Election returns

08/04/2012

Candidate returns and registered promoter expense returns for last year’s election and referendum have been made public.

A summary of data disclosed in each candidate return is now available here.

The information includes amounts disclosed for donations, contributions to donations, anonymous donations, and overseas donations, and election expenses for newspaper advertising, radio and television advertising, internet advertising, and other forms of advertising.

• Candidate returns organised by electorate are available here.

• Candidate returns organised by party are available here.

Only registered promoters who spent more than $100,000 on election or referendum expenses during the regulated period (which started on 26 August and ended on 25 November 2011) were required to file a return. Copies of the registered promoters’ returns are available here.

Only four organisations filed promoter returns: Campaign for MMP spent $156,568.61 and Vote for Change spent $79,047.66 on the referendum; the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) and Public Service Association (PSA) spent $280,100.86 and $196,368.34 respecitively on the election.

Any thoughts on which party or parties the two unions were promoting and whether they thought it was money well-spent?


Look who’s telling you not to

24/11/2011

Camapigners for MMP who reckon we should support that system because of the people who’re telling us not to, might want to think again.

Look who’s telling us not to vote for change – the Right Wing Resistance:

Don’t make the mistake to vote for anything but MMP, the tricky slimy government have tried to confuse people by chucking in other options, MMP ain’t perfect but its better then the one party system these anti democratic people want to go back to.

What do they stand for?

Mission We are an organized unified resistance movement against mass immigration, the Dilution of our European Culture and Pride, and the current multicultural agenda created by the current government networks designed to destroy our colonial rights and identity. We stand with an active structure that rewards those who work hard for the movement. Function Our primary purpose is to recruit like minded individuals and groups into an organization of active men and women.

They also support New Zealand First, or they did yesterday when the website said:

 If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.

Today that line has been changed to:

In this country we must vote for the smaller parties.

There’s only one of the wee parties they could possibly mean.

If these people are telling us to support MMP that’s a very good reason to vote for change.

Hat Tip: Keeping Stock


Bit late to tell parties to butt out or referendum debate

22/11/2011

Pro-MMP campaigner Phillip Temple says politicians should butt out of the referendum on the electoral system.

‘When New Zealanders vote in the referendum on Saturday they need to remember that the voting system is ours, not the politicians”, Philip Temple said.

‘The politicians have already had far too much to say about which electoral system we should be voting for. To have them telling us which voting system we should choose is like asking foxes to design the hen-house.’

It’s a bit late to be saying that when it’s been public knowledge for weeks that Labour and the Green Party registered to campaign on the issue.

‘It is especially reprehensible that the anti-MMP lobby has politicised the referendum debate by using the images of politicians Winston Peters and John Key to further the lobby’s clear sectional self-interest. This reveals their contempt for the neutrality of the voting system and the views of ordinary New Zealanders.’

I’ve heard or read a very few politicians giving their personal opinion they’ll be voting for change but I haven’t come across any actively campaigning for change.

National’s position has been quite clear – it won’t take a stance on the referendum and will work with whichever system voters deliver.

Temple’s problem doesn’t seem to be politicians per se, just those supporting change and his example isn’t politicians campaigning but Vote for Change using politicians in its campaign.

One of MMP’s weaknesses is that it has, and could again, hand a disproportionate amount of power to one man and his bunch of sycophants. What’s wrong with pointing that out?


Look at the people who are telling you not to

21/11/2011

Campaigners for MMP are telling us to support them because of the people who are telling us not to.

The same argument can be made for voting for change.

Look who’s telling us not to:

Green Party, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), the Public Services Association (PSA), New Zealand Dairy Workers Union (NZDWU), Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU), New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI), The New Zealand Nurses Organisation, First Union Incorporated, Campaign for MMP Incorporated, Labour Party, Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc (RMTU), Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ), New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Inc (EPMU), Unite Union, New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA).


Coincidence?

20/11/2011

The placement of these Labour campaign posters and pro MMP ones could be a coincidence.

But this, from Whaleoil, makes it unlikely:

I have had various reports from around the country that the union heavy Campaign for MMP has got their troops out and about delivering Labour party pamphlets along side their own. Reports are from several electorates. The people delivering the pamphlets are sporting Campaign for MMP buttons and hand delivering Labour and Campaign for MMP brochures simultaneously.

If this is true it says a great deal about the lack of on the ground support some Labour campaign teams have lost their volunteers and are now having to resort to union dominated campaign teams from the MMP crowd.

It also shows clearly the links between Labour and the Campaign for MMP.

The loss of active party members has coincided with the increase in power for parties under MMP.

The concentration of power in a very few hands is not good for democracy and is a very strong argument to vote for change in Saturday’s referendum.

P.S. the authorisation statement on the MMP posters is Campaign for MMP, not a person. Advertising for parties or candidates requires the name of a person, not an organisation, does this not apply to promoters for referendum advertisements?


Don’t have to vote no change to change MMP – CORRECTED

03/10/2011

The campaign for MMP is telling voters they should vote for MMP to get a review of that system of voting.

But if a majority vote for change we will also get a review of MMP.

A second referendum will then be held allowing us to choose between MMP, with any changes to the system adopted from the review, and whichever alternative system most voters chose in the first referendum.

However, voting for MMP doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the changes you want or any changes at all.

The chances of getting consensus on improvements to the system aren’t high.

CORRECTION:

Comments from Gavin and David below points out I’m wrong on this and there will only be a review if people vote to keep MMP.

I based my post on memory of a plan to have a review of MMP regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. That obviously didn’t make it through to legislation.


Vote for change to what?

28/06/2011

The campaign against MMP has become more organised with the newly incorporated Vote for Change .

“Vote for Change asks the 40% of New Zealanders who have already realised that MMP doesn’t offer enough accountability, to join our group” says Wellington Lawyer and Vote for Change Spokesperson, Jordan Williams. “We want Kiwis to use their opportunity to have a better voting system. Only by voting ‘change’ in November can we ensure a proper debate on MMP’s merits. Only a vote for change will mean there is another vote, a run-off between MMP and one of the four alternatives at the 2014 election.”

“Vote for Change wants a system that restores more certainty, that allows voters to easily hold governments to account and kick rascals out of Parliament,” says Mr Williams. “The current system lets party bosses sneak MPs who have been dismissed by their local electorates back into Parliament on party lists.

“New Zealanders are tired of Lists that make MPs beholden to political party bosses instead of being accountable to constituents. We want politicians to have to think of the people they serve and not party list rankings when making tough decisions” says Mr Williams.

Although it is clear it does not support MMP, VfC has not yet decided which alternative it will advocate voting to change to.

Vote for Change has not endorsed a particular alternative to MMP. “We want New Zealanders who understand that MMP has not delivered, to go to our website, join us help determine what voting system is best for New Zealand,” says Mr Williams. “With a more substantial membership base we will work out what voting system we think is the fairest”.

The VfC website lists its founding members who include former Labour Party president and mayor Bob Harvey, former Labour cabinet minister Michael Basset, former National party MP Annabel Young and Business Round Table executive director Roger Kerr.

Some of the more strident supporters of MMP try to vilify anyone who isn’t happy with the system but as David Farrar points out all five electoral systems on offer are acceptable electoral systems:

 All of them are in use in various countries that are universally recognised as democratic. The moment someone tells you that only one system is acceptable, is the moment when you should stop listening to them.

There are of course degrees of acceptability, some systems are more so than others, although which is very much a matter of opinion.

I don’t like MMP but am unsure which of the alternatives would be both better and have a chance of winning a referendum when put up against MMP.


%d bloggers like this: