Integrity of elections requires action

More than a year after the last election not one of the many cases of possible electoral fraud referred to police by the Electoral Commission has gone to court.

Police are sitting on more than twenty open investigations referred to them for prosecution under the Electoral Act by the Electoral Commission.

Truth has obtained details under the Official Information Act that reveal Police seem to have no interest in prosecuting offences and breaches of the Electoral Act.

Of the 32 cases referred, 6 have lapsed because the prosecution time limit has expired.

62 dual vote referrals remain open and un-prosecuted.

Headline cases referred by the Electoral Commission that remain open with little or no progress are the Green party worker Jolyon White’s alleged vandalism of National’s signs at the 2011 election, several of Labour’s flyers including their ‘Stop Asset Sales’, ‘Prices are Rising faster than wages’ and ‘Ohariu Census’ pamphlets.

Only 3 cases have been closed, with no action or prosecution resulting. . .

The integrity of our elections depends on all involved as candidates, voters and in administration obeying the law.

Those who don’t should face consequences and that should happen in a timely manner.

If, as is obvious, the police either can’t or don’t want to deal with breeches of the electoral law another body must be given the powers to do so.

TRUTH believes Edgeler is on the money, for minor offences substantial fines against political parties and individuals that break Electoral Law need to be instant and issued by the Electoral Commission, for larger breaches like Labour’s 2005 pledge card rort an Independent Commission Against Corruption needs to be established, not unlike Australia has.

To continue with blatant and repeated breaches remaining unpunished encourages political corruption, we need to maintain our top position in the Transperency International corruption rankings as the least corrupt nation in the world. Enforcing the law would go a long way to achieving this.

Whichever body or bodies get the powers to deal with alleged breeches of electoral law must have the means to act during the election period before election day or very soon after it.

Justice delayed in these cases could potentially alter election results.

Need attitude change not age change

MPs face another conscience vote tonight, this time on the sale of liquor.

Graeme Edgeler explains there are three choices and the manner of voting might not lead to the result favoured by most.

I’ve never supported a return to a purchase age in both licensed or off-license premises of 20.

I was initially supportive of a split age – 18 in licensed premises and 20 for off licence outlets.

But on further consideration am convinced that will merely be a band-aid on one symptom of a much wider problem of alcohol abuse and misuse.

That is by no means confined to 18 and 19 year-olds and it would be most unfair to restrict the majority who drink responsibly because a few of their contemporaries don’t, while doing nothing for the many over 19 who drink to excess.

We do need to address the attitude to alcohol and the problems associated with it but that won’t be achieved by tinkering with the purchase age.

Stability vs proportionality

Do we need a party vote threshold and if so how high should it be set?

This is one of the questions to be considered by the review of MMP and divergent views of submitters show it’s not one for which there is an easy answer that is likely to gain widespread support.

Graeme Edgler  argues that the party  threshold be reduced from 5% to 2.5% and Jordan Williams wants the one-seat rule thrown out but argues for the retention of the 5% threshold.

A decision on the threshold pits proportionality against stability.

If the threshold is too high it reduces proportionality which is one of MMP’s strengths; but if it is too low it increases the risk of parliamentary and more importantly, government instability by enabling too many wee parties to gain seats.

I think the stability argument is important and given how low the membership threshold is for parties – they need only 500 people signed up before they register – I wouldn’t want to see it any lower than 5%.

But given a seat gives a party representation I see merit in allowing the party of the seat-winner to bring in others on his or her coat tails to help maintain proportionality.

This does mean that a party that wins a seat could get more than one MP even though it won less than 5% of the vote when a party without a seat would get none although it might have had a similar or higher party vote but still doesn’t get to 5%.

But allowing the seat-winner’s party to get the proportion of seats for which voters gave their support gives a more proportional parliament and disallowing that just because other parties miss out would only lessen proportionality.

The first deadline for submissions on the review is this Thursday.

That is for those wishing to speak to their submissions. these will be presented from April 24th to May 18th.

If you just want to make a written submission the deadline is May 31st.

Radio Live PM broadcast referred to police

The  Electoral Commission has referred Radio Live to the police over the politics-free hour hosted by John Key last year.

Newstalk ZB’s obtained a copy of the commission’s decision regarding a Labour Party complaint over a show the Prime Minister conducted on Radio Live during last year’s election period.

The commission’s found the broadcast was an election programme and a breach of the Broadcasting Act.

Newstalk ZB understands both Labour and National have been given advance copies of the decision but are bound by a confidentiality agreement not to talk about it until its officially released at five this afternoon.

Radio Live had checked with the commission before the broadcast and understood that as long as there was no discussion of politics the broadcast would not be in breach the Act.

Obviously there is now doubt about that which once again raises questions over the clarity of campaign regulations.

It also raises questions over the effectiveness of the law when it takes this long to make a decision.

Kathryn Ryan discussed the isssue with Graeme Edgeler on Nine to Noon.

 

Referendum tool helps sort out options

Confused about the referendum on electoral systems? Not sure which one to opt for?

Legal Beagle Graeme Edgeler has come up with a referendum tool which could help you work out which system is best for you.

He explains about it here.

If you want to skip the explanation, the tool is here.

As you click on each question, the tool ranks the options based on your answer.

I did it very quickly and finished with Supplementary Member ahead followed by First Past the Post then Preferential Vote, Mixed member Proportional and Single Transferable Vote was a very distant fifth.

MMP not necessarily better for Maori

Alternatives to MMP will not necessarily  reduce the ability of Maori to get into parliament:

Since its introduction in 1996 MMP has meant “More Maori in Parliament”. It is the best system, of those on offer, for Maori representation in the New Zealand parliament, says Maori politics lecturer Dr Maria Bargh.

On the contrary, in an excellent post fact-checking the referendum Graeme Edgeler writes:

Under MMP there are currently 7 Maori seats. A change to first past the post, or preferential voting, or single transfer vote systems would see an increase in the number of Maori seats to at least 12, and probably 13 seats. A change to the supplementary member system would see an increase at least 9 and possibly 10 Maori seats.

Any voting system which has more electorates will result in more Maori seats. Regardless of the system Maori will also have as much a chance as anyone else of seeking a general electorate seat.

Maori seats aren’t up for debate by the Electoral Commission should a majority of people vote to change from MMP but that doesn’t guarantee they will remain.

Abolishing them has been National party policy for a couple of elections but dropping that was one of the concessions the party made in coalition negotiations with the Maori Party.

I have no idea what National’s policy on the seats will be for the coming election but it’s a sure bet that Act will campaign on getting rid of them.

If National is able to form the next government and Act has a role as a coalition or support partner and the Maori Party doesn’t, the Maori seats will almost certainly go.

Te Tai Tokerau close – iPredict

People putting their money on iPredict are favouring Hone Harawira to hold Te Tia Tokerau in tomorrow’s by-election.

Vote share contracts were launched this week for tomorrow’s Te Tai Tokerau by-election, and the market is predicting an extremely tight race. Hone Harawira is expected to receive 41.1% of the vote, with Labour’s Kelvin Davis a close second with 40.1%. The Maori Party’s Solomon Tipene is expected to receive 18.0% of the vote. However, Mr Harawira’s position in November’s General Election has strengthened over the past week, with the market indicating he has a 70% probability of winning Te Tai Tokerau in November (up from 52% last week).

The Electoral Commission website still isn’t showing Mana as a registered party but Graeme Edgeler has a media release saying it has been registered.

That means if Harawira wins his gamble will have paid off with extra funding as the leader of a registered party.

iPredict isn’t a poll but that result does reflect last week’s poll showing Harawira just ahead of Labour Kelvin Davis.

Maori electorates have a low voter turnout in general elections and people are usually even less enthusiastic about voting in by-elections.

The result could hinge on the parties’ ability to motivate people to vote, if indeed the race is as close as polls and iPredict suggest.

Can we rely on them? The last word on that goes to Rob:

   Chris Trotter – and others – are saying the polls understate Hone Harawira’s support because a lot of his supporters use cellphones, and/or are young.  . .

Ah, yeah.  Parties doing badly in the polls always seem to argue that for some reason their supporters aren’t getting polled.  . .

There might be a bit more variation in tomorrow’s byelection, because it is for the country’s northern-most Maori electorate, and if the stereotypes are true, there is a disproportionate number of the country’s drug dealers in that electorate – people who famously buy cheap prepaid cellphones on Trademe rather than have a landline.   But I’m always dubious about stereotypes, especially self-serving ones, and this one is a bit too pat. I’m also not too sure if drug dealers are particularly conscientious about voting.

Tomorrow we might know no more about the drug dealers but we will know how good the predictions were.

We’re Paying For Budget Brochure

They just don’t learn do they? In spite of Labour’s contention the pledge card (remember the one they spent our money on illegally then changed the law to make it legal in retrospect?) was just a belt-way issue when it wasn’t they’re snubbing their noses at public opinion again – spending our money on their budget brochure.

Labour is dipping into taxpayers’ money to produce leaflets on the May Budget – publicity that is almost certainly election advertising under its new Electoral Finance Act and will have to be counted in its election expenses.

That means large sums of public money will again have gone towards a Labour election campaign. The cost of the leaflet may also have to be declared as a donation by Parliament to the Labour Party under the troublesome new law, which is not how Labour intended it to work.

Oh dear – they’re having problems with their own bad law.

The leaflet does not breach Parliament’s own spending laws because they have been liberalised and it does not breach the Electoral Finance Act because it is authorised. But there may be a post-election sting in it for Labour.

The party will almost certainly have to declare the leaflet in its election expenses return to the Electoral Commission and deduct its cost from its $2.4 million cap.

Wellington electoral law specialist Graeme Edgeler said last night the leaflet met the definition of election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Act.

“It doesn’t say vote Labour, but that is the clear implication.”

It had party colours, the Labour logo, and the party’s tax-cut promises this year and in the future. He did not believe it could be considered under the exception given to an MP producing material in their capacity as MP.

“This is a Labour Party promotional leaflet.”  It was “almost certainly” an election advertisement and as such should be declared in the party’s expenses.

And as such will almost certainly rile voters who also happen to be taxpayers who don’t like their money spent on political partys’ self-promotion.