The Minors have their say
This morning the six minor parliamentary parties appeared before the Electoral Commission to make their case for broadcasting time and money, and to answer questions.
In a fit of civic mindedness I decided to cover the hearings. So don’t bother calling me until this evening. The crowded media bench consisted of myself and TVNZ’s Jess Mutch. I did think NZPA might be here.
Maori Party
Somewhat rambling as the talked about the number of speeches their MPs had made in the House. This lead the Chairman (Justice McGechan) to suggest to future parties they didn’t need to cover their achievements.
Did say their submission this time was much easier as have a track record. They referred to Digi-poll results showing them ahead in all seats. Also cited Privy Council cases on Maori language.
Judge Williams cunningly suggest any Party targeting Maori language speakers should be eligible for funding, and the Maori Party agreed this would be fair. Then issue arose of should there be a separate allocation for broadcasting in Maori. That is beyond the Commission’s power to decide but might be an issue for Parliament.
Justice McGechan asked whether Maori language gets preference over sign language, as they are both official languages. Not sure what the response was but a very good question.
Greens
Led by Russel Norman. Said the party vote is most important factor. Suggestd one should look at total people who voted Greens on either vote. On that basis more votes than NZ First last time!
They sort of support Maori Party getting more than other parliamentary parties as they hold so many seats. But clear they think Green should be sole Tier 2 party. They suggest (as I did) that NZ First and Maori Party should be Tier 3.
They put the boot into National re GST error in 2005 as TVNZ now demanding money up front.
New Zealand First
Represented by their Party President and Damien Edwards from Winston’s parliamentary office.
Damien said that on current trends they will get 10%!
Said they are only minor party left with original leader and has not been a splinter of another party. They concede ACT has also not been a splinter. Somewhat enthusiastically claimed Winston worked with both major parties and both want him to be Foreign Minister. I am not sure “want” is the word I would use, but more “will not say no if they need the votes”.
They say they should be Tier 2 by themselves. Keeps referring to previous results but that is not within the criteria. Did have a good point that they have the best history of moving in the polls. Relitigated 2005 allocation in response to whether 20% cross subsidization from large to small parties is too small. Agreed not too small – just want more of the minors allocation.
Dr Catt offered them the same free hit at National on GST but they actually said the new TVNZ pay before you run an ad isn’t too bad for them.
A very polished submission but he did talk about Winston a lot!
Progressive
Matt Robson and David Cuthbert appeared. Cuthbert is or was a parliamentary staffer for Anderton.
They complained a lot that their initiatives get reported as Labour ones.
A very good question from Judge on what policy differences with Labour that they need money for, to promote. Robson says free education and Cuthbert raising drinking age.
ACT
Rodney Hide and Nick Kearney appeared.
Rodney says the current regime is devastating. Chairman points out they can not change the statute. Hide says in 1995 denied ability to have any radio or TV. Also slated 2005 TVNZ Epsom poll eight days out which said Hide would lose and this led to drop in party votes and they had no mechanism to respond.
Advocated that as they allocate evenly to all the small parties not in Parliament, on grounds of fairness, they should do the same for all viable parties that are likely to be in Parliament.
Very strong points on how all parties are banned from spending their own money on broadcasting, so this is not about allocating subsidies but about having a fair cap. Sadly for them the answer will be to remove the prohibition on buying your own broadcast advertising, not giving all (minor) viable parties the same money.
Belinda Clark said it was a very clear submission. From my Yes Minister manual this probably means I understand everything you said, but didn’t agree with any of it 
Rodney mentioned how all parties are allocated same time to appear, so that is a precedent. Judge Williams responded yes, but not much time! Justice McGechan says they give 30 minutes as a minimum to appear and to some degree do that with allocations by giving minimum $10,000.
Justice McGechan said like most New Zealanders he is sympathetic to arguments of fairness, but reiterated they are bound by statute.
This one went on the longest as it was the most contentious. The Chair replied it was a very thoughtful submission, but that should not be taken as a indication of agreement.
United Future
Represented by their President and a board member. Said they think Commission is fair, even though model is less than perfect.
Argued that Copeland should still be counted as a United Future MP. Sadly for them the criteria is MPs as dissolution, not MPs at the last election. The vote at the last election reflects that though.
Advocates that National and Labour get $1 million each and parties outside Parliament should all get the same. Says all the minor parties in Parliament (bar one) with more than one MP should get the same.
Dr Catt made the point that the vote at last election criteria is effectively MPs at beginning of Parliament. United Future response is that changes due to by-elections is different from List MP defections. I don’t think they can win this issue, but it is their best argument on it.
After lunch we have National and Labour. Has been an interesting morning if you find electoral funding issues of interest. It certainly reinforces to me how much the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated both in terms of clearer criteria but also in getting rid of the inability to purchase your own broadcast advertising.
Also interesting to see how the Commissioners interact. I would peg Judge Williams as the alpha male – he spent by far the most time debating the submissions. This may be because he is (I think) the most experienced Commissioner. Was very impressed with the points he made in response to sometimes quite outrageous suggestions by submitters.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
If sign language attracts extra funding will Micky Sullen get more for giving a one finger salute to the wage earners of this banana republic?
April 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I don’t get why there is a separate broadcasting allocation. Seems like it must have just been the first step on the road to making the taxpayer pay for election advertising; a journey that Labour would like to continue.
Why not just up the overall spending cap, and let the parties spend it as they please. If they want more TV time, then let them pay for it.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I am not sure whether to admire your dedication or call your Doctor!!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Dr Catt made the point that the vote at last election criteria is effectively MPs at beginning of Parliament. United Future response is that changes due to by-elections is different from List MP defections.
I actually agree with United Future here – Copeland only got in because of the party vote which meant United Future gets X amount of MP’s, when Copeland decided to leave UF, he should have left Parliarment and the next person on the UF party list become the new UF MP. I thought we already had a law regarding this?
April 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
DPF, thanks for blogging this, entertaining and informative.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I don’t really buy into United’s argument – the guidelines are quite clear that it is MPs at the dissolution, not at the commencement of Parliament.
Interesting to note though, that if Copeland were to die, the next person on the United list would come in, rather than a Kiwi Party person.
Odd.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Yes, thanks for blogging this – and all the previous detailed posts too DPF. That not even NZPA could be bothered turning up shows how slack the MSM has become. Sheesh Radio NZ used to send me to meetings of the Hutt County Council for goodness sakes – the issue of drainage in Silverstream being thought of sufficient import to dispatch a journo. Now the allocation of millions of public money and a fundamental aspect of the democratic process is seen as not worth reporting.
Presumably Damien Edwards (and David Cuthbert, if he is indeed still on Anderton’s Parliamentary staff) have taken half a day’s annual leave to undertake what is clearly partisan political work as opposed to the business of governing for which we pay their salaries? And did all the research and submission preparation on their own time?
Now ’scuse me, I have to go feed the flying pigs.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Spam, have you been asleep for the last 20 years.
You cant ‘buy’ television or radio time.
You are allocated money by the state to spend on TV & radio.
This is the only way to get any broadcasting time unless you break the rules and spend more by not paying the gst.
which would be a good idea if the race was close and wanted to break the law and see if you could get away with it and get 10% or so MORE TV time in the last week of the campaign.
And one party did follow this method and blamed a minor clerk – as though that person is making the decissions on a major campaign
April 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Doesn’t providing parties with electoral funding based on seats in the house just make it easier for those in power to stay in power? Do we want this?
April 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Interesting to note though, that if Copeland were to die, the next person on the United list would come in, rather than a Kiwi Party person.
Stop it, or you’ll give Dunne some ideas…..
April 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Note THIS from ACT:
“and they had no mechanism to respond………”
THAT is one of the CRUXES of the way THIS GOVERNMENT is SHUTTING DOWN FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Once you’ve spent your allocation, you cannot defend yourself against the smears of the government’s agencies with their bottomless funding, and of THEIR arsewiping allies in the news media.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Err…. re-read my post. I didn’t say you could buy it, I wondered why you couldn’t. I wondered why we have state-paid advertising for this, but not for other media.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
The description of ACT’s submission here doesn’t quite capture what was said by ACT, which basically submitted the following-
1) s75(2)(f) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 isn’t a criteria for allocation of broadcasting time and money but rather a statement of the statutory purpose.
2) That purpose is to provide a fair (in this case more or less equal) opportunity for each registered party to state its policy.
3) Because the money is rationed the role of the Commission is to its judgement to establish which registered parties are viable i.e. more than likely to be represented in Parliament, and if they are so, to divide equally between all of these viable parties with sufficient funds withheld after initial allocation to elevate one other non viable party, if closer to the election they look like they will make it.
4) In assessing viability the commission has at its deposal the criteria in s75(2)(a) – (e). Satisfying one or more or all or another criteria analogist to either polling data or membership data can bring a registered party into viability.
This argument is one about statutory interpretation. The ACT contention is the equal treatment of viable registered parties matches the rights lost because of s70 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 (which were all equal) and equates with all the other law that the Commission administers which provides of equal caps, equal expenditure limits and equal disclosure requirements for registered parties. Equal division among viable registered parties matches MMP where all governments are likely to be coalition governments and therefore New Zealanders have the right to know about all Parties likely to be presented in Parliament. Rodney Hide noted that this broadly and better equates with most NZers notion of fairness in politics, he also wryly noted that the Commission itself gave all of the parties the same time before the commission to make their case, no more time was afforded to the biggest party than the least.
At the moment the Commission basically allocates are nominal figure for “fair opportunity” (10k per RP or a total of 200K out of $3.2m) and treats fair opportunity as a criterion.
There was a subtle argument by Chief Judge Williams that there was a re-allocation from the two big parties to the next and subsequent tier of parties on the basis of fairness thus demonstrating that the Commission was meeting the requirement for more than fair opportunity. The ACT response that this was due to the starting point of the commission’s allocation model – setting the initial arbitrary and nominal amount of 10K to largely satisfy the requirement for fair opportunity to state one’s case and that if this were more than nominal figure, then reallocation would be required.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Chris, thanks for that. Aside from the fact I tend to think none of them should get our money, if they’re going to keep being handed it then I think Act’s approach is very much the fairest.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Rex,
Ever thought of joining Act?
And by the way DPF, that was NOT Nick Kearney presenting for Act.
[DPF: Oh of course it wasn't. I was thinking of Nick when I was writing]
April 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“DPF: Oh of course it wasn’t. I was thinking of Nick when I was writing”
I didn’t know you cared David!
April 30th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
James W asks:
Yes, along with a few other parties including some not in Parliament. I’ll admit that maybe my cynicism is unjustified, but I’m at a point where I’m forced to conclude that the desire to be elected to office is the singular distinguishing factor which indicates without a doubt the unsuitability of the candidate for that office.
We could try to undo what’s wrong with NZ’s electoral and Parliamentary systems but there are so many vested interests it’d be impossible. That’s the reason I championed the NZ Electronic Electoral Trial in 1999 and remain a passionate advocate for binding CIR, via electronic means (so as to remove the excuse of ‘great expense and trouble’ used to justify the need to gain so many signatures to trigger one).
In short, I’d be happy to be proved wrong (deleriously so, in fact) but I just don’t trust any of them sufficiently, hence my support for a “bloodless revolution”, if you will. Now if Act – or any other party – adopted that as a platform, along with accountability measures such as open and transparent ranking of the party list by every member, I might be wooed.