Setting election rules

Transparency International makes the case in the NZ Herald for election rules to be decided on by some sort of independent panel, rather than the MPs who are directly affected by it.

In the past rule changes have tended to have wide bi-partisan support, so there was less need for an independent panel, but Labour’s attempts to screw over their opponents by jacking up partisan favourable law changes shows the danger in leaving it to MPs.

An independent panel has considerable merit. However it is not a guarantee of good outcomes. Who gets to appoint the independent panel and set the terms of reference would be a key issue.

It actually angers me what Labour is doing with these changes to the Electoral Act. They are treating the Electoral Act as some partisan policy issue where you negotiate a majority in secret before you even reveal the details to the public. This is not common practice for most laws, and especially electoral law.

What they should have done is a process such as the Government has used on say the spam act and the copyright acts. First you publish a discussion document highlighting the issues, and asking for public feedback on the issues. Then you publish a further document which sets out some proposals, and get feedback on those proposals. And then after that feedback, you might then introduce a bill into Parliament.

The Government spent three to five years getting feedback and developing its policy on the Copyright Act. Yet on the far far more important Electoral Act it has developed policy in total secrecy, and hasn’t had a single public consultation to guide its decision making. Why? Because the Electoral Act changes are about utu or revenge. It is a nasty undemocratic attempt to fuck over its opponents and critics.