2011 Broadcasting Allocations
The Electoral Commission has just announced the broadcasting allocations for the 2011 elections. I show below the monetary allocation for each party, and the comparison to the original 2008 allocation.
The Commission has given National and Labour the same amounts, as they did in 2008. The argument for this is that they are the two parties competing to become the major party in Government, so should get the same funding regardless of any disparity in seats and poll ratings.
I tend to agree with the Commission that the two major parties should get the same, but I note in 2005 they gave Labour $200,000 more than National. In 1999 and 2002 they got the same though. So the 2005 decision is probably an anomaly based on National receiving so few seats in 2002. However with hindsight it was arguably wrong as National was equal polling with Labour and almost won the 2005 election.
The allocations are:
- National $1,150,000 ($1,000,000)
- Labour $1,150,000 ($1,000,000)
- Greens $300,000 ($240,000)
- ACT $160,000 ($100,000)
- Maori $160,000 ($240,000)
- NZ First $100,000 ($240,000)
- United $100,000 ($100,000)
- Others $20,000 each ($17,000)
The two parties that get less than in 2008 are Maori Party and NZ First parties. Mana will have no allocation at all, and sadly the law has not been changed to allow parties to purchase their own broadcasting time. I am no fan of the Mana Party, but it is outraegous that they have been shut out of radio and television due to the law. I remain annoyed National failed to chaange the law.
In terms of opening and closing times, the allocations are:
- National 20 + 16 (12 + 6)
- Labour 20 + 16 (12 + 6)
- Greens 8 + 7 (8 + 3)
- ACT 5 + 4 (3+ 3)
- Maori 5 + 4 (8 + 3)
- NZ First 3 + 2.5 (8 + 3)
- United 3 + 2.5 (4 + 3)
- Others 1 + 1 each (1 + 0)
That is significantly more time for the two major parties, but really a reflection that in the past they have not been allocated enough time. The two major parties are polling at around 85%, yet are getting just 55% of the time. They are getting 70% of the money.
I think the allocations look pretty reasonable. I would make the point that personally I would change the law so that a greater allocation goes to parties outside Parliament, recognising they do not have the resources that parties already in Parliament have. I stick by that view, even though it would in this case benefit NZ First.
June 1st, 2011 at 10:53 am
It’s a disgrace that the taxpayer is forced to pay for any political party advertising.
ALL political advertising, whether electoral or not, should be paid for by the party organisation concerned.
June 1st, 2011 at 10:54 am
No State funding, no limits on advertising.
June 1st, 2011 at 10:58 am
The socialists are stuffed, how can one be expected to run a full out propaganda program on a paltry 1.1 mill.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:18 am
We are so lucky the basic tenet of democracy is maintained with a level playing field, pity about the liquifaction where the poor bloody taxpayer has to fund those useless twats who couldn’t sell bottled water on a hot day at cost, but forces them to fund those who not only despise their success but would in an instant destroy their wealth.
Democracy be buggered, many of the voters, nay most, should be disqualified on conflict of interest grounds.
And the thought that an odious little dwarf with a penchant for nice suits should get any of my money to assist him to get back in the trough is nothing short of abominable. He is already $150k ahead by virtue of what he should have returned to the coffers from how long since?
June 1st, 2011 at 11:19 am
Agreed. No State funding, no limits on advertising.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:21 am
I am no fan of the Mana Party, but it is outraegous that they have been shut out of radio and television due to the law. I remain annoyed National failed to chaange the law.
The system is a dog, and the worst aspect of our electoral laws, however, the Mana Party wasn’t shut out. You don’t have to be registered to apply for an allocation, and I sent Hone a message before the applications closed to try to make sure he knew he could apply to get one.
It is interesting that this is one instance where two of the criteria for distributing the funds (votes and number of MPs) aren’t the same (they usually are: more votes = more seats) because NZF got slightly more (party) votes than ACT, but many fewer seats.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:38 am
Labvour is going to be a major political party? When is that going to happen then?
June 1st, 2011 at 11:51 am
I don’t understand how this can be justified. Surely, every registered party should have an equal opportunity to present its case to the electorate. It is undemocratic to tilt the playing field.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:51 am
The system is retarded. It gives the parties which can already raise money even more, and stops the smaller ones from even having a soapbox at all.
If you’re going to socialise election campaigns, it should be equal money and time for every registered party, or not at all. Failing that, it should be a straight subsidy per paying member. But I’d rather have no restrictions at all.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:53 am
“That is significantly more time for the two major parties, but really a reflection that in the past they have not been allocated enough time. ”
It’s also a reflection that TVNZ/RNZ have made a lot more time available for the opening/closing addresses … as they basically were required to do following the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Alliance Party challenge to the 2008 allocation decision. (The Court of Appeal basically said TVNZ/RNZ were being so stingy as to be in breach of their statutory duty to provide time.) Somewhat ironically, the chief beneficiaries of this challenge have been Labour and National – the Alliance (and all other micro-parties) get only 1 minute extra time for a closing address.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:02 pm
I can see some case for allowing smaller parties access to state funds, on the grounds that the majority should be also looking to ensure that the interests of minorities are protected and enhanced, and that includes those holding minority political opinions. Our democracy is richer the more people participate and, importantly, feel that their participation is welcome.
The only role I can see for the state is to enforce transparency: all candidates should be required to disclose their spending and the source of their funds and all political speech should be accompanied by the details of the speaker.
What I simply don’t understand is the prohibition against anyone spending their own money to say whatever they want during an election, especially as that is limited to one set of media: public broadcasting. Unlimited use of print media and the internet is allowed.
The idea that money can buy elections seems to have been discounted by the evidence from the US: once you have secured name recognition, additional advertising doesn’t seem to have much effect. But, if people want to spend their own money on flogging dead horses, then I fail to see why the government should stop them.
And before people start ranting about the Brethren, hollow men and the like, might I remind people that (a) the Brethren were outed pretty bloody quickly and (b) they failed dismally in their objective of trying to influence the outcome of the election.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:04 pm
So Graeme Edgeler you are saying that Hone yet agin forgot something important?? How unusual.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:07 pm
So the National Party doesn’t see any benefit in changing the incumbent protection laws? What a surprise. Another “direction” National Party voters are so happy with I suppose.
And this is crazy DPF: The two major parties are polling at around 85%, yet are getting just 55% of the time. They are getting 70% of the money.
First we create artificial shortage, and then you claim they get just 55% of it?? Ring, ring!!!
June 1st, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Personally I think there should be no barriers to Hone and the Mana Party.
How else are voters going to see what they’re actually like?
June 1st, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Wait and see. Due to their lack of access to broadcasting funding, Hone will start making more and more outrageous comments in an attempt to keep himself in the headlines. Unfortunately for him, it will show off how extreme he is and that should be enough to stop any forward momentum.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Does anyone know what polls are taken into account? Is Horizon considered a factor?
June 1st, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Why on earth does Winston First get so much money?
Surely he should get $20,000 like the others.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Murray & DrDr I could not agree more, Hone wil be hoisted by his own petard sooner rather than later.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Agree with Michaels 12.28pm:
NZ First (0 seats in the House / low polls / questionable prospect of gaining seats in November) is allocated $100,000.
Jim Anderton (1 seat in the House) is included with “others” and gets $20,000.
Even United Future (1 seat in the House) gets $100,000.
WTF???
June 1st, 2011 at 12:33 pm
NZF got 95k+ votes at the last election. Their polling is above that of other parties in Parliament (e.g. United Future).
June 1st, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@ Graeme Edgeler. Thanks for that.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Actually why on earth do ANY of them get any money?
June 1st, 2011 at 12:46 pm
The sooner modern social media makes this encumbency-protecting rort irrelevant the better.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I think we need taxpayer funded advertising or we will see vested interests such as the Property Council (who want to maintain high immigration – despite the insights of the Savings Working Group) pushing heaps of recourses at their candidates, party and media; while parties like New Zealand First have mainly the wise untainted elderly to stand up against the greedy sharks of real estate.
http://dicksmithpopulation.com/
June 1st, 2011 at 12:55 pm
I agree Steve W. Get the new grapevine humming, let the plebs do it themselves.
How much does this type of media that’s being paid for influence people’s votes? There could sometimes be a few swayed by a marvelous debate performance, but I doubt the addresses will have a huge influence, they won’t get much of an audience and they are more likely to bore people off voting.
The polls and the celebrity and sensation obsessed media will do far more than the carefully caressed addresses.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Presumably the Mamma Party can use Facebook and Twitter and Blogs to their hearts content.
And they are free.
Many claim that Obama won the presidency by astute use of the Social Networking tools.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:17 pm
You mena like those skilled social media manipulators the Labour Party Owen?
Can’t wait to see what that looks like.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Oi! Winston! WHERE’S OUR $152,000 ?!??!?
June 1st, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Don’t expect last century’s politicians to let their party power fly to bits in the internet clouds. They’re stuck between old habits and new methods.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Jim Anderton (1 seat in the House) is included with “others” and gets $20,000.
Jim Anderton didn’t apply and didn’t get anything.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:04 pm
hj – you appear to be lost on the internet. Nobody here likes NZ First or thinks anyone who votes for them is anything other than several sandwiches short of a picnic. “Wise untainted elderly”! *collapses in fits of laughter*
June 1st, 2011 at 2:09 pm
…and as for Dick Smith, it staggers me that someone can be so wealthy through good business decisions, yet so unbelievably moronic with regard to anything else. He’s like an idiot-savant! He’s recycling Paul Erlich’s Population Bomb, which predicted we’d all be eating each other for food by 1985. The only conclusion I can come to is that the chemicals they use to print money eventually drive people senile (see also Sam Morgan and his Dad).
June 1st, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Funding electoral propaganda does not benefit the public in any way. This money should be spent on educating the public on their right/obligation (depending on your personal view) to vote and how our election systems work etc.
I still think we still need to cap, regulate and ensure transparency of private spending however. You only have to do 1st year marketing to know advertising DOES work.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:11 pm
BlairM I also agree the Morgans have been driven to insanity by their success
June 1st, 2011 at 2:19 pm
There is no reason for the taxpayer to fund political parties.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:23 pm
My father is wise, untainted and elderly. He sure as hell doesn’t vote for Winston either.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“Wise untainted elderly”! *collapses in fits of laughter
……………
Wise in terms of having seen the changes in our lifestyle over the last 20 to 30 years and untainted as in have seen who has benefited and why they push for ever more population growth.
I’m not a member of NZ First but I would vote as a protest vote as nether national, Labour or the Greens acknowledge any risks to the well being of our population of having an open arms immigration policy.
Naturally all the smarts wouldn’t agree with this:
High immigration to New Zealand has contributed to the country’s national savings woes by increasing Government spending, business borrowing costs and pumping up house prices, according to a taskforce charged with finding solutions to rising foreign debt.
Among a raft of other recommendations aimed at boosting the country’s flagging savings rate, both nationally and at a household level, the Savings Working Group (SWG) suggests Government give the matter of immigration some “serious consideration.”
In its 160-page report to Finance Minister Bill English tabled this week in Wellington, the SWG suggests greater control of migration could be a means of reducing house prices and ramping up national savings.
“In a country with a relatively low national savings rate, rapid population growth will put sustained upward pressure on real interest rates and, in turn, the real exchange rate, making it harder to achieve the per capita income gains that people (and the government) aspire to,” the report states.
Group member Andrew Coleman, an economics lecturer and consultant, said despite obvious sensitivities the issue warranted attention amid what is shaping up to be a national debate on how to deal with New Zealand’s mounting foreign debt.
“We’re not anti-immigration but we are saying it’s something we need to look at,” Colemand said. “If we are concerned about disruptive change caused by debt levels in response to natural outcomes of migration, then we want to make sure it is occurring at a rate that isn’t getting us into trouble,” he said.
In its report , the SWG theorises that if net immigration flows were held at 1980- levels, the country’s net foreign liabilities could be 20% lower than its current rate of 85% debt to GDP. See the full report here.
http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/52140/migration-policy-linked-inflated-housing-prices-government-spending-and-low-savings#
No doubt the smarts don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change or resource depletion either.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Would the members of the property Council support a land tax if it was in the interests of the country (but not theirs)…..
Yeah right!
June 1st, 2011 at 3:18 pm
would beneficiaries and their spokesharridan sue bradford support a reduction in benefit levels and tougher testing for eligibility if it was in the interests of the country (but not thiers)….
yeah Right!
June 1st, 2011 at 3:30 pm
“Many claim that Obama won the presidency by astute use of the Social Networking tools.”
that and the MSM were in love with him.
June 1st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
OK, so, minus 20 (give or take one, two or three points) equals a draw.,.
Really ?
This is bullshit.
Makes one wonder whether they listened to the Horizon BS.
June 1st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
hj
“I’m not a member of NZ First but I would vote as a protest vote as nether national, Labour or the Greens acknowledge any risks to the well being of our population of having an open arms immigration policy.”
Good one hj. You’re pissed off and can’t choose between National and Labour who stole $1m of taxpayers money. So you’ll vote for a former Minister of Horse Racing. That’s mature. Maybe you could make a donation as well. I believe that cash stuffed in a brown paper bag works. Otherwise, if you’ve got a helicopter, you could fly him around the country on his campaign. Don’t worry about being embarassed though. He’ll deny it like the last time. Got a restaurant? That would be good too. He likes to oil the wheels of commerce.
And speaking of $1m … isn’t that what Labour stole from the NZ taxpayers? Here’s an idea; why don’t we just keep the broadcasting spend this time around and call it quits? Yes, I’m happy with that deal.
June 1st, 2011 at 7:56 pm
would beneficiaries and their spokesharridan sue bradford support a reduction in benefit levels and tougher testing for eligibility if it was in the interests of the country (but not thiers)….
yeah Right!
………….
on that note National is looking at the proposals of the Welfare Working Group but ignores most of the Tax Working Group (Land Tax; Capital Gains Tax) and Savings Working Group (high immigration has put up house prices and reduced incomes as tax payers need to keep providing infrastructure).
June 1st, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Fish, meet barrel, but here goes…
Wise in terms of having seen the changes in our lifestyle over the last 20 to 30 years and untainted as in have seen who has benefited and why they push for ever more population growth.
The correct term is “crafty”. That generation had the best of everything, free education and the subsidised Muldoon years. Now they want my children to pay for their largesse as they retire. Fuck. That. And fuck Winston. The old man needs to piss off back to his missus in Herne Bay.
People like you want to blame immigration for everything, but those people come here and work harder than you ever did, and they get more done, and they improve their lives and make white people rich in the process. What’s not to like? You should be kissing their arses as they get off the plane.
June 2nd, 2011 at 9:29 am
People like you want to blame immigration for everything, but those people come here and work harder than you ever did, and they get more done, and they improve their lives and make white people rich in the process. What’s not to like? You should be kissing their arses as they get off the plane.
……
That is a misrepresentation of my view but I’ll quote Dick Smith:
“..a most important point is left out. Even though we may be able to grow to 100 million people in Australia – what would be the advantage in doing this? The question is why? Of course, to wealthy people, population growth will generally increase their prosperity and wealth. I know this, because I have made more money out of owning industrial and commercial buildings in Sydney over the last twenty-five years than I did in owning Dick Smith Electronics and Australian Geographic. So the wealthy will get more. But what about the average wage and salary earner and retiree? Possibly over 80% of our population?
I have a feeling it’s all “down hill” from now for most Australians as the population increases. I can’t think of any of our present problems in this world which are alleviated by more people. In fact, quite the opposite. I think unrestrained population growth will make virtually every problem more difficult.
Yes, we are told that efficiencies of scale will give us greater benefits. However, let’s look at our country compared with the USA. The USA has fifteen times our population, ie. fifteen times the efficiency of scale in a roughly similar land mass. Do the Americans have a higher standard of living? I don’t think so. Do they have better medical care? I don’t think so. Do they have better roads? Well, they certainly have more freeways, but their roads seem more gridlocked than ours. Do they have a better education system? There’s no evidence to suggest that they do.”
http://dicksmithpopulation.com/2010/08/11/letter-of-introduction-by-dick-smith/#more-690
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:12 am
Sorry Dick, anecdotal opinion is not an argument. Just because you personally don’t think something is the case, doesn’t mean you are right. Usually people back this sort of stuff up with actual statistics. Dick doesn’t use those because on every count his opinion is wrong.
I think you’ll find population growth is working very well for the world’s largest country – India, where economic growth is through the roof and prosperity and wealth are increasing at a rate far superior to, say, New Zealand’s.