Kiwiblog

NewstalkZB reports:

Hone Harawira plans to appeal a decision that means he’s not eligible for any public funding for broadcasting during the election campaign.

The Electoral Commission released its funding allocations today but because the Mana Party didn’t exist when the deadline passed, it missed out any TV or radio time.

Mr Harawira says he’s disappointed because he got his party registration application in on time, but missed out on the funding allocation through no fault of his own.

“I don’t know that there are appeal options but just because we’re not sure doesn’t mean to say we won’t try. I’ll be advising our Party secretary this afternoon to lodge a formal appeal and to see how we get on. If we’re unsuccessful, we’ll move on,” he says.

The story is wrong and Hone is wrong. You can apply for an allocation, even if you are not registered, so long as you register before mid October.

And Graeme Edgeler wrote on the previous thread:

… 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.

So Hone was told before the deadline that he could apply. He missed out because he did nothing. And oh yeah there is no appeal.

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.

The Electoral Commision has released four more decisons – all quite interesting.

1. Display of anti-national banners by Clinton Smith was complained about by Cameron Slater. The Commission found that the banner and associated leaflets were election advertisements under the EFA. Smith claimed to have made a verbal promoter statement of authorisation. The Commission rejected this as being adequate and said tangible items can not have merely verbal authorisation statements. Therefore they found the items contravened s63(2) of the Electoral Finance Act. However they will not ask the Police to investigate Smith for an illegal practice as they found his breach was not wilful as he thought what he had done was necessary. And if does not constitute an illegal practice unless done wilfully.
2. A Pete Hodgson fundraising letter for Labour. This was found to be an election advertisement in breach of s63(2) of not having an authorisation statement and 65(1) of not having been formally approved by the Labour Party. However once again they found the breach was not wilful and again no referral to the Police as it is not an illegal practice unless done willfuly.
3. National MP Eric Roy’s advertisments in the Southland Express were complained about by Labour MP Lesley Soper. The EC made said “The Electoral Commission believes it is essential to democratic elections that parties can inform the public of the policies which will be implemented if elected and that, particularly in light of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations, it would not be reasonable to regard mere statements of policy as election advertisements and subject to the restraints of the Electoral Finance Act.” They also said “Therefore the Commission is of the view that items which are accounts or reasoned criticisms of policy, or accounts or reasoned criticisms of actions or inactions, generally are not “reasonably” regarded as election advertisements as they are essential to informed democratic elections.“So what can’t you say? “The Electoral Commission considers that accompanying identification of the proponents of such items does not of itself convert the items into election advertisements, but disproportionate display of photographs, names or logos could do so. Other matters that might bring such items within the definition of an election advertisement include the addition of persuasive content which lack an information base such as party slogans, self promotion or unreasoned criticism of opponents, and exhortations to vote in a particular manner.” They cocnluded that Eric Roy’s advertisements were not election advertisements under the EFA.
4. National MP Chris Auchinvole’s website was complained about by Oliver Woods. With similiar reasoning to above, the Electoral Commission found the website was not an election advertisement. So National continues to be one of the few parties to have never broken the new law.

In both the first two cases, illegal advertisements were published and the law was broken. But the finding of a lack of intent means no liability for the two individuals concerned.

Also of interest to some may be the news that as Kotahitanga Te Manamotu Hake Tiriti o Waitangi, the New Zealand Liberals, and the South Island Party all failed to register for the election, their $30,000 of broadcasting allocations was redistributed to all the smaller parties

The NZ Herald editorial addresses electoral finance issues:

The last rites on the Electoral Finance Act were read last week when the head of the Electoral Commission, the body charged with enforcing it, declared the law was having a “chilling effect” on public participation in the imminent election. The next day Justice Minister Annette King announced the review.

And Annette King still refuses to discuss how the law of common sense became the law of chilling effects.

The review is plainly designed simply to give the Government’s election campaign a response to the inevitable criticism it will incur for the Electoral Finance Act. It will say it always envisaged a post-election review to iron out problems with the new law, but when the legislation was passed in December it promised to appoint a review panel early this year. Had it done so, the exercise might have been credible. It is rather late now.

Yes why does it take nine months to appoint a panel? I think the Herald is right in labelling it a campaign stunt.

National, if it forms the next government, will have to replace the Electoral Finance Act with something better than the opaque rules that preceded the act. It ought to hold an all-party conference to draw up questions of political finance to be put to an independent commission.

I would hope there are public discussion papers, and open seminars on the issues. A National-led Government should consult with all parties on electoral law proposals, to try and repair the damage Labour has done to our constitutional conventions aound the Electoral Act.

It ought to be wary of political academics who are inclined to believe that the public purse should fund everything to do with elections.

Taxpayers already finance most of the activities of parties in Parliament, giving them too much advantage over those not already in the House.

I agree. One way to even the odds might be to redirect the broadcasting allocation away from the parliamentary parties, so that only parties without existing MPs are eligible to receive taxpayer funds for their broadcasting. The parties in Parliament have the huge benefit of three years of free publicity through their MPs but over $10 million a year of funding for their parliamentary parties.

It is healthy to have new parties break into Parliament (something only ACT has managed to date without the benefit of an existing MP). So giving each non parliamentary party $100,000 to $150,000 would help them have a decent chance against the existing parliamentary parties.

The Electoral Commission announced on 19 May 2008 its determination for the 2008 broadcasting allocation.

I blogged on the allocations here. The allocations, in a relative sense, favour the smaller parties with the two major parties getting 62% of the allocation despite getting over 80% of the vote.

The Alliance Party was one of ten parties who got $10,000 to spend on broadcasting time, $7,000 for a production package for the opening address and 1 minute for the opening and no time for the closing. They are challenging this allocation in court, and it will be heard on 15 September.

I blogged in June that the Alliance was already getting $10.36 a vote while Labour got $1.07 a vote, so I doubt they have any chance of sucess with increasing their $17,000 allocation. They are also challenging the decision for some of their money to be on a production package – and they may have a better chance of success there. One also can not rule out that they may gain some sympathy to their argument they should have some time allocated for a closing address – no matter how short.

The Alliance are asking for each of the non parliamentary parties to go from $17,000 to $32,000. This would cost $150,000 and they propose Labour and National lose $75,000 each.

A new twist is that the Family Party (Destiny in drag with 1,052 members) have also joined the lawsuit, and are asking the Judge to increase their $17,000 to $100,000 plus seven minutes in total for opening and closing. They are pushing shit uphill to be honest, but I do find their reasoning amusing:

• They made 0.3% in two polls
• They plan to win Mangere
• They are the only Christian party, and Christians make up half of NZ’s population
• The Government has passed some laws they don’t like, and ignores public opinion (which is true but has nothing to do with broadcasting allocations)

I am looking forward to the arguments in court!

Today’s Dom Post Editorial:

However inquiries into Winston Peters’ party funding turn out, one point is certain. The system for funding political parties needs grassroots overhaul and a multiparty accord, The Dominion Post writes.

The overhaul should at least bring an end to secret donations and repudiate an idea much beloved of the prime minister – state funding of political parties. MPs filch enough now from taxpayers’ pockets. Were the work of party hacks to be totally taxpayer funded, it would create an elite that never allowed newcomers on to Parliament’s floor. The Maori Party could never have gatecrashed had its supporters had to match cash given to the old guard from the public purse.

Bringing an end to secret donations is easier said than done. Doing so may lead to the donations flowing to the MPs personally, rather than their parties.

I of course am against state funding of political parties. The Dom Post is right that such funding would make it much harder for newcomers to make it into Parliament – it helps entrench incumbent parties.

So here is an idea to make it fairer for newcomers. As the current parliamentary parties have a huge advantage through parliamentary resources and free media, why not restrict the broadcasting allocation to parties not in Parliament? Why should parties who are in the media every day or every week get assistance with their election campaign? I’d rather that money goes to the parties trying to break into Parliament.

The act must go. It has had only humour value since January 1, when it came into force, because the typically cautious public servants who must administer it have hamstrung Labour and those parties that voted for it probably more tightly than it has hogtied its opponents. To see Progressive leader Jim Anderton pinged for an advertisement advising of a BZP ban was exquisite.

The act’s critics foresaw the current muddle. The law is undemocratic and the way it was imposed an exercise in arrogance.

As bad as the substance of the law is, it is indeed the way the Government negotiated the original Bill in secret with no public input that did the most damage. It differed from the antics of certain third world countries only by degree – it was a blatant attempt to use electoral law to screw over its enemies.

New Zealand likes to believe this small but modern democracy is largely corruption-free. It is thus dispiriting to learn that some at the centre risk operating in a way that would make an African despot proud.

I think we are well overdue in having an Independent Commission against Corruption – a body with wide powers that can investigate Ministers, MPs and senior Government officials.

Thanks to No Right Turn, I note the Alliance are taking the Electoral Commission to court over their broadcasting allocation.

The Alliance say:

“The current allocation process is terminally stacked against non-parliamentary parties, in that they lack the ‘oxygen of publicity’ that Parliament provides. Election time is the only time the public have an opportunity to hear new ideas and fresh thinking from outside the status quo parties.”

And No Right Turn agrees them, even though he notes they have little chance of success:

… the basic thrust of the law is “larger parties get more money”. It’s unjust, its inequitable, it denies democratic choice, and it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy which preserves the status quo.

But how hard done by is the Alliance. Let’s look at dollars per vote. They were allocated $17,000 of taxpayer assistance for their broadcasting. In 2005 they received 1,641 votes (0.07%) so they get $10.36 per vote.

Labour got $1,000,000 for their 935,319 (41.10%) votes. That is $1.07 per vote.

I can’t see the Alliance winning somehow.

The broadcasting allocations have to give some credence to how much support a party has. It would be ridicolous to give the Animals First party the same funding as Labour. Everyone would set up a party if it meant they got an equal share of the $3.2 million.

And again I disagree with NRT that the major parties are advantaged. They get in fact less money proportionally than the smaller parliamentary parties. National and Labour between them get only 62% of the funding despite being over 85% of the vote. Sure you can argue Jim Anderton should get the same funding as National, but who would?

The real indignity is that parties can not top up their allocatins with their own money. That is what is abhorent. The Alliance is prevented from spending a single dollar on top of their allocation on broadcasting. Because of this restriction there is a greater argument that they should have a higher allocation as the allocation is also a limit. But if I was changing the law I don’t think it would serve NZers well to have the smallest fringe party get equal time to the major parties. I would just remove the inability to top up.

The Electoral Commission has made its broadcasting allocations. I blogged on these a few weeks ago. These are called interim allocations as if a small party fails to register, then their allocation is reallocated. This has a minor effect at best.

As expected National and Labour got the same amount – $1,000,000 each. Last time Labour got $1.1 and National $0.9.

Tier 2 sees the Greens, Maori Party and NZ First all get $240,000 each. I think that is somewhat unfair on the Greens who clearly have polled well above the other two parties.

Tier 3 are the three other parliamentary parties of ACT, Progressive and United Future who get $100,000 each,

Tier 4 has 11 non parliamentary parties getting $10,000 of broadcast time $7,000 of production costs for their one minute opening addresses.

The Libertarianz are getting the production costs only, as they said they would not spend any money allocated to them.

So how much extra or less does each parliamentary party get compared to 2005′s initial allocation?

1. National from $900,000 to $1,000,000 = +$100,000
2. Labour from $1,100,000 to $1,000,000 = -$100,000
3. Maori Party from $125,000 to $240,000 = +$115,000
4. ACT from $200,000 to $100,000 = -$100,000
5. NZ First from $200,000 to $240,000 = +$40,000
6. United Future from $200,000 to $100,000 = -$100,000
7. Greens from $200,000 to $240,000 = +$40,000
8. Progressive from $75,000 to $100,000 = +$25,000

Most of the changes can be explained away by a party having done better or worse in the last election than in 2002, or registering higher or lower in the polls. But there are two exceptions. Let’s look at each in turn:

1. National – doubled vote in 2005 and currently high in polls so increase makes sense
2. Labour – 2005 vote much the same as 2002 but down in the polls so decrease makes sense
3. Maori Party – had no MPs before 2005 so the increase makes sense as they have won four seats now.
4. ACT – lost MPs in 2005, so the decrease makes sense
5. NZ First – went from 13 MPs in 2002 to seven MPs in 2005 and have dropped to under 3% in the polls, so the increase does not make sense. NZ First have been very lucky.
6. United Future – lost MPs in 2005, so the decrease makes sense
7. Greens – lost one or two MPs in 2005, but have been up in the polls so the small gain makes sense.
8. Progressive – went from two to one MP and are at 0% in most polls – so the increase does not make sense

So NZ First and the Progressives have got extra money despite doing far worse in the last election and in subsequent polls. So they will be very happy with the result, while Greens will be fairly unhappy.

The afternoon session was pretty boring in the end, as both National and Labour were saying they should get the same amount of money.

National

Jo de Joux gave a short submission saying National and Labour should get the same amount. Made reference to the advantage the incumbent can get from the restrictions in the Electoral Finance Act and Government advertising campaigns.

Some questions on how the other parties should be treated in terms of tiers.

They want 15 minutes opening time for National and Labour but broadcasters have said 24 minute block on Friday and 48 minutes on Saturday, so the question from Helena Catt was if they won’t budge would National rather have 12 minutes on Friday or 15 minutes on Saturday. They said 12 minutes on Friday.

The normal question over TVNZ’s new requirement to be paid in advance was put. Murray McCully deftly suggested it was an issue for the Commission and the broadcasters to resolve, not the parties.

They were questioned why they suggested all five minor parties (except Progressive) get the same Tier 2 funding despite the Green polling considerably higher. Response was that polls do not always track minor parties well and the difference between 5% and 2% isn’t huge.

Labour

Mike Smith appearing. Guess Mike Williams was still hiding from the media. In fact I hear his cellphone message now asks people if they are journalists to ring someone else. Mike Smith speaks very softly so was hard to hear everything he said.

He said two main parties roughly equal on criteria of votes and MPs so should get the same. Also said polls should not be relied on so much as less people have landlines, so they should have reduced significance.

Also downplayed membership figures as different parties may classify how you qualify to be a member in different ways. And suggested National’s extra broadcast buy from last time due to the GST error should be taken into account for this time. Strangely he did not suggest Labour’s $800,000 overspend should be a factor.

He later clarified in questioning that while he was bringing the 2005 GST issue to the Commission’s attention, in the end they are advocating both Labour and National gets the same.

Labour said the new TVNZ system would not be a big issue – needing to book 10 days in advance. In my experience bookings are made well in advance, but the details of the actual ad is what may change right up until the last minute.

They also said they are happy with 62% for major parties, not 66% as National suggested.

So the morning session was far more interesting. Herald and Don Post did turn up in the afternoon.

I actually think the Commission has a pretty easy job this year as there is no dispute over National and Labour getting the same, and little issue with $10 – $20 k each to parties outside Parliament. The real interest will be how they treat the other six parliamentary parties.

If they have just a Tier 2 and Tier 3 then I’d say Greens, NZ First and Maori in Tier 2 and ACT, United Future and Progressive in Tier 3.

If they have a Tier 2, 3 and 4, then the possible options are:

1. Greens – Tier 2
2. NZ First – Tier 2 or 3
3. Maori Party – Tier 2 or 3
4. ACT – Tier 3 or 4
5. United Future – Tier 3 or 4
6. Progressive – Tier 3, 4 or possibly even Tier 5

It will be interesting to see the determination.

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.

The 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:

1. Votes at last election – 1.5
2. By-election Results – 0.25
3. Number of MPs – 1.0
4. Party Vote Polls – 2.0
5. 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

1. Votes at last election – 1.0
2. Number of MPs – 1.0
3. Party Vote Polls – 1.0
4. Electorate Vote Polls – 1.0

Now what are the results for the eight parliamentary parties on each criteria:

Votes at last election

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

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:

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:

Overall Weightings

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.

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:

1. National, Labour – $1,050,000 x 2
2. Greens – $285,600
3. Maori, NZ First – $190,400 x 2
4. ACT, United Future, Progressive – $95,200 x 3
5. ALCP, Democrats, Family Party, Libertarianz, Alliance – $20,000 x 5
6. Kotahitanga, New World Order, Liberals, RAM, South Island Party, Workers Party – $10,000 x 6

That would equal $3,212,000 exactly.

The Electoral Commission is hearing oral submissions today and tomorrow on how to divide up the $3.212 million (incl GST – please note National!) of broadcasting allocations for parties. They have also put up on their website the written submission by the parties. They also get allocated 102 minutes of time on TV One and Radio NZ for opening and closing broadcasts.

The Kiwi Party and Pacific Party forgot or decided not to apply, so miss out.

1. ACT says they don’t like the system (esp that parties cannot buy their own time). They claim the $3.2 million should be divided up equally amongst all parties which are viable to gain seats. This would give $400 million thousand to each of the eight parliamentary parties. They have no chance of getting this. Their backup plea is give National and Labour a bit more, but treat the other six parliamentary parties the same. They do not reveal their membership size but say they have 30,000 people on their mailing list. They also amusingly claimed that as Don Brash got 40% with ACT’s policies, they should get money reflecting that.
2. ACLP cites a poll giving them 7.9% support. But only in Greymouth! Also that they have the longest serving party leader.
3. Libertarianz call the rules immoral, and says they want as much money as possible, which they will not spend, hence saving the taxpayer money. I love it!
4. Maori Party has 23,215 members (impressive – around three times that of Labour). Want more money so they can campaign in Maori (te reo) also.
5. New World Order (no not joking) just wants one minute for their opening adddress. Should be fascinating!
6. NZ First claim to have over 10,000 members. Say that Winston’s poll ratings should count more than the party’s. Says NZ First should get more funding than all other parties except Labour and National. They won’t.
7. Labour makes a big fuckup in their submission and additionally gives National 100,000 extra votes (combined party and electorate) and mistakenly claim Labour got 39.70% of the combined votes and National 40.89%. Would be funny if National got more money based on Labour’s inability to add. They also claim there are no published polls on the electorate vote but this is untrue as Colmar Brunton poll on this monthly. Labour twice claim there are no electorate polls so are misleading the Commission significantly.They say that the average of all polls for last year has Nats 49.3% and Lab 36.3%. They claim 54,892 members but this includes “compulsory members” through affiliates and it is unknown how many people have voluntarily joined Labour – 8,000 is the rumoured level. As they are now low in the polls, they have changed their previous position to claim poll levels should have just the same weighting as number of MPs and votes at last election. Their conclusion is National and Labour should get the same despite National being ahead even on their own suggested criteria. Next tier should be NZ First and Greens. Third tier Maori, Act and UFNZ, Fourth Progressive and 5th those not in Parliament.
8. Progressive says should be three tiers – Labour and National in tier one, NZ Furst and Greens in tier 2 and the other four parliamentary parties in tier 3. Whines a lot that their polling is bad because junior Coalition partners get little publicity.
9. RAM have not learnt how to turn off full justification in MS Word. Cites votes in AUckland council elections.
10. Alliance says the minimum for any party should be $25,000 (was $10,000 last time). Refers amusingly to leadership changes and “schisms”.
11. Family Party just cites media coverage.
12. Green Party has around 4,000 members. Say no party polling below 2% should get opening address time but can get funds. Says National and Labour should get same funding. Then Green Party get third largest amount – more than NZ Furst due to their low polling.
13. Liberal Party has a long whine about corruption involving the State Services Commissioner, the Chief Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. How the hell do people like this get 500 members? They claim they will get 5% to 10% of the vote. Want 10 minutes for their opening and closing addresses. No chance.
14. National has been consistent with its 2005 submission (unlike Labour) and have said Labour and National should get the same amount of money despite National’s massive lead in the polls. Doesn’t state membership level but that confident higher than any other party. A minor boob in they refer to 69 electorates instead of 70 which it now is. Says tier two parties for funding should be all the other parliamentary parties except Progressive. Notes the two main parties got 62% of the funding in 2002 but 80% of the votes. Advocates the share going to them should increase to 66% or two thirds. Also wants the share of opening broadcast time (combined for the two majors) to go from 33% to 42% which would be 15 minutes each.
15. South Island Party quotes from its own Wikipedia entry in support of its application. Hilarious.
16. United Future whines about Gordon Copeland leaving and says he should still be treated as a United Future MP as he was a List MP. Quotes 2002 election results as they prefer to ignore 2005. Incorrectly claims that NZ First got 44% more MPs in 2002 than the Greens despite just 1% more vote. The are right NZ First had 13 MPs to 9 Greens but NZF got 10% to 7% for the Greens. They also speculate that Labour may not have won the last election if they had not been given $200,000 more broadcasting money than National. Says they should get the same. They support all the other parliamentary parties bar Progressive being second tier for funding. Their submission is probably the most comprehensive and well argued and even recommends specific funding levels for all tiers.

The non parliamentary parties appeared on Monday to argue their case. The parliamentary ones appear on Tuesday. If I can spare the time I might pop down and blog them.

I am also going to do some of my own calculations based on the Labour Party submission, but correcting the errors they have made. Will blog these when done.