Electoral (Administration) Bill submissions
February 18th, 2010 at 3:04 pm by David FarrarAs Helen Clark was appearing at the same time in a different select committee, the total number of media at Justice & Electoral was one – from Select Committee News.
There were eight written submissions, and three of us also made oral submissions. We all supported having the Electoral Commission as an Officer of Parliament, and/or having a requirement for any appointments to have widespread parliamentary support.
The Committee indicated they were favourably inclined to the notion that the requirement the Minister of Justice not consult other parties over any appointments to the Electoral Commission, should be strengthened to gaining approval from most of the other parties (myself and Andrew Geddis suggested approval from leaders of parties representing 75% of MPs and 75% of the parliamentary parties should be the level required).
They also indicated they are seeking further advice on whether the Electoral Commission should be an Officer of Parliament, like the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. The Ministry of Justice seems to have been rather anti this in their background papers, and I felt the pros and cons had not been adequately investigated. It is pleasing that the Committee may do so.
So I’m pretty confident we will not end up with a situation where the Minister of Justice can unilaterally appoint the person who runs our electoral system. For scare tactics I joked about the possibility that Simon Bridges as a future Minister of Justice (but I accidentally called him Simon Power which confused people) could appoint me as Chief Electoral Commissioner – and how I am sure Labour MPs would want to get to have a vote on that 
Looking at the written submissions, those calling for the Commission to be an Officer of Parliament (rather than appointed by the Minister of Justice and accountable to him or her) include the former CEO of the Electoral Commission, a former long-term staffer of the Commission, the former Labour Party General Secretary (Mike Smith), Professor Andrew Geddis, the NZ Law Society and myself. Now I’m not sure there are a lot of electoral issues we would agree on between us, so I hope our collective submissions agreeing on this point, have had some impact.
Related posts:
- Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill
- Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill submissions
- Electoral (Administration) Bill Report Back
- Submission on Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill
February 18th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
ASSOCIATE Professor Andrew Geddis. Don’t feed the guy’s ego.
What’s your view on how many people should be on the Commission?
Vote:February 18th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
What the fuck was Klark doing in front of a select committee DPF?
Vote:February 18th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
AG: I have a preference for a Board rather than a sole Commissioner. For the actual running of the election, you want that left to the CEO, but with some of the decisions that have to be made such as broadcasting allocations, whether an ad is an election ad and if MMP is retained, what changes should be made to it – I think a couple of extra heads is a good idea.
Vote:February 18th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
It’s all a load of bollocks if the govt of the day doesn’t obey or tries to write retrospective law.
Vote:February 18th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Given parliament has recently flipped the bird at the AG I see no point in having another official in charge of such matters. It’s just appointing a scape goat that isn’t denigrating the AG (or her credibility) when allegations are dismissed as a bad call and validations passed accordingly. Still saves the AG deciding between their job and doing the right thing every election so perhaps worthwhile.
Vote: