Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There has only been one postal referendum in NZ's history. In 1997 NZ voted emphatically on Winston Peters' idea for Compulsory Retirement Savings.
80.3% of all people enrolled returned their votes with 91.8% voting No. Over 73% of all people on the electoral roll were against.
I'm not expecting a result that clear-cut this time.
But looking back that was an astounding turnout, virtually double that for local bodiy elections. Probably because the question was so straightforward.
-
tomorrow will almost see the first ballot
tomorrow will almost certainly see the first ballot.
Stupid Edit feature: why does The Standard have the only good Edit feature in town?
If 300,0000 vote NO
150,000 vote YES
700,000 spoil papersThen the headline would be "60% says its a stupid question" and the No vote would be of no significance to anyone who matters
-
I see Sue Bradford has announced this morning that she has a members bill to go in the ballot tomorrow addressng the wording of CIR questions; she says
The Bill requires the Clerk of the House to only allow referendum questions which are not ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading.
On the matter, tomorrow will almost see the first ballot for Members Bills in over 18 months. Due to the esoteric operation of Parliament's rules, there were no ballots last year, only 2 bills drawn in 2007, and 2006 was the last year that was significant ballot action.
-
Couldn't CIR be kicked to the Law Society?
The Law Society often makes submissions on bills, focusing not on policy but on whether the bill as written would make workable law. They are quite picky as you'd expect. I don't know if CIR proposals are on their radar, I would hope so.
There are no CIR proposals for open for submissions on wording. There is one (only) CIR petition with wording approved and open for signature - the Unite petition on the minimum wage
I must make a point of keeping an eye out for any new proposals.
-
A few thoughts:
1. Informal votes were not reported in 1995 but were reported (and here) in 1999. I've asked the Chief Electoral Office what will happen this time.
2. I've asked (OIA) for a breakdown of the $9M budget. There were over 2.5M voters enrolled for the 2008 election, so that's about $3.60 per person.
3. They may have estimated a high turnout for budget purposes, and if turnout is not that high then variable costs will diminish. Not defending the dollars, just a bit of perspective.
4. Is CIR Act still relevant? Well, it was enacted in 1993 by the Bolger Govt in a very different New Zealand. We had just come out of six years of frantic change driven by Roger Dougals et al. Talkback was the most readily available medium for the angry and frustrated.
4. Gathering signatures on a paper form was virtually cutting-edge technology.
5. In 2009, we are a connected nation. (Can anybody find good recent data on internet access?) With media sites and blogs, virtually anyone can choose to interact: viz 15 Labour MPs on Red Alert. Trevor Mallard is soliciting views on specific questions.
6. So I think much as I love the concept of CIR, it may well be timely to have another look at the operation of the Act.
-
pareidolia
Word. Of. The. Year.
extra points to the man for knowing it and using correctly.
-
treating
It might be a problem if the Police actually took enforcement of the Electoral Act with any degree of seriousness.
s217(2) says more or less (v. complex construction)
Every person commits the offence of treating who corruptly (gives). . . any food, drink, entertainment, or provision . . .
(b) for the purpose of procuring himself or herself to be elected;So there would be a number of things to be proven and any investigation would like as not end up in the too hard basket.
I understand that there have been virtually no complaints of alleged treating in the last three general elections.
-
The Supreme Court has just released a judgement on one of the appeals in Bain. Plenty to read there and no doubt TV will be full of it.
-
does this mean that Melissa Lee is outside of government?
I did say 'good enough for most purposes'. And I did wonder if you were asking about the Lee scenario. Here goes . . .
She is a list MP who is contesting the byelection for the Mt Albert electorate seat left vacant by Helen Clark's resignation from Parliament.
She is outside Government in that she is not a Minister. But she is inside in that she is a National Party MP and the Nats are one of the parties in Government.
As a Government backbencher, you'd expect she'd be kept in the loop by Ministers. Especially on important stuff in the by-election. It has been well traversed here and on other blogs that there was a monumental c*ck-up of the first order early in the campaign.
-
Now, only the geeks amongst us need read on . . .
Successive Governors-General from Michael Hardie-Boys (in 1996 immediately before the first MMP elections) onwards have delivered speeches about the G-G's role in formation and appointment of new Governments.
The G-G's site helpfully brings these together - the link above.
Below is an extract from just one, delivered by Anand Satyanand to the Justice of the Peace Assoc Annual Dinner on the evening of the day John Key's Government was sworn in:
Although it is an exercise of a reserve power, the Prime Minister's appointment is based on established principle which I have talked about on two occasions this year. In speeches, first to a dinner to senior members of the Press Gallery in June, and then later to the New Zealand Law Students' Association in September, I reiterated that while the electoral system had changed, that the respective roles of the Governor-General and the leaders of the political parties in Parliament had not.I said, in almost identical words on both occasions as follows:
"Whatever the electoral system that is used, the Governor-General will always appoint, as Prime Minister, the person who has been identified through the government formation process as the person who will lead the party, or group of parties, that appears able to command the confidence of the House of Representatives. I expect that there will be clear and public statements that a political agreement has been reached, and that a government can be formed that will have the support of the new Parliament. In appointing the Prime Minister, I will abide by the outcome of the political process."
Looking at this in detail, a number of points become clear. As government formation is a political matter, it is not any part of the Governor-General's role to become involved in the negotiations, unless the process is clearly at a stalemate. Nor is it any part of the Governor-General role to "anoint" anyone—whether they are the incumbent prime minister or the leader of any other political party—to be the heir-apparent. Who emerges as the leader is a political decision for politicians to decide. To become involved in either of these two ways, would threaten the neutrality and non-partisanship of the Office of Governor-General.
Secondly, with the exception of exercise of the reserve powers, the Governor-General acts on the advice of ministers. It is therefore my duty to ensure there is always a government in place that can advise on the discharge of my duties.
It is also up to the politicians to decide whom they want to negotiate with. Government formation is a political decision, and there are many examples from throughout the world where Prime Ministers have come from parties other than the largest one in the legislature. As Professor Joseph also states:
"Where there is a proliferation of parties in the House, there is no guarantee that the party with the largest number of seats will be in government. It is a matter of locating the group of parties that can command the confidence of the House and the country must await their decision on who will be the new Prime Minister."