Calculating the broadcasting allocations
April 29th, 2008 at 12:28 am by David FarrarThe allocation of the broadcasting money is governed by the Broadcasting Act 1989, specifically Part 6.
Section 75(2) sets out the criteria the Electoral Commission shall have regard to, in allocating time and money. They are:
(a) The number of persons who voted at the immediately preceding general election for that party and for candidates belonging to that political party; and
(b) The number of persons who voted at any by-election held since the immediately preceding general election for any candidate belonging to that political party; and
(c) the number of members of Parliament who were members of that political party immediately before the dissolution or expiration of Parliament; and
(d) Any relationships that exist between a political party and any other political party; and
(e) Any other indications of public support for that political party such as the results of public opinion polls and the number of persons who are members of that political party; and
(f) The need to provide a fair opportunity for each political party to which subsection (1) of this section applies to convey its policies to the public by the broadcasting of election programmes on television.
Now according to Labour, the weighting used by the Commission in 1996 was:
- Votes at last election – 1.5
- By-election Results – 0.25
- Number of MPs – 1.0
- Party Vote Polls – 2.0
- Electorate Vote Polls – 1.0
They supported this weighting in 2005. Now in 2008 they advocate equal weight to all criteria. They correctly note there have been no by-elections but incorrectly note there are no public electorate vote polls, so correcting for their confusion mistake, their 2008 submission should be
- Votes at last election – 1.0
- Number of MPs – 1.0
- Party Vote Polls – 1.0
- Electorate Vote Polls – 1.0
Now what are the results for the eight parliamentary parties on each criteria:
Votes at last election
| PV | EV | Total Vote | Percentage | |
| National | 889,813 | 902,874 | 1,792,687 | 40.4% |
| Labour | 935,319 | 902,072 | 1,837,391 | 41.4% |
| Maori | 48,263 | 75,076 | 123,339 | 2.8% |
| ACT | 34,469 | 44,071 | 78,540 | 1.8% |
| NZ First | 130,115 | 78,117 | 208,232 | 4.7% |
| UFNZ | 60,860 | 63,486 | 124,346 | 2.8% |
| Green | 120,521 | 92,164 | 212,685 | 4.8% |
| Progressive | 26,441 | 36,638 | 63,079 | 1.4% |
| Total | 2,245,801 | 2,194,498 | 4,440,299 | 100.0% |
Labour make three further errors in their submission. They add up National’s PV and EV incorrectly and give National 100,000 too many votes – 1,892,687 instead of 1,792,687. Also they have NZ First electorate vote out by 1,000 – they cite 77,117 when it is 78,117. Their combined total is correct though.
Another huge error is United Future. They cite the individual votes correctly, but add them up to get 153,026 instead of 124,346. Really – this level of error is shocking for a formal submission from a major political party.
Number of MPs at Dissolution
| MPs | Percentage | |
| National | 48 | 40.3% |
| Labour | 49 | 41.2% |
| Maori | 4 | 3.4% |
| ACT | 2 | 1.7% |
| NZ First | 7 | 5.9% |
| UFNZ | 2 | 1.7% |
| Green | 6 | 5.0% |
| Progressive | 1 | 0.8% |
| Total | 119 | 100.0% |
Note that the percentages are just out of the eight parliamentary parties which applied for funds, to establish relative weightings.
Party Vote Polls
Is is usual to look at public polls over the previous 12 months, in this case being April 2007 to March 2008. There were 63 polls published during that period and their average ratings are below:
| Poll Av | Percentage | |
| National | 49.4% | 49.8% |
| Labour | 35.8% | 36.1% |
| Maori | 2.3% | 2.3% |
| ACT | 1.0% | 1.0% |
| NZ First | 3.1% | 3.1% |
| UFNZ | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| Green | 6.6% | 6.7% |
| Progressive | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| Total | 99.1% | 100.0% |
Labour claims National is 49.2%, Labour 36.3%, Maori 2.4%, ACT 1.0%, NZ First 2.9%, Maori Party 2.4%, ACT 1.0% and UFNZ 0.7% with no result for Progressive. All fairly close to what I make it except Labour over-stated by 0.5%. I have included nine TVNZ polls, six TV3 polls, 23 Morgan polls, 10 Herald polls, three Fairfax polls and 12 UMR polls.
Electorate Vote Polls
Colmar Brunton and One News do regularly poll on the Electorate Vote. There were nine polls from April 2007 to March 2008. The averages were:
| Poll Av | Percentage | |
| National | 50.2% | 51.0% |
| Labour | 37.1% | 37.7% |
| Maori | 2.8% | 2.9% |
| ACT | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| NZ First | 2.0% | 2.0% |
| UFNZ | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| Green | 4.3% | 4.4% |
| Progressive | 0.4% | 0.5% |
| Total | 98.4% | 100.0% |
Overall Weightings
| 2005 Vote | MPs | PV Polls | EV Polls | 05 weighting | 08 weighting | |
| National | 40.4% | 40.3% | 49.8% | 51.0% | 45.7% | 45.4% |
| Labour | 41.4% | 41.2% | 36.1% | 37.7% | 38.8% | 39.1% |
| Maori | 2.8% | 3.4% | 2.3% | 2.9% | 2.7% | 2.8% |
| ACT | 1.8% | 1.7% | 1.0% | 0.8% | 1.3% | 1.3% |
| NZ First | 4.7% | 5.9% | 3.1% | 2.0% | 3.9% | 3.9% |
| UFNZ | 2.8% | 1.7% | 0.7% | 0.8% | 1.5% | 1.5% |
| Green | 4.8% | 5.0% | 6.7% | 4.4% | 5.4% | 5.2% |
| Progressive | 1.4% | 0.8% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
The 05 weightings are based on the 2005 Labour submission which suggested the 1996 weightings be used. The 08 weightings are based on their new suggestion (Labour basically argues whatever favours them each time rather than a consistent approach) of equal weighting for all criteria.
Now what happens if we give $10,000 to each party not in Parliament, and apply the rest between the eight parliamentary parties. Eleven parties grab $110,000 leaving $3,102,000 for the other eight.
| 05 weighting | 08 weighting | 05 Amount | 08 Amount | |
| National | 45.7% | 45.4% | $ 1,419,000 | $ 1,408,002 |
| Labour | 38.8% | 39.1% | $ 1,202,643 | $ 1,213,034 |
| Maori | 2.7% | 2.8% | $ 84,968 | $ 88,061 |
| ACT | 1.3% | 1.3% | $ 40,201 | $ 40,593 |
| NZ First | 3.9% | 3.9% | $ 119,508 | $ 121,881 |
| UFNZ | 1.5% | 1.5% | $ 45,769 | $ 46,596 |
| Green | 5.4% | 5.2% | $ 168,557 | $ 161,545 |
| Progressive | 0.7% | 0.7% | $ 21,354 | $ 22,289 |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | $ 3,102,000 | $ 3,102,000 |
Now remember again the 05 and 08 amounts are not for different elections, but based on what Labour argued in 2005 and 2008, for this allocation.
Now the Electoral Commission tend to try and group parties together in tiers, rather than strictly apply a formula. So what would those tiers be, on this analysis.
Tier 1 – National and Labour. Almost every party has said they should get the same amount. There is a case for National to get up to $200,000 more but the reason I can’t support this is because this is not just a funding entitlement, but a funding cap for broadcasting. So if Labour get $200,000 less funding than National they are prohibited by law from spending as much as National on the campaign. This is wrong. Sure Labour benefited from this in 2005 and refused to change the law, but as a matter of principle the two major parties should get the same, so they can spend the same amount.
Tier 2 – The Greens are clearly a Tier 2 party. They average over 5% and got over 5% last time. One could argue NZ First and Maori Party are Tier 2 but there is quite a gap back to them, and in the end I conclude the Greens deserve a Tier to themselves as they are double the support levels of the next Tier.
Tier 3 – NZ First and Maori Party. When you combine electorate and party vote polls they are both at around 2.5%. Maori Party is also ahead in all seven Maori seats on known polls. Against that NZ First got 2.5 times as many party votes in 2005, and around the same level of electorate votes. So I peg them around the same.
Tier 4 – ACT, United Future and Progressive. They are all polling below below 1% and all have one electorate seat. I don’t see the grounds exist this time to put Progressive in a tier of their own.
Tier 5 – All registered parties not in Parliament who applied.
Tier 6 – All unregistered parties who applied.
So how much would I give to each. Let’s start at the bottom and say $10,000 for Tier 6 and $20,000 for Tier 5. More than they deserve on their support, but less than that goes nowhere. That is $60,00 for Tier 6 and $100,000 for Tier 5
Then Tier 1. I think 66% to Tier 1 is appropriate – two thirds going to the two parties who are the primary choice of forming a Government. And this is still well below the amount they would get if you strictly followed the weightings. So that is $1,059,960 each, rounded to $1,050,000 each.
This leaves $952,000 for the other six parliamentary parties. I would give 30% of the remainder for Tier 3, 20% to each Tier 2 and 10% to each Tier 3 which helpfully makes 100%. So this would produce:
- National, Labour – $1,050,000 x 2
- Greens – $285,600
- Maori, NZ First – $190,400 x 2
- ACT, United Future, Progressive – $95,200 x 3
- ALCP, Democrats, Family Party, Libertarianz, Alliance – $20,000 x 5
- Kotahitanga, New World Order, Liberals, RAM, South Island Party, Workers Party – $10,000 x 6
That would equal $3,212,000 exactly.
Related posts:
- Broadcasting Allocations
- Alliance challenge to broadcasting allocations
- Election Broadcasting Allocations
- 2011 Broadcasting Allocations
April 29th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Great work. Hope it was worth the late night.
Sadly it highlights yet another double standard from Labour.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Bah, scrap all tax-payer funding of political parties. And while we’re at it, how about getting rid of spending limits for parties, or people promoting those parties?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 2:13 am
DPF:
An incisive analysis – great stuff!
Labour’s mathematical cockups are inexcusable, and I defy any Labour party hack to explain them away as trivial oversights. No doubt Ghost-who-never-criticises-Labour-but-always-wants-to-talk-about-John-Key will oblige.
I’ve never voted on the basis of those “election messages”. Never have, probably never will. They’re dull and uninspiring. If we must spend this broadcasting money, why not spend it on fireworks with our least favourite MPs as bonfire fodder – more merriment for the voters that way! I’d be surprised if other Kiwiblog readers (at least the politically opinionated ones) have voted based on those “election messages”. I suspect the TV election debates – gimmicky and dumbed down as they are – have a much greater influence on swinging voters. Where would we be without Peter Dunne and his “common sense” worm? Presumably TV1 and TV3 self-fund those programmes with NZ On Air assistance – so it’s separate from the Electoral Commission allocations?
It seems to me that votes at last election and number of MPs should, to some extent, correlate. Simply put: party vote and electorate vote should properly reflect the representative mix of MPs.
But I’m interested in this criterion: “(d) Any relationships that exist between a political party and any other political party“. No surprise that it doesn’t feature in the Electoral Commission’s weightings, as it requires a much greater degree of subjective judgment, and I doubt officials would be comfortable about making that call. So why include it as a legislative requirement at all – to prevent multiple party registrations (a strategic cluster of political parties) that seek to receive a greater slice of the pie?
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Posts like this one and the migration one yesterday show why Kiwiblog sits on top of the heap, looking down at all the try hards.
Good job.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am
POC – the EC have always treated “(d) Any relationships that exist between a political party and any other political party” as applying in an Alliance-type situation (Greens, New Labour, Mana Matuhake each existing as separate parties, but also being part of a larger party to contest the party vote). Basically, the criterion is there to stop anyone getting more than their share by setting up multiple parties.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
DPF,
Would the Kiwi Party be in tier 4 (as they sort of have an MP), or tier 5 as just a registered party?
[Edit- ok sorry, I just noticed your post below saying they did not apply. Very silly. Just out of interest, which class would they be in if they had applied?]
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I hear Gordon Copeland is furious at Larry Baldock for not applying in time.
As they got no votes last time, and do not register in the polls, I would say Tier 5. One could argue Tier 4 on the basis of having a sitting MP but I suspect that is meant to account more for changes due to by-electons rather than defections.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Andymoore has it spot on. This is all garbage. National made it illegal, yes ILLEGAL, for political parties to buy their own television and radio advertising. That indeed is a hideous thing to be able to do in a democracy. Imagine that, a political party in a western liberal democracy being allowed to put an ad on TV.
If you wanted to make it truly fair, as much as I hate that word, you would give all parliamentary parties the same amount of $$$ rather than this state rationing rubbish.
Ask yourself this question: how can a minor party ever hope to gain support for its policies when the most powerful advertising medium available to it is actually denied to it?
Forget the EFA for a minute. This prohibition is outrageous.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Chicken Little
Seconded.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
andymoore & Gooner: AAA+, would read comment again
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Gooner: Ask yourself this question: how can a minor party ever hope to gain support for its policies when the most powerful advertising medium available to it is actually denied to it?
Exactly. This whole concept goes against one of the slated purposes of the EFA; to promote an open and fair election based on a level playing field. Once more, the pigs with their snouts in the trough ream democracy for their own benefit.
And yes, I’m looking at you Labour and National. And all those others trying to elbow their way in.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Getting the arithmetic right is only important .. if you intend to follow the rules.
JC
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Graeme Edgeler:
Thanks for confirming that. I wasn’t exactly thinking of the Alliance-type situation, rather the scenario where a person sets up multiple parties hoping to receive a greater slice of the broadcasting allocation pie, but I think both scenarios raise the same issues.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Labour make three further errors in their submission. They add up National’s PV and EV incorrectly and give National 100,000 too many votes – 1,892,687 instead of 1,792,687. Also they have NZ First electorate vote out by 1,000 – they cite 77,117 when it is 78,117. Their combined total is correct though.
Obviously the Minister of Finance did the arithmetic, though he may state with some conviction that these were the official calculations from Treasury.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
David, how much for each bloc – left, right, centre/other as you define them? Looks to me like the left get more – as the judges noted, they are saying much the same thing.
Vote:April 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“Forget the EFA for a minute. This prohibition is outrageous.” – Gooner, April 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Excellent.
Vote: