Kiwiblog

Simon Power has introduced the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill which merges together the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission. After the 2011 election, they will also add in the Chief Registrar of Electors.

The new Commission will come into force on 1 October 2010. It will have three Commissioners appointed by the GG on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. One Commissioner will be the Chairperson. Another will be the Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Executive of the Commission. There can also be a Deputy Chairperson.

The bill provides for the Minister to consult with the parliamentary leaders of all parties in Parliament, before recommending/making appointments.

I don’t regard this as satisfactory. While the current Minister I am sure would not appoint someone objected to by the other parties, the former Government often ignored objections by other parties with regards to their appointments.

I actually believe the three Commissions should be appointed directly by Parliament, and that the Commission should be an “Office of Parliament” not a crown entity.  The preamble states this was considered but rejected as not fitting the criteria. I plan to ask under the OIA for documents about why this was so.

I don’t think the Government of the Day should be able to appoint the Electoral Commissioners. The Bill even allows for the possibility that a Member of Parliament could be appointed to the Electoral Commission (which would vacate their seat).

I think the merger is a long overdue idea, and the Bill should 100% go to select committee. But I do hope serious consideration is given to making the appointment of the Electoral Commissioners more independent from the Government of the Day. Either they should be officially appointed by Parliament itself, or there should be a requirement or the Minister to obtain written consent to a recommendation from Leaders representing both 75% of the parties in Parliament, and representing at least 75% of MPs.

An article in the NZ Herald on how we will not have e-voting until 2023 at the earliest under current plans. I’m one of those quoted criticising the timetable and advocating we should be moving to trails in the very near future.

Anthony Doesburg points out that groups such as the Teachers Council have sucessfully run online elections with 80.000 voters.

A change I have advocated in the past is that the Chief Electoral Office be put in charge of all local body elections also (working with the local authorities). This change is beneficial in its own right, but would also allow testing of e-voting in one or two areas in 2010.

The Dim-Post reports that the Chief Electoral Office has ruled that Michael Cullen needs to be authorised by the National Party as an election advertisement:

Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden has warned the National Party that they are in breach of the Electoral Finance Act for failing to register Finance Minister Michael Cullen as an election advertisement.

‘Anything seen to be encouraging voters to support a particular party or individual counts as advertising,’ Peden stated in his ruling. ‘In this regard Dr Cullen is clearly a National Party advertisement.’

National are also in trouble for allowing Cullen to appear in public without prominently displaying the name and address of the party’s financial agent. …

The best satire has that element of truth to it, and this one so hits the mark.

Labour Minister Trevor Mallard has joined the Labour Party in being found by electoral authorities to have breached the Electoral Finance Act.

Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden has ruled that Trevor’s van is an election advertisement and needs authorisation.

This means it is also arguable that the cost of the van as an advertisement is also an election expense and should be included in his $20,000 spending cap. One can be sure there will be scrutiny of his election return.

Those who forced this law on New Zealand, are the ones who keep breaking it. Now what is the word for that again?

With all the boldness of a very slow turtle, the Chief Electoral Office is talking of trialling online voting in 2014, 2017 and 2020 with a possible implementation in 2023.

I absolutely support a trial before any decisions are made on implementation, but online voting has been discussed and trialled globally since 1996. An 18 year wait until we even trial it is manifestly inadequate.

The 2010 local body elections represent a superb opportunity to trial online voting. As they already use postal voting, there is less of a culture change. You merely include a username and password with their voting letter, and maybe have them get a one time PIN e-mailed to them also.

Now you don’t have to trial it with every local body. Just choose a couple where it really doesn’t matter if the system breaks down – say the Ruapahu District Council.

Online voting has the potential to increase turnout but also increase informed voting. One can have candidates linked to their election pages so people can read about them just before they vote. And considering we have a zero level of security at the moment for voting, online voting can only be more secure. Now again I am not saying rush in and have online voting for 2011 general election, but at a minimum it should be trialled for some 2010 local body elections.

I warned people that the Electoral Finance Act covered e-mails and even press releases, and it is being proven right.

Heather Roy has been sending out a weekly e-mail newsletter for five years. It only goes to people who ask to receive it.  The Chief Electoral Office has advised it can be considered an election advertisement and now needs an authorisation statement.

And yes it may apply to press releases also:

Press releases, which are usually much more politically combative and seldom, if ever, carry authorisation, would be the obvious concern, potentially leaving scores of MPs in breach of the controversial new law.

But that question will not be resolved till Crown Law rules on whether a pamphlet handed to a journalist at an ACT conference could be deemed to have been published. Though material distributed to party members is exempt from the law, the journalist was not a party member.

E-mailing out a press release is probably an election advertisement. This would mean the party’s financial agent would need to authorise in writing all press releases before they go out, and they would have the financial agent’s home address on them.