|
New Zealand
Herald
January 16, 2004
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=
3543772&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
Editorial: Time to take confusion out
of voting
January 16, 2004
When too many cooks dabble in the same broth, confusion and
inefficiency become part of the recipe. There is also the chance to
pass the buck if the results of all that labour are below
expectation. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Paul Harris, the
retiring Electoral Commission chief executive, should want a single
independent agency to be responsible for all electoral matters. Or
that a royal commission and a taskforce have made exactly the same
suggestion. What is extraordinary is that a muddled, multifarious
system continues to survive.
Dr Harris notes, quite correctly, that the present jumble is
perplexing to all and sundry. How can it be otherwise when the
system is so fragmented. The commission's role is to register
political parties and donations to them, and to monitor party
election spending. It also handles electoral education and advises
the Government and Parliament. Yet the actual running of elections
is the job of the Chief Electoral Office, a branch of the Ministry
of Justice. The New Zealand Post electoral enrolment centre, for its
part, beavers away maintaining the roll.
Clearly, a single agency could take a more efficient, sector-wide
perspective, initiating overall policy and scotching potential
problems. No longer would there be different accountabilities and
responsibilities, and the potential for friction arising from
turf-guarding zeal. It is tempting to ask whether the slow
vote-count shambles of the 1999 election would have been avoided had
one agency been in control. Much of the blame for that debacle was
attributed to the Department of Courts, which had dissuaded staff
from acting as returning officers because it could distract them
from their normal duties. That, in itself, spoke volumes of the
shortcomings of a divided structure, and the potential for the
downgrading of a fundamental element of democracy.
Given the 1999 shambles, and the subsequent 2001 electoral
taskforce report, it is puzzling that the Government has not
introduced a single agency. The more so because the arrival of
electronic voting provides an added incentive to seek the utmost
efficiency. Indeed, so mystifying is the Government's absence of
action that it is reasonable to ask if it is content with the
structure as it is because it provides a measure of control.
Any agency that fulfils a constitutional role should be separated
from departments of state. That, of course, is not the case with the
Chief Electoral Office. As Dr Harris suggests, a single agency would
have to be independent. Logically, that means the Electoral
Commission taking responsibility for all aspects of parliamentary
elections.
One of Dr Harris' other pleas was for more money to be spent on
electoral education, especially for youth, women and Maori and
Pacific Islanders. This request is equally well-founded. Turnout at
the 2002 election was 77 per cent, still relatively high but further
evidence of a worrying decline in participation. Part of the blame
can be attributed to parties reducing their direct contact with
voters, whether by telephone or door-knocking. But surveys also show
a steady decline in interest among 18 to 24-year-olds.
Equally, it remains questionable whether voters fully understand
the function of the party vote. Many clearly still regard the
constituency vote as more important. Previous public information
campaigns have helped to ease the transition to MMP. But more may
still be required to sheet home understanding of the mechanics of
proportional representation, and to raise political awareness to a
level that ensures Parliament continues to be truly representative.
Dr Harris has done a sterling job in shepherding New Zealand
through its first three MMP elections. What he suggests in his
valedictory remarks is relatively straightforward. The Government
has no excuse for failing to follow his advice.
|
