Editorials 18 February 2010

February 18th, 2010 at 2:05 pm by David Farrar

The NZ Herald wants the referenda held earlier:

There appears to be no reason the final could not have been held a year or so after the 2011 general election if the first found a majority wanting change. A new system, if favoured in the decisive vote, could then be used in the 2014 election, rather than waiting as long as 2017.

I disagree. The first referendum is likely to have a low turnout, if not held in conjunction with an election. We found this out in 1992.

I do think there is an argument for the second referendum (if needed) to be held before 2014.  As that will be a simple referendum that will change the electoral system if change is voted for (the earlier referendum is only about if there is a second referendum, and what that is), I think that would achieve a very high turnout even if held separate to an election.

Also, without an election at the same time, the public would be more turned into the pros and cons of the two choices. A change of electoral system si so important, that it almost deserves to have its own debate, not cluttered up with a general election.

So my growing preference is the first referendum in 2011, with the election (to maximise turnout), but have the second referendum in 2012.

If the 2012 referendum votes for change, I am not sure one could implement it in time for the 2014 election, due to boundary changes. But one way you could deal with that is to have the Boundaries Commission (which should start work in late 2011) to prepare boundaries for both options, which would allow them to be finalised in 2013.

The Dominion Post compares to Fawlty Towers:

Kiwirail is to the transport industry what Basil Fawlty is to the hospitality trade.

It treats its customers as impediments to the smooth running of its business.

Current management can be excused responsibility for the creaking trains and dilapidated tracks in the Wellington region.

They are the consequence of 40 years of neglect by public and private owners of the rail system. But KiwiRail bosses cannot escape responsibility for the way customers are treated.

If they are not left waiting on the platform for services that have been cancelled, they are shut in trains that have mysteriously stopped part way into their journeys. Either way, they are kept in the dark.

Who would have thought a subsidised monopoly would give bad service?

The Press examines the electoral finance reforms:

The Government’s proposed new electoral finance system is a mixed bag.

Compared to the Labour’s now repealed Electoral Finance Act, which was a knee-jerk reaction to the covert 2005 Exclusive Brethren advertising, it gives greater freedom for lobby groups to conduct parallel campaigns.

But the new regime has swung too far towards a laissez-faire approach and does create the danger that money could play too great a role in New Zealand politics.

The most unwelcome feature of the new regime would be the absence of advertising spending limits for lobbyists, who are technically but confusingly known as third parties. The preceding legislation imposed a cap of $120,000.

Although few lobbyists came close to this limit in the 2008 election, the lack of a cap might tempt interest groups from across the political spectrum to spend up large in an effort to influence future campaigns. It is also inconsistent with the position of political parties which do have a spending limit. …

But it is also important for voters to know how much lobbyists have spent. In this respect the registration requirement provides only partial transparency, as lobby groups will not have to submit returns on their advertising expenditure.

I don’t have a problem with those who register, disclosing their total spend. That can be something the Select Committee looks at. I prefer transparency to restrictions.

But the Government decided not to amend the taxpayer funded broadcasting allocation system for political parties. Worth further thought is allowing parties to spend their allocations on advertising in newspapers, not just in the broadcast media.

Sadly Labour and the Greens opposed reform of the broadcasting allocation.

The ODT reflects on :

Last week, the people of Otago were served a timely reminder of white collar crime with the sentencing on additional charges of convicted fraud Michael Swann in the High Court at Dunedin.

It will be recalled that Swann was sentenced last year to a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for defrauding the Otago District Health Board of almost $17 million between 2000 and 2006.

On Friday, he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment – concurrent with his present term, meaning that he will in fact serve no extra time behind bars – for accepting $755,000 in bribes from long-time friend and business associate Robin Sew Hoy.

Makes you wonder the point of the additional prosecution!

5 Responses to “Editorials 18 February 2010”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,241 comments) says:

    A 2012 binding referendum would be pushing it.

    Election in late October/Early November 2011.

    Process for consulting on form of alternative system begins late 2011, consultation itself begins early 2012 (Late Jan, maybe, probably February). Consultation ends late March/early April).

    Bills setting up binding referendum and alternative system drafted, and introduced (early May) and sent to select committee for six months, passes in December, some of it probably under urgency.

    Public education campaign about the two exact systems being voted on prepared after committee of the whole House, referendum held in March 2013 at the earliest.

    How does this happen any quicker?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. spector (160 comments) says:

    “I disagree. The first referendum is likely to have a low turnout, if not held in conjunction with an election. We found this out in 1992.”

    The anti smacking referendum had a high turnout and that wasn’t in an election year.

    [DPF: A bit higher than the 1992 one, but not a lot]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MajorBloodnok (338 comments) says:

    Tell me again why we the taxpayers are paying, still, for the 19th century company that is NZ Rail?

    I say give it to Michael Cullen — decrepit rolling stock and commercial lease of the track. With his responsibility for upkeep of it all. And NO MORE PUBLIC MONEY. And no trucking companies, or favourable building leases thrown in.

    Then he can try to run a rail company. If he needs help, he can ask the Greens. But not the taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Chris2 (916 comments) says:

    Regarding the thief Swann, he stole $17 million and the more recent Auckland ASB thief Steven Versalko stole $18 million, but in the last days the lawyers for both men have separately claimed there is only $3-$5 million available for reparation.

    This is very curious – what did each man spend $12 million on, that can not now be recovered as reparations?

    I mean you can spend a shit-load on fine dining, accommodation and international travel, but how do you spend $12 million on such non-recoverables when you are a salaried employee and only get 4-5 weeks annual leave – there just isn’t enough time available to spend that much.

    Even Parliamentary Services 2009 “Services to members” budget is $17.1 million for 120 MP’s.

    Versalko was an investment advisor! – I don’t believe he has not invested and hidden much of the money offshore.

    Even Wayne Patterson, who got $3.4 million in WINZ payments, invested his money so well that the Crown recovered more than what he had defrauded WINZ of.

    There is something fishy about so little of the Swann and Versalko money not being recoverable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Loco Burro (83 comments) says:


    I think with the Swann case a lot of the money went on boats and cars with high depreciation values, if I remember correctly the boat sat in the harbour for months without sale (which also meant ongoing harbour fees as well). This made the money very difficult to recover. I think there was also something to do with money being hidden in trusts, cant remember exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote