons for not supporting the Greens are about their non-environmental policies.
And when I talk about how effective the Greens have been, it’s been on the non-environmental policies (EFA, Anti-Smacking for example), and on their moves to constantly increase the power of the State as an underlying requirement to “fix problems”.
I don’t think they’ve actually managed much for the environment - although with Labour at the helm, that’s not really their fault.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Valis, the “anti EFA movement” is not one based on left or right political philosophies. It an issue that transends all political philosphies. Free speech is an issue that affects all New Zealanders. One of the most high profile critics of the Act, is fomer Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore. Otago University lecturer Bryce Edwards is another high profile critic. Bryce tells me he is asupporter of left wing politics. He had an aticle published in the NZ Law Journal last month. The Human Rights Commission is also a critic.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Strings - where did I claim not to be a green? And yes, this is an official blog of the Green party, but it expressly states in the disclaimer that the opinions here are not those of the Green Party but of the author. So where did I go wrong? Surely they wouldn’t want me as their official spokesperson? Don’t I spout enough heresy here to turn a died in the wool Green some other colour? I couldn’t be bothered with the job if I had to toe the official line. Mind you I wouldn’t get a logon if I was too far out of bounds.
John B - I love that old chestnut about the Human Rights Commission finding the EFA Bill fatally flawed. You always conveniently forget to mention that they were satisfied with the amendments made.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
On the contrary, they weren’t frog.
They said quite categorically at the select committee on 18 October that it if the bill was not to be withdrawn as they recommended, it would be “essential” that any changes be subject to the widest possible consultation to ensure their legitimacy and credibility. They repeated this in their press relecse on 19 November, the day the bill was returned to parliament.
Secondly they also said on 18 October ( and in their September 9 submision) it would be “essentail” that any restrictions apply for only the three month period prior to an election ( rather than the full year). They reiterated this also on 19 November.
If you are in any doubt check the hrc website.
As for the 18 October select committee meeting I have a full audio of the Commision’s evidence as I attended it. I would be happy to send you or anyone else a copy. Metira Turei was there. From her questioning it was quite clear to me that the Greens where intending to ignore the advice and recommendations of the HRC.
It should be acknowledged that there were changes made to the Bill that the HRC agreed with eg limiting the definition of election advertisement etc, but the HRC made it very clear that they regarded it “essential ” that the regulatory period was only 3 months.
Had the Green MPs ( and Labour and the NZ First MPs) listended to and followed the advice of the HRC there would have been sufficient time to implement thoroughly tested electoral law reform. Sadly it is because they didn’t we have the farce we have now. However The Greens could show some leadership and lead a move to repeal the law. Why should the 50,000 member EPMU be denied the change to play no more than a token part in this year’s election?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
G’day ZenTiger,
Howdy.
You said “I just think most of it has been bad policy.�, and used that as your justification to oppose the Greens. Fair enough, this is your right and duty as a neo-liberal (assuming that’s what you consider yourself).
I do not consider myself a neo-liberal. Check out my blog name: NZ Conservative.
The thing is though, as far as I can see, the policies advocated by the Green Party are the most appropriate ones for our changing, de-globalising world. You’d have seen the news about oil prices going up, and how the debate around climate change is not on ‘if’ but ‘how much’ and ‘what to do about it’. These are issues that your chosen party, the Libertarianz have no coherent policy on. I’m guessing ACT is the same, though I couldn’t access their website just now.
I wouldn’t vote Libertarianz. Are you crazy? You obviously don’t read my blog that much. Well, my stat counter says I get at least one visitor a day. It’s not you then.
You don’t like our policies, fine. What are your alternatives to peak oil and climate change? Because while the market will impose solutions, they’ll be brutal, messy and deeply unfair. In the same way that the free market couldn’t have navigated us through the Second World War, it cannot and will not see us through these even bigger crises.
I don’t like the Greens social policies. I don’t like the way they were characterised, and the way opponents were vilified for having a different, but valid opinion. So much so, I’m not interested in whatever the Greens might suggest in the environment and economy. In any event, you’ve not had much success pushing environmental policies, and yet chillingly success in the social engineering side.
For that, we’ll need something that looks a lot like current Green Party policy.
Not necessarily, but I do agree we need to maintain genuine interest in sustainability and good environmental guardianship. If the Greens keep up the awareness, we might see better support for these issues across the spectrum, and that would be a good thing, as the right can bring different solutions to the table.
Cheers, Tane Woodley, Wellington
Regs, Zen
June 9th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
“Valis, the “anti EFA movementâ€? is not one based on left or right political philosophies. It an issue that transends all political philosphies. Free speech is an issue that affects all New Zealanders.”
John, cut the pure-as-the-driven-snow routine. The Greens are at least as strong on the concept of freedom of speech and fairness in electoral finance as anyone else. Where they disagree is the claim that money = free speech. I personally have no problems saying that the EFA is a mess in many ways and it will have to be fixed. But as I said in another post:
“.. notice that we haven’t seen a big Nat spend up during election year like last time. It is very doubtful we’ll see them run another secret parallel campaign with the likes of the breatheren either. These are both very good outcomes for Kiwi democracy.”
You’d have more credibility if you’d at least acknowledge that there are other important issues like these to address.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
The best outcome for the Kiwi democracy was more intense scrutiny over government departments using tax payer funds to promote Labour policy - I read some-where that some 40 million is spent “informing the public” and we put up with blatant advertising this way in 2005 with nary a murmur. Disgusting.
And the scope of the EFA was so narrow, you apparently wanted any action, as long as it was action, good or bad. The problem is things *can* actually be made worse by rushing in a solution with little thought.
Until we can factor in the “value” of media coverage, third party support (and that includes Unions and Movie Stars just as much as advertising dollars) then stamping out paid advertising is a distortion that doesn’t actually address voters access to accurate information and a variety of opinions over policy effects. The $1=one vote mantra is nothing more than paranoid knee-jerk reaction that doesn’t take a wider view of the whole “information to voters” mix.
We interrupt this comment to advise that Nike shoes are really cool. so what if they bscrew the environment, rip off low paid workers, cancel their pension schemes and pay their CEO 18.2 million (2005). Buy Nike. Just do it. [Ya reckon that will work on the Greens? Apparently, it will.]
You’d have more credibility if you’d at least acknowledge that there are other important issues like these to address.
Now that gets me going. What can be more important than how our democracy is structured? This is all about a mere $1 million dollars in advertising? A few brochures, a couple of spots in the Newspapers and about $15 million dollars of media print and tv promoting anti-Brethren reactions to their adverts. You are so focussed on stopping freedom of speech for one group, you are prepared to stuff it up for everyone!
There are important issues to address, many were outlined in the submissions to the first draft of the EFA, then ignored and the second draft pushed through under urgency. Just that process alone is far more instructive of the threat to democracy than 1 million in advertising - about the same that the parties illegally spent in self-promotion.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
The Nats will stop departments informing the public - yea right.
The Greens wanted a very wide scope but others didn’t on both sides of the isle, so like many other bills, a decision was made on balance. I’ve already agreed there are big problems that need fixing.
You don’t have to sway everyone for media to be effective. Billions is spent on advertising the world over because it delivers the expected return.
Money in politics is absolutely corrosive as has been shown in the US and Australia.
The Nats aren’t talking about having another look, or fixing structural issues, they will just repeal the Act so they can go on outspending everyone.
The main reason the illegal Nats/bretheren campaign failed is that they got exposed just in time. We’d probably have Brash as PM now otherwise. Go read the Hollow Men.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Valis to say that the Greens are at least as strong on freedom of speech and fairness in electoral finance as everyone else is patently incorrect. The very actions of the Green MPs confirms it. Had they acted on the submission of our Human Rights Commission we would not have the farce we have today.
You have acknowledged the point when you say the EFA is a mess and will need to be fixed. If the Greens had listended to the HRC they would have voted to withdraw the bill and started again. Failing that, they would have opened the Act up for a furthur round of public consulatation as recommended by the HRC. I sat there on 18 October with Metira Turei and heard Rosslyn Noonan say this would be “essential”, and Metira ignored her. How you can claim the Greens stand for free speech when they are prepared to so blantantly ignoe the HRC is beyond me.
The EPMU has been left hanging waiting to see if they are able to participate in this election purely and simply becasue of the Act.
You might be quite right when you say the Brethren may not campaign this election. Given what happened last time, I think it was unlikely they would have had anyway ( however that is merely speculation on my part).
However while they may not campaign, I certainly will be, and prior to the EFB, I certainly had no intention of being invloved in this election campaign in the way I am. I am running an apolitical campaign for the repeal of the EFA. I would never have done that under any other circumstances. It is an issue that does effect every New Zealander. As I said earlier, the Green MPs could show some leadership and lead a move to repeal the Act. It is not too late.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
IMO, the EFA should be repealed the day the election campaign starts.
IMO, we should adopt the USA policy of matching funds - where party funds are matched by a taxpayer contribution in return for meeting the terms and conditions. The party funds qualifying for matching funds coming from membership dues alone - up to a maximum qualifying membership fee campaign/donation amount. Also allowing additional funding from party members - such as MP’s and candidates and declared public donors* (if over certain amounts) up to a final total campaign cap.
Otherwise, other parties having no cap, but having their funding publicly declared (published in the media) before the campaign begins.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
The HRC’s final statement does not call for the bill to be thrown out. It says that positive changes had been made, while noting they still had concerns. The HRC proposed the bill be reopened for submissions or at least that every submitter be advised of the changes to the bill when it was reported back so their views could be made known to MPs. They may not have gone as far as you’d like, but your tale is not a fair reflection of what happened either.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:41 am
ZenTiger,
What’s your blog address? Sounds interesting.
Cheers,
Tane
June 10th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Never mind, found it. I thought it might have been on a NZ site, seems not.
Tane.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Valis I will get back to you with the relevant quotes and submisions later today.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Valis said: The Nats will stop departments informing the public - yea right.
Maybe, what’s that got to do with any of my points? As John says, this issue crosses the political divide. This issue should be about voters making sure the terms of limiting expression of opinion serve out interests, not the politicians. Labour and the Greens have pushed this as something to shut down any GROUP spending more than $120K, and in particular the Exclusive Brethren.
The Nats at least could see how bad this legislation was. Whether they do any better in terms of reviewing political spend remains to be seen. Doesn’t mean we get to make bad law hoping it works out better.
The main reason the illegal Nats/bretheren campaign failed is that they got exposed just in time. We’d probably have Brash as PM now otherwise. Go read the Hollow Men.
The EB advertising wasn’t illegal (apart from the use of a PO Box address. I read the Hollow Men. It has a few facts and a lot of conjecture. Most of the people impressed with the book have taken Hager’s conjecture as fact. I found it pretty ordinary. Mind you, I’ve never voted National although there is a first time for everything…
June 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am
typo: voters making sure the terms of limiting expression of opinion serves our interests, not the politicians.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I was under the impression that the dodgy stuff the EB did was indeed legal, and that was why the law had to change…
June 10th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Why was it dodgy?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Let’s see. Start with some religious fundamentalists for whom voting is a sin. They decide its ok instead to try to buy an election and two weeks out drop a scare mongering pamphlet containing outright lies without a promoters statement because even they know its dodgy. This is done with the full knowledge of the Nats, who then lie about it, as new for sure that it was dodgy. How’s that for a start? Yes, its good to remember what started this whole EFA mess. That and the stupid pledge card. A pox on both their houses.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Actually the pledge card is a great idea, all parties should have to produce one. It’s the STEALTH pledge card that riled me.
Ditto the laughable Brethren, they can say what they like, they must declare themselves though.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
An interesting point about the card. The problem was that they used public money of course. But then it is a structural problem with the current system that we’re supposed to believe that it is possible for MPs to do things during election year (or any other year) that are not electioneering. Yes, we have to achieve as level a playing field as possible, but it will never be perfect and perpetuating this myth is a big reason we’re having so many problems right now. I agree there are problems with public financing of parties, but at least it would allow for this false wall to be removed. I think we might be better off giving them some limited amount of money each and just letting them do what they want with it, whether inside Parliament or out. What do you think?
June 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
John B,
I’ve had a look at the hrc website, as you suggested. But what I see there doesn’t quite seem to match your claims about their views.
The last word by the human right’s commission on the EFA appears to be this:
http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/lettertoelectoralcommittee reelectoralfinancebill.php
The HRC says there (and let’s be clear about this) that they support the policy objectives of the bill. They agree that restrictions on electoral advertising and funding of political parties are appropriate and proper. They do have concerns that this must be balanced with freedom of expression. But their views are far more subtle and balanced that the cartoon you seem to present.
They also express themselves several times in that letter as being “strongly supportive” of amendments to the EFA that the Green MPs were responsible for. It was the Greens who put through as many of the HRC’s requested amendments as they could.
I don’t want to defend the EFA too far: it was a bungled attempt by Labour to push through some much-needed reforms in a way that best suited them. Labour started from an arrogant point of view of imposing electoral reform on everyone else, and they got it badly wrong. The amendments to it stopped it being a disaster, but it’s still far from perfect. But our electoral laws were a mess before it, too: laws from 1956 about leaflets just didn’t apply well to the age of the web. On balance the EFA’s a slight improvement despite its many flaws.
What we need now is a process to fix things, one based in consultation with the populace and which the politicians can’t ruin by their attempts to sort out electoral reform with secret deals in the back room. Which is where the Greens came in and extracted from Labour, in return for the Green’s support, a promise for a Citizen’s Jury approach to sort out electoral reform properly for the long-term.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Zen says:
“The EB advertising wasn’t illegal”
That’s incorrect, initially. They were attempting to do it anonymously, which was illegal, and when called on it they were forced to reveal who they were.
But the fact that their campaign was, after that, legal was one of the reasons why we obviously needed reform of our electoral finance laws. The fact that you could legally run a multi-million dollar election advertising campaign against a party who could not legally run a multi-million dollar campaign advertising for themselves was obviously absurd.
“This issue should be about voters making sure the terms of limiting expression of opinion serve out interests, not the politicians.”
So you are then in favour of the Citizen’s Jury approach to resolving this mess?
Me, as far as electoral law goes I’m far more concerned that the police refused to prosecute anyone from National or Labour over their breaches of electoral law after the 2005 election, even though the electoral commission obviously wanted prosecutions. What the damn use is a law if the cops won’t enforce it for fear of “putting the election into disrepute”.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Yes, the Greens would like a much wider review of election finance by a citizen’s jury than Labour will allow. The Nats have criticised the potential narrowness of what is being set up, but are only saying that they’ll can the whole thing, rather than doing it right. They won’t support anything that might reduce their ability to spend up large at election time. Their freedom of speech rhetoric is just a smokescreen.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
From the Merriam-webster dictionary
Main Entry: dodgy
Pronunciation: \ˈdä-jē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1861
Origin British
Meaning: evasive, tricky
Sounds like politics to me
Frog - I apologise if I suggested you were not Green, I meant that you were not “the greens”. It’s difficult t tie down when this is an “official” web site, but nevermine, the crack* is stimulating.
* used in the Scottish vernacular sense.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
If I was on the Citizens’ Jury I would advocate giving, and limiting expenditure to, $10,000 for all parties. Individual candidates could spend up to $20,000 IN THEIR ELECTORATE ONLY, and only to promote their own candidacy, not a party vote.
The CEO of a very large company once told me I had to give him a report on future strategy that wan no longer than one side of A5 paper, 12 point, double spaced, then he would decide his position. Great advice - KISS it.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I admire the intent, but have two problems. $10k is just too low to get your message out. You’d end up dependent on the media and their bias would benefit the old parties again. Second, I can see no reason to bar electorate candidates from campaigning for the Party vote. People who talk to them or come to public meetings want to know about more than just their local candidate. That $10k starts to look even more pitiful and the effect would be to greatly reduce the chance of a smaller party to get into Parliament.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Valis, I have been out of my office for most of the last day and it has taken longer to come back to this issue than I had hoped.
To truly understand the position of the Human Rights Commission it is important to look at things in context. I have summarized the key aspects of their position immediately below. I then quoted extensively from their pronouncements and positions. I hope you, Icehawk and others take the trouble to read both.
Summary
Firstly I have never argued that the Human Rights Commission opposed the objects and intent of the bill. To the contrary, as Icehawk comments they made it very clear that they support those objects. They equally made it clear in their submission dated 7 September that the bill was “fundamentally flawed� and should be withdrawn. Had Parliament not ignored their advice a lot of the problems we have with the EFA could have been avoided.
The HRC probably anticipated that their advice would be ignored and they went on to say in para 10.3 of their 7 September submission that if the bill was not withdrawn they would require at the very least four major changes. While Parliament subsequently amended the bill to make three of these four changes it failed to act on the fourth change the HRC wanted. This was a requirement that the restrictions apply for only the three months immediately prior to the election. So yes, the HRC do acknowledge changes that they requested were made, the reality is that the restrictions will likely apply for over ten months, rather than three. In other words we have restrictions on free speech for over three times longer than the HRC considered reasonable. Don’t you think this is material?
Having lodged their 7 September submission the Commissioners Rosslyn Noonan and Judy McGregor appeared before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on 18 October. Ms Noonan said:
“The Commission’s preference is and remains that …..the bill is withdrawn, and redrafted …..If it is not to be withdrawn, and rewritten, the Commission’s view is that it is essential that any changes be subject to the widest possible public scrutiny to ensure their credibility and legitimacy.�
The MPs were clearly told again that the bill should be withdrawn. They were also advised that if they intended to ignore the Commission’s advice it would be essential that there be a further round of public consultation on any changes.
The Commissioners also presented a document at that meeting headed:
“Essential, substantial changes recommended by the Human Rights Commission�.
They listed the four issues identified on 7 September including:
“The present regulatory period of 3 months is retained and not extended to a potential 11 months�.
Subsequently they were invited by the Select Committee to provide detailed advice on changes and this resulted in the letter dated 31 October 2007 which Icehawk referred to.
I have quoted sections of this letter below. The Commission makes it very clear that it considers the best way to address public concerns is a further of full public consultation. Fearing they will be again ignored, as they have previously, they go on to say:
“If that suggestion is rejected the Commission recommends that, at the very least, an executive summary of the report is prepared, as an adjunct to the redrafted Bill, which indicates the extent to which the submissions have been taken into account. This should be circulated by email to those who made submissions. This will enable submitters to assess the proposed changes and make the views know to Committee members and other Members of Parliament in time for the parliamentary debates on the reported back Bill�
The bill was subsequently not withdrawn, but amended and reported back to Parliament on 19 November. In a fanfare the Minister of Justice announced that the government had taken up a suggestion from the HRC that an executive summary of the major changes was circulated to submitters.
When the Act was finally passed it applied for the full year and not the three months the HRC requested. Further third parties were to be restricted to spending no more than $120,000 whereas the HRC had endorsed an Electoral Commission submission that it be set at $250-300,000.
This is akin to the HRC asking a Court to find a man not guilty. When he is found guilty pleading for a prison term and not a death penalty. When he is awarded the death penalty pleading for him to be given a decent last meal, and then for the gaolers to say the HRC’s request were agreed to because he was given a decent last meal before he was executed.
Details below:
Their 7 September written submission on the Electoral Finance Bill finished with the following conclusions:
10.2 A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.
10.3 If it is not withdrawn, the Bill requires substantial redrafting to ensure that it does not have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression during and in the run up to an election. The Commission suggests at the very least that:
• the present regulatory period is retained;
• the definition of “election advertisement� is reworded – and
cl.5(1)(a)(iii) deleted-so it is more clearly focused on advertising relating to an election;
• greater thought is given to the implications of scheme regulating the position of third parties including the excessive restrictions on comment during the regulatory period, capped funding and what constitutes a third party; and
• the definition of a third party is amended to ensure that young people are not excluded from political debate.
10.4 The Bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process. The proposed legislation lacks public authorization and as a consequence will undermine the legitimacy of political processes. It requires radical change.
Select Committee 18 October
Rosslyn Noonan stated the following:
“Given the fundamental importance of the democratic rights of New Zealanders contained in the proposed legislation.
The Commission’s preference is, and remains, that the proposed legislation, the Bill, is withdrawn, and rewritten, the Commission’s view that it is essential that any changes be subject to the widest possible public scrutiny to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of whatever electoral law reform emerges.
The importance that we place on public scrutiny and participation in this process arises from our recognition that a robust human rights environment and culture requires:
• Democracy
• The rule of law
• An independent judiciary
• Effective and corrupt-free governance institutions
• Accountability mechanisms such as the Commission, the Ombudsman and so on
• And an active Civil Society
In our view history has demonstrated that an active civil society is vital to the health and sustainability of the other elements.
And so when we are talking about the very basis of the democracy we need to make sure that the processes allow the people of New Zealand to have confidence in the outcome.�
Extracts from Letter HRC to Select Committee Chair – 31 October
Public Confidence in the redrafted bill
The Commission has stressed the importance of an open and transparent public submission process given the proposed fundamental changes to New Zealand’s electoral law. The higher the number of submitters, 575 written submissions and 101 oral submissions, is testament to strong interest from the political groups, academics, civil society and individuals.
Many of the substantial concerns of submitters are likely to be addressed in redrafting. The Committee now faces the challenge of how the rationale for recommended changes and the opportunity for further improvement is incorporated into its processes. The Commission considers that public concerns would be best addressed by a further round of public consultation on a redrafted version of the Bill.
If that suggestion is rejected the Commission recommends that, at the very least, an executive summary of the report is prepared, as an adjunct to the redrafted Bill, which indicates the extent to which the submissions have been taken into account. This should be circulated by email to those who made submissions. This will enable submitters to assess the proposed changes and make the views know to Committee members and other Members of Parliament in time for the parliamentary debates on the reported back Bill.
HRC Press Release 19 November
Statement on the Electoral Finance Bill
Several significant changes to the Electoral Finance Bill go some way to addressing the Human Rights Commission’s concerns about freedom of expression and citizens’s rights to participate.
“We’re pleased to see the very wide definition of election advertisement has been dropped which allows outside groups to participate in issues-related advocacy,� says Human Rights Commission, EEO Commissioner Dr Judy McGregor.
While the redrafted bill increases third party spending limits and thresholds for registering as third part, the bill does not go as far as the amounts recommended by the Electoral Commission which were supported by the Human Rights Commission.
The Commission was also among those that opposed the extension of the regulatory period which remains unchanged. The Commission in its original submission said coupled with the overly broad definition of election advertisement it would have the effect of limiting freedom of expression for a significant period. Now the very wide definition of election advertisement has been dropped the Commission believes this goes some way to addressing its concerns.
“The Commission has stressed throughout, the importance of an open and transparent public submission process given the fundamental changes to New Zealand’s electoral law. We are disappointed that there will not be a further round of public consultation on the redrafted bill. We note that the Select Committee has taken up the Human Rights Commission suggestion that an executive summary be emailed to 575 submitters.�
“Submitters should be able to assess the proposed changes and make their views known to Committee members and other MPs in time for parliamentary debates on the redrafted bill�.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I have just noted a drafting error on Rosslyn Noonan’s statement to the Select Committee. The first three paragraphs should read as follows:
“Given the fundamental importance of the democratic rights of New Zealanders contained in the proposed legislation.
The Commission’s preference is, and remains, that the proposed legislation, the Bill, is withdrawn and redrafted to take into account the very substantial and indepth submissions of the over 600 submitters to the Select Committee.
If it is not to be withdrawn, and rewritten, the Commission’s view that it is essential that any changes be subject to the widest possible public scrutiny to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of whatever electoral law reform emerges.”