Herald on Catt

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am

The Herald talks to retiring Electoral Commission CEO Helena Catt:

Tomorrow Dr Catt will head off for a more nomadic life of what she describes good-humouredly as “democracy-enhancing activities in the Pacific”.

First stop will be Vanuatu to help run a new civic education programme with the Australian Electoral Commission, largely funded by Australia’s aid agency, AusAid. She will also be working on the professional development of electoral administrators, trying to ensure the electoral processes in Pacific countries are robust enough to reduce reliance on overseas aid – Micronesia is on the list and Timor, probably in August.

A nice time to be in the Pacific :-)

Her five years at the Electoral Commission spanned two of the more volatile elections in recent history.

The first, in 2005, involved the Exclusive Brethren and the Auditor-General later ruling some party spending of public money unlawful. That, combined with ongoing disquiet about anonymous donations and donations being squirrelled away in trusts led to the Electoral Finance Act in 2007.

It was at this point that Dr Catt became more widely known than electoral agency heads usually are after going public with concerns about the new law – rare for a public servant.

Dr Catt spoke out while the EFB was before Parliament still, and made the point that they would not know how to interpret parts of the proposed law, especially around the exemption for spending for parliamentary purposes as that had never been defined.

Labour’s problem was they were trying to legalise their pledge card and exempt it as an expense, but they did not wish to clearly state that in the law for fear of the backlash. So they left it undefined and had then Justice Minister Annette King give contradictory speeches as to what she thought it means. It was a farce.

Dr Catt said she spoke out because “it had to be said”.

It left her slightly battle scarred and was one of the reasons she decided not to remain.

Heh. Whle the 2011 election should be less trouble than 2008, the mere fact there will be a new set of rules will make it somewhat challenging.

Tags:

Did a text reminder increase voter turnout?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

I was at the farewell function last night for the retiring CEO of the Electoral Commission, Helena Catt. I was very pleased to be invited despite having helped take the Commission to court a couple of times :-)

Dr Catt mentioned that a paper was due out today on how a text reminder on election day significantly increased vote turnout. The paper is here.

There were 15,662 who had texted the EEC requesting an enrolment pack.Some of them were sent a text message on election day reminding them to vote, and some were not.

The turnout rate of those who got a text message was 75.5% – a significant 4.7% higher than the 70.8% who did not get a text message.

The biggest increase in voting was in low population density electorates (rural), electorates with high Maori populations and amongst people enrolled in the last month – they had a greater than 10% difference

I was amused that a few people replied to the text message, and this was one response:

HEY ORANGE GUY WE HAVIN FLAT WARMING 2NYTE BRING THE ORANGE JUICE AND ALL YR FRIENDS.

Anyway the results are strong enough that I think the Government should seriously look at doing a mass text on election day to enrolled voters. This would mean the EEC would have to collect cellphone numbers, but that can be done with a small law change.

Tags: , ,

Voting now open

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Voting is now open in the 2008 Kiwiblog Awards. They close at 3 pm Friday 3 October. You can vote in the sidebar.

The most popular nominations in each category are:

MP of the Year

  • Rodney Hide – not even a finalist last year but a popular nominee for his campaign to expose Peters, amongst other things
  • Bill English – a repeat nominee – his year of picking apart the EFA was often cited
  • Pita Sharples – has become the Maori MP, Pakeha love to love, and helped position the Maori Party as Kingmakers.
  • Phil Goff – a China FTA plus a possible United States FTA endears Goff to many readers

Labour MP of the Year

  • Phil Goff was nominated by many but disqualified as the 2007 winner
  • Michael Cullen cited by many for his mastery of the House
  • David Cunliffe also impressed several with his determination to improve the Health sector
  • Winston Peters was nominated multiple times in this category, so who are we to stand in the way of the public!

National MP of the Year

  • Simon Power had the most nominations, having impressed with his constant highlighting of law & order problems, and also superb Chairmanship of the Privileges Committee.
  • John Key is still the country’s Preferred PM
  • Bill English was disqualified having won this category last year
  • Gerry Brownlee also often nominated for his take no prisoners methods in the House

Minor Party MP of the Year

  • Rodney Hide a popular nominee for many
  • Pita Sharples had 12 nominations in this category – will it be Minister Sharples in a few weeks?
  • Sue Bradford has had a quieter year than 2007 when she was runner up, but still gained some nominations
  • Hone Harawira also gained multiple nominations – the once reviled radical has been impressing a few people

Press Gallery of the Journalist

  • Audrey Young – Winston still has not apologised to her, but she was a favourite nominee amongst Kiwiblog readers
  • Duncan Garner – his “straight talking” doesn’t always win friends in Parliament, but has proven popular with some readers
  • Guyon Espiner – cool, clam and collected – the most viewed gallery reporter has some fans
  • Colin Espiner – the blogging journalist has many online fans

Public Servant of the Year

  • Grant Liddell – the SFO Director was a multiple nominee for doing what was right, regardless of what the Government wanted.
  • Owen Glenn – okay not technically a public servant, but many nominated him for having performed a public service.
  • Helena Catt – the Electoral Commission CEO wins the sympathy and nominations of many for having to try and work out what the Electoral Finance Act actually means, and for her willingness to criticise the law she has to enforce.

Enjoy voting.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why the PM is furious at the SFO

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 am

Having now seen the evidence from the SFO, it is no surprise that the Prime Minister is furious that they told the truth to the Privileges Committee. Clark is still questioning the judgement of the SFO Director, and complaining he did not consult Crown Law.

Apart from the fact there is no requirement he do so, I say thank God he didn’t. Crown Law would have informed the Attorney-General who was moonlighting as Co Chief Defence Counsel for Winston Peters at the Privileges Committee.

Look at who the Director did consult:

  1. The Clerk of the House of Representatives
  2. The Auditor-General (who is empowered to investigate matters relating to the Register of Interests)
  3. A QC

There really is no question that the Director acted properly. Those suggesting he did not, are trying to divert attention from the devastating evidence he provided. You see we learnt that the Spencer Trust did not just deliver money to NZ First, but to Winston Peters personally by paying off a $40,000 debt of his.

ACT tried to get the Privileges Committee to further investigate the Spencer Trust after the SFO investigation. And they are right that the issue of secret donations through the Spencer Trust to pay off a $40,000 debt of Peters is of massive concern.

The reason the PM is so furious is because the SFO evidence directly calls into question the integrity of decision making in her Government.

It is hard to not conclude that the ultimate donor of the $40,000 was the Vela Family. The descriptions in the SFO report strongly suggest that. And the Vela Family make much of their money from horse racing.

Now I am not suggesting the Velas had bad motives with their donations. I support their right to donate to parties they support. But there is a massive difference between a donation to a party and a donation or gift to an MP personally. The former is absolutely common. The latter is unheard of in NZ at the level of $40,000.

Winston Peters got the Government to give a lot of money to the racing industry. He had to persaude Clark and Cullen to ignore Treasury advice and go along with his plans for the Giovernment to provide prize money for some horse races.

Now if he was the personal beneficiary of a $40,000 donation (through paying his debt) from racing industry figures, then that absolutely 100% had to be disclosed. In fact the Prime Minister has to approve retention of any gift over $500 this is such a serious issue for Ministers.

Consider how scandalous this would be in a different portfolio.  Let us say Winston was Minister of Health and he persuaded Cabinet to fund a new drug against the advice of Pharmac. And then it turned out the drug company that manufactures that drug had given him $40,000. You start to get the idea of how serious it is.

The PM needs to urgently find out whether that $40,000 was in fact donated by the Velas. The secrecy of donations through trusts (a practice I sumitted to Parliament should end incidentially) has only ever applied for donations to political parties. There can be no secrecy for donations to Ministers of the Crown.

Tags: , , ,

NZ Herald on “chilling effect” law

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 8:30 am

The NZ Herald comments on how the Electoral Finance Act has taken the fire out of the election:

This month, the head of the Electoral Commission confirmed what had already become apparent in the run-up to polling day on November 8. The Electoral Finance Act had had, said Dr Helena Catt, a “chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity”. Her comment acknowledged the dearth of activity normally present during election campaigns as interest groups vigorously put their points of view.

Some will say this was always the intention – to make it harder for people to criticise the Government.

Understandably, the association has reacted strongly, saying it will likely legally challenge the commission’s verdict. “The decision … says, in effect, it is illegal to promote any views that oppose those of the government or an MP such as Mr Mallard in an election year,” it said.

A happy coincidence for Labour!

The real culprit here, however, is not the commission but the wording of the act, which probably left it with no choice. Not for no reason is Dr Catt now lambasting a “difficult law”, significant parts of which are “obscure” and hard to interpret. Not for no reason is she now using exactly the same language that critics, such as the Herald, were using as the legislation was rushed through Parliament without reflection or consensus.

And Dr Catt herself warned the law was unclear before it was passed. The three parties that forced it through have no defence.

Tags: , , ,

NZ Herald on Catt’s comments on EFA

Thursday, September 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am

The NZ Herald has reported on the comments by Electoral Commission CEO Helena Catt, which I blogged about yesterday.

The head of the Electoral Commission has warned that the law she is charged with overseeing is having a “chilling effect” on public participation in the election.

I would encourage people to keep that quote and at every Meet the Candidate’s Meeting they attend ask Labour, NZ First and Greens candidate a question along the lines of: “The CEO of the Electoral Commission has said the Electoral Finance Act is having a chilling effect on public participation in the election. Why did your party pass a law that has achieved the exact opposite of its stated intention – discouraging people from political involvement?”

Minister of Justice Annette King would not respond to Dr Catt’s comments, saying Dr Catt was an independent commissioner and “she’s entitled to say what she likes”.

Isn’t it sad when the Minister is actually unable to rebut the central proposition that her pet law has had a chilling effect on people’s participation in the electoral process?

Tags: , , , , ,

Electoral Finance Law Forum

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 am

LexisNexus hosted a forum yesterday on Electoral Finance Law. They were kind enough to allow me to attend as media, so I could report on it. I couldn’t afford the $900 fee as I have no commercial interest in the area. There was a great line up of speakers including:

  • Associate Professor Bill Hodge
  • Electoral Commission CEO Dr Helena Catt
  • Mai Chen
  • Peter Kiely
  • Bryce Edwards
  • Nikki Pender
  • Doug Bailey
  • Catherine Marks

I only attended some of the afternoon session, and will blog on these later. What I want to cover is the session in the morning with Electoral Commission CEO Helena Catt. I was not physically present for it, but was given a copy of the written notes Dr Catt used. Some extracts are below:

  • A lack of broad political consensus through the passage of the bill has resulted in difficult law delivered into a litigious environment.
  • “It is clear that having uncertainty remaining within the regulated period has had a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity”.
  • The meanings of significant sections of the legislation are obscure.
  • The commission is not confident that it will be able to reach informed positions on the interpretation of some provisions within the election period.

I stress again that these are the views not of a partisan political player, but by the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission.

Need more be said?

Tags: , , ,

The Minors have their say

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

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.

Tags: , , , , ,