15 February 2002

Tim Barnett

Chairperson

Justice and Electoral Committee

Parliament Buildings

WELLINGTON

Dear Mr Barnett

INQUIRY INTO THE 2001 LOCAL ELECTIONS

Thank you for the opportunity for the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) to make a submission on the Inquiry into the 2001 Local Elections. We wish to be heard in support of this submission.

SOLGM

SOLGM is an incorporated society with a Vision of:

“Quality professional management by the Society’s members producing better local government.”

SOLGM has approximately 560 members throughout all local authorities in New Zealand, comprising Chief Executives and senior managers.

INTEREST IN LOCAL ELECTIONS

As a professional Society for Managers who have responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1974 (and the new Local Government Bill) for the effective and efficient management of their local authority, SOLGM has long had a vital interest in the legislation governing elections. Accordingly, as the Committee will be aware, SOLGM played a lead role in the development work which underpinned the Local Electoral Act 2001. This work was largely undertaken through the SOLGM Electoral Working party comprised primarily of electoral officers. Our aim was to achieve a legislative framework which was relevant, practical, flexible and responsive to the constantly changing democratic practices and technologies to enable local authority elections to be conducted in the most effective and efficient manner for the benefit of electors, candidates and local authorities.

SOLGM was very pleased with the overall nature and form of the new Local Electoral Act 2001 and Regulations. To facilitate the operation of the new legislation at the 2001 local elections, SOLGM, through the Electoral Working Party, held an orientation and information Forum for electoral officers and other electoral staff on 29 July. We also prepared a Code of Good Practice for Management of Local Authority Elections and Polls and a Handbook for Scrutineers at Local Authority Elections and Polls. Finally, we developed with the Ministry of Health a model Memorandum of Understanding for the conduct of DHB elections by territorial authorities.

Following the local authority elections SOLGM:

· surveyed all electoral officers on how the new local electoral legislative regime operated and on other aspects related to the elections. A summary of the responses to the survey is contained in Appendix A to our submission; and
· held an electoral officers Debriefing Forum on 29-30 November

The outcomes of these two initiatives which involved considerable consultation and input from electoral officers have informed the preparation of our submission. However, not all of the survey questions and responses in the Appendix are relevant to this submission, but may be of interest to the Committee.

NATURE OF SUBMISSION

The main focus of our submission is on practical/technical matters to assist the new local electoral legislative regime better meet its purpose and principles and also enhance the efficient and effective management and conduct of future elections.

The submission structure is as follows:

(a) Parts I and II deal with respectively the ‘General or Overall Issues’ and ‘Specific Issues’ identified by the Committee as of interest

(b) Part III deals with the conduct of DHB elections by territorial authorities

(d) Conclusion

Some of the matters that the Select Committee is interested in, e.g., compulsory voting, opinion polling, ward sizes, etc, are not discussed in our submission – these are more policy/governance issues for Local Government New Zealand to comment on.

The submission also does not cover several legislative issues, experienced at the recent elections raised through our electoral officer survey and Debriefing Forum, which are dealt with in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill. SOLGM will make a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee on these matters.

Yours sincerely

Glenn Snelgrove

Chairperson

SOLGM Electoral Working Party

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Recommendations 5

Part I – General or Overall Issues Identified by the Committee 10

· Issue 1: Statutory Provisions and Regulation-making Powers 10
· Issue 2: Principles and Purposes of Act 11
· Issue 3: Enrolment 12
· Issue 4: Postal Voting 12
· Issue 5: Voter Participation and Local Authority Mandate 15
· Issue 6: Compulsory Voting 16
· Issue 7: Ward Size 16
· Issue 8: Campaign Spending Limits and Media Coverage 16
· Issue 9: STV Impact 16
· Issue 10: Adoption of STV for 2004 Elections 17
· Issue 11: National Organisation to Promote Local Elections 17
· Issue 12: New Voting and Counting Technologies 18

Part II – Specific Issues Identified by the Committee 19

· Issue 13: Candidate Profile Statements 19
· Issue 14: Electoral Expenses and Disclosure 30
· Issue 15: Advertising and Authorisation 31
· Issue 16: Postal Voting Period 32
· Issue 17: Early Announcement of Results 34
· Issue 18: Fines and Offences 35
· Issue 19: Nomination Deposits 36
· Issue 20: Collection of Voting Documents 36
· Issue 21: Filling of Extraordinary Vacancies 36
· Issue 22: Definition of Local Authority 37
· Issue 23: Voting Document Format and Use of Honorifics 37
· Issue 24: Role of Scrutineers 39
· Issue 25: Opinion Polling 40

Part III – District Health Board Elections 40

Part IV – Code of Good Practice for the Management of Local Elections and Polls 44

Conclusion 46

Appendices

· Appendix A: SOLGM 2001 Post Local Authority Election Questionnaire – Summary of Responses
· Appendix B: Reflections on Local Body Election Turnout 2001 – Paper by Dr GWA Bush to the SOLGM Electoral Officers Forum on 29/30 November 2001
· Appendix C: Memorandum of Understanding Template

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1 (Page 11)

That the Committee note the high level of electoral officer satisfaction with the operation of the Local Electoral Act, Regulations and Code of Good Practice at the 2001 local elections and that there were no ‘fatal flaws’ in their operation.

Recommendation 2 (Page 12)

The Committee note that SOLGM considers from the experience of one triennial local election, it is too early to judge whether the principles and purposes in sections 3 and 4 of the Act have all been met. However, survey evidence demonstrates that some aspects of the principles and purposes are being met and benchmarking over future elections should demonstrate further advances.

Recommendation 3 (Page 12)

That the Committee note that SOLGM will discuss with the Electoral Enrolment Centre problems with electoral roll data so as to improve the accuracy of future rolls.

Recommendation 4 (Page 15)

That the Committee note that SOLGM is not aware of any issues at the 2001 local authority elections which raise major concerns about the integrity of postal voting and the returning of postal votes, but we recommend that the following changes would heighten confidence in that integrity

(a) the inclusion of a clear statement on the voting document advising that it is an offence under sections 123 and 124 of the Act to complete another persons voting document without authority, or to interfere or fraudulently mark, deface or destroy a voting document; and

(b) the introduction of a provision in Regulation 6, prohibiting the collection of other persons’ voting documents in large numbers by any person or organisation and then posting or delivering them to the electoral officer.

Recommendation 5 (Page 19)

That the Committee note that:

(a) “wanding” was the dominant form of vote counting technology used in the 2001 local authority elections; and

(b) internet voting in conjunction with postal voting was used in the Hutt Mana Energy Trust election in 2001 and that the SOLGM Electoral Working Party will undertake a technical review of that election in April and also examine the new technology voting methods being used by some local authorities in the UK local elections in May.

Recommendation 6 (Page 20)

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of an appropriate amendment to section 55 of the Local Electoral Act and Regulation 25 of the Local Electoral Regulations to provide that nomination forms can be lodged with the electoral officer by fax or email subject to receipt of deposit prior to close of nominations.

Recommendation 7 (Page 21)

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of an appropriate amendment to section 55 of the Local Electoral Act to clarify that a candidate cannot nominate him or herself for office.

Recommendation 8 (Page 22)

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of an amendment to the Local Electoral Act abolishing the grandparenting provision in section 25(1)(b).

Recommendation 9 (Page 23)

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of an amendment to the Local Electoral Act abolishing the provision for a candidates name to include an official title or rank in section 56(c)(iii).

Recommendation 10 (Page 25)

That the Committee:

(a) note that the SOLGM Electoral Working Party will prepare CPS guidelines for inclusion in the Code of Good Practice

(b) support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of amendments to the Local Electoral Act to:

(i) allow a CPS to be submitted separately from the nomination paper under

section 61(2)(b) but still within the nomination period.

(ii) insert in section 61 a provision empowering an electoral officer, subject to consultation with and the consent of the candidate, to make minor grammatical, factual, style, layout changes to a CPS without the need to refer the document back to the candidate.

Recommendation 11 (Page 26)

That the Committee:

(a) note that some difficulties were experienced in translating CPS’s from English into Maori within the 150 word limit due to the Maori protocol and the nature of Maori language; and

(b) give consideration to increasing the 150 word limit for CPS’s in Maori and seeking advice from the Maori Language Commission on what an appropriate increased word limit should be.

Recommendation 12 (Page 28)

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of an amendment to the Local Electoral Act to add an extra week following the close of nominations to the election timetable either by:

(a) changing nomination day to 57 days before polling day if the postal voting period remains at 22.5 days ending at 12 noon on polling day; or

(b) retaining nomination day at the 50^th day before polling day if the postal voting period is reduced to 15.5 days ending on 12 noon on polling day.

Recommendation 13 (Page 29)

That it be noted that the Code of Good Practice will be amended to contain advice that CPS’s are ‘official information’ under LGOIMA and must be made available on request once lodged.

Recommendation 14 (Page 31)

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Electoral Bill 2001 of an amendment to Section 110 of the Local Electoral Act to provide that election expense returns are all destroyed 6 months after the 55 day deadline for their receipt under Section 109.

Recommendation 15 (Page 35)

That the Committee note that SOLGM considers the combination of Section 85 of the Act, allowing the immediate release of preliminary results when ready, and the operation of the early processing provisions were a major success factor of the new legislation.

Recommendation 16 (Page 36)

That consideration be given to amending Section 59 of the Local Electoral Act to provide that the deposit, if one is due, is repayable once an election expense return is made under Section 109 of the Act.

Recommendation 17 (Page 37)

That the Committee support Section 283 of the Local Government Bill 2001 which clarifies that a resolution to use early processing of voting documents at a triennial general election is the responsibility of a territorial authority.

Recommendation 18 (Page 38)

That the Committee note that the SOLGM Electoral Working Party will discuss with the Department of Internal Affairs the suggested improvements to voting documents received from electoral officers.

Recommendation 19 (Page 39)

That the Committee note that:

(a) the operation of the special voting provisions were rated highly by electoral officers;

(b) electoral officers expressed mixed views on whether the special voting procedures are too complex; and

(c) the SOLGM Electoral Working Party will discuss with the Department of Internal Affairs the special voting regulations and model declaration form to develop a more “user friendly” application process.

Recommendation 20 (Page 40)

That Regulation 55 of the Local Electoral Regulations be amended to empower the electoral officer, during early processing, to make available to candidates and scrutineers lists of those electors who have voted at a reasonable charge.

Recommendation 21 (Page 44)

That the Committee note that:

(a) the Memorandum of Understanding worked well in governing the relationship and responsibilities between territorial authorities and DHBs for the conduct of DHB elections and will be improved for the 2004 elections;

(b) the national pricing regime to reimburse territorial authorities for the costs of conducting DHB elections, was considered by the majority of electoral officers as equitable to both parties. This pricing regime will be reviewed for the 2004 DHB elections to cater for STV and some factors from the 2001 experience which may have resulted in some inequitable outcomes will be further examined;

(c) it may be desirable to receive a fuller report, than in this submission, from the Ministry of Health on its perspective of the management and conduct of the 2001 DHB elections; and

(d) that a key priority to manage and conduct DHB elections in 2004 will be the early planning for and introduction of arrangements for STV.

Recommendation 22 (Page 45)

The Committee note that the Code of Good Practice:

(a) was highly rated by electoral officers as a guidance document; and

(b) will be totally reviewed and updated in 2003.

SUBMISSION

PART I – GENERAL OR OVERALL ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMITTEE

Issue 1: The balance achieved between statutory provisions and the use and extent of the regulation-making powers.

1.1 From responses to the electoral officers’ survey, a high level of satisfaction was shown with the operation of the Act, Regulations and Code. As demonstrated in the following graph 81 percent of responding electoral officers rated the operation of the new legislation ‘excellent’ or ‘good’.

1.2 This high level of satisfaction was complemented at the Debriefing Forum with the general conclusion that the overall approach to and nature of the new Local Electoral legislation contained no ‘fatal flaws’.

1.3 Furthermore, responses to the survey, and discussion at the Debriefing Forum positively commended the more simple, practicable and flexible nature of the Act and Regulations which allowed local diversity and circumstances to be taken into account. The balance between prescription and flexibility was considered a much needed improvement on the former legislative regime. Also, there was a broad consensus that the provisions of each component were well linked, complemented each other, and were generally easy to read and follow (see pages 2 to 4 of Appendix A).

1.4 Of course there were some minor “teething” problems associated with the implementation of the new regime

· ‘interpretation’ issues
· some overlap between old and new legislation (a transitory impact)
· the late enactment of the Act and Regulations – particularly the latter

Also some comments focused on the need to switch between the Act and the Regulations to obtain the full picture on particular procedures, e.g., early processing. However, SOLGM considers that as the new legislation beds down and experience and knowledge of it increases, some of the negative factors experienced will diminish or disappear.

Recommendation 1

Issue 2: Overall, whether the principles and purposes expressed in sections 3 and 4 of the Act have been met.

2.1 From the experience of just one triennial local authority election, it is probably too early to definitively comment on whether the principles and purposes contained in sections 3 and 4 of the Act have been met. Some have not yet come into effect, e.g., the right to continue with FPP or adopt STV.

2.2 However, the following factors would tend to support that aspects of the Act’s purpose and principles are being met:

(a) the already mentioned, flexibility in the legislative framework for electoral officers to reflect local diversity where a uniform approach or procedure is not required

(b) positive comments from electors, on the increased ability of persons to cast informed votes through the introduction of Candidate Profile Statements. (This is further commented on later in this submission)

(c) the significant number of candidates who stood for election – particularly for DHB elections, the first of their kind in over a decade.

(d) the high degree of public confidence shown in the overall electoral process through there being:

(i) no requests for recounts (57 local authorities) and 1 petition for inquiry (57 local authorities)

(ii) no reported breaches of secrecy under early processing of voting documents

2.3 SOLGM considers that as experience with the new legislation grows over the next couple of triennial local authority elections, this will facilitate some benchmarking to better judge whether the Act is meeting its purpose and principles. The continuation of surveys such as our one, together with the statistics gathered by the Department of Internal Affairs should facilitate such benchmarking.

Recommendation 2

Issue 3: Enrolment

3.1 The Local Government Bill 2001 proposes to abolish the ‘ratepayer’ franchise. This is a policy matter for Local Government New Zealand. However, abolition of the franchise will remove a range of ongoing problems which have characterised it under the former Local Elections and Polls Act as well as the new Local Electoral Act. Some of these problems/issues are contained in the responses to Question 8 of the electoral officer survey on pages 17 to 19 of Appendix A and were also raised at the Debriefing Forum.

3.2 At the Debriefing Forum, several issues were raised with the Electoral Enrolment Centre (EEC) representatives about electoral roll data, 194’s (electors for whom EEC do not know which meshblock they reside in), and ‘Gone No Address’ (GNA’s). These matters are also detailed on pages 17 to 19 of the Appendix (Question 63).

3.3 EEC did report however that the 2.7 percent of returned voting documents marked ‘GNA’ was very low against industry standards. They also advised that once the Electoral Amendment (No 2) Bill currently before Parliament is passed, a dormant file would be established which will further decrease or eliminate ‘GNA’s’.

3.4 These matters will be further discussed by the SOLGM Electoral Working Party with EEC to further enhance the accuracy of future rolls and lessen returned voting documents marked ‘GNA’.

Recommendation 3

That the Committee note that SOLGM will discuss with the Electoral Enrolment Centre problems with electoral roll data so as to improve the accuracy of future rolls.

Issue 4: Postal voting, in particular issues about integrity and systems of collecting votes.

4.1 Postal voting was introduced cautiously on an experimental basis in the 1960’s [1] and has now become universal for local authorities.

4.2 Issues of familiarity, acceptability, and accessibility for voters are fundamental characteristics of any voting methodology. From experience with postal voting over the last 30 years, and particularly on a national basis for the last 5 triennial local authority elections since 1989, it is reasonable to contend that local authority electors are familiar with and readily accept postal voting as the method of voting in local authority elections. Voter turnout statistics compiled by the Department of Internal Affairs from 1959 to 1998, demonstrate the positive accessibility factor the introduction of postal voting provides over the conventional ballot booth voting method.[2]

4.3 In relation to the integrity of postal voting, the question is raised periodically about persons completing the voting documents of other persons in their household or those documents of other electors who have left that address.

4.4 It has generally been recognised that in some cases a dominant person in a household may complete some other household member’s voting documents. SOLGM is not aware of any empirical research to ascertain how widespread this is. The commonly accepted wisdom is that such a practice is not sufficiently widespread to adversely diminish the integrity of postal voting. Furthermore, the number of GNA’s reported by electoral officers also supports the premise that the majority of electors are honest and do not complete another person’s voting document that they receive by mistake. As GNA’s are received by electoral officers they can verify that they have not been tampered with.

4.5 However, it is considered that voting documents should contain a clear statement advising under sections 123 and 124 of the Act that it is an offence to complete another person’s voting document without authority or interfere with or fraudulently mark, deface or destroy a voting document, etc.

4.6 Section 78 of the Act and in particular Regulation 6 of the Regulations govern postal voting. After voters have exercised their vote, postal voting under Regulation 6 involves

“(iii) voters returning those documents to the electoral office by post, or other means of delivery, for counting …”

4.7 Regulation 6 (iii) appears to imply that it is the voter who returns the voting document either by post or some other means of delivery.

4.8 In relation to the means of returning voting documents, obviously the dominant method is that they are posted. Under Question 57 (page 69 of Appendix A), the performance of New Zealand Post was highly rated by electoral officers. There were some suggested improvements relating to a later Saturday box clearance on polling day and instances of some sorting errors (page 69 of Appendix A) which the SOLGM Electoral Working Party will discuss with New Zealand Post.

4.9 In terms of returning postal voting documents by other means of delivery, traditionally they have been returned to the electoral officer by hand. This facility particularly caters for those who complete their votes too late in the voting period to post them back before close of voting at noon on polling day. Advice from a separate survey of electoral officers is that this facility is generally used. Some examples are:

· Tasman District – 6%

· Invercargill City – 10%

· Tararua District – 10%

· Hastings District – 6%

· Auckland City – 1%

· Wellington City – 5%

The provision of such a facility is also consistent with the principle in the Act for all qualified persons to have a reasonable and equal opportunity to cast an informed vote.

4.10 However, mention was made at the Debriefing Forum of instances where persons have collected voting documents and delivered or posted them on behalf of other electors. Such a practice may provide opportunity for questions to be raised about party organisation or other groupings diminishing the integrity of postal voting. From the above survey of electoral officers, the general response was that they were not aware of any “bulk” hand delivered returns of voting documents. Several electoral officers indicated that there were instances where one person delivered a household’s votes – 2 to 3 voting documents. Also, unless reported, electoral officers would not be aware of any person or organisation collecting large numbers of voting documents and then posting them back.

4.11 In the absence of any clear provision prohibiting the bulk collection of voting documents and their posting or delivery by a person or organisation, such a practice may be considered an irregularity given that the onus under Regulation 6(iii) is for voters to return their documents by post or other means of delivery. However, it is considered that this would need to be tested through a petition for an inquiry.

4.12 Although no specific/actual examples of persons or organisations collecting, posting or otherwise delivering voting documents in bulk were cited by electoral officers at the last local elections, the insertion in the Act or Regulations of a clear prohibition of this practice could clarify the situation. It would also remove a practice which has raised doubts about the integrity of postal voting.

Recommendation 4

Issue 5: Voter participation rates and turnout, and does this affect the legitimacy of the mandate of the local authority.

5.1 Following the 2001 local authority elections, concern was raised in many quarters (media, political commentators, local government, MPs, etc) about the lower voter turnout in many local authorities when compared to the 1998 local authority elections.

5.2 SOLGM does not intend to comment on what is a low turnout and whether it affects the legitimacy of the mandate of a local authority other than to:

(a) refer the Select Committee to Dr Graham Bush’s Paper in Appendix B: “Reflections on Local Body Election Turnout 2001” which was presented to the electoral officers Debriefing Forum;

(b) briefly point out that under the current Local Government Act, a local authority’s mandate is now significantly influenced and determined through the Long Term Financial Strategy, Funding Policy, and accompanying accountability regime rather than just through the triennial election process. This current regime will also be augmented in the new Local Government Bill 2001; and

(c) mention that if voter turnout is considered a key legitimiser of a council’s mandate, then the mandates of many local authorities prior to the universal application of postal voting would be questionable. Voter turnout under booth voting was significantly lower than under postal voting as the examples in the following table show.

Local Authority

Election Turnout

1977

1980

1983

Masterton Borough

Westport Borough

Nelson City

35% (booth)

54% (booth)

39% (booth)

71% (postal

52% (booth)

70% (postal

77% (postal)

86% (postal)

71% (postal)

5.3 Also, from the electoral officers’ survey, the following voter turnout information may be of interested to the Committee:

(a) percentage of elector turnout (refer Table on pages 59 and 60 Appendix A)

(b) provision of voter election awareness and participation programmes (own and/or joint) (refer Table on pages 59 and 60 Appendix and comments under Question 48)

(c) what factors may have been influential if voter turnout was lower than the 1998 local authority elections (refer Question 49 on pages 61 and 62 Appendix A)

Issue 6: Whether voting should be compulsory

Issue 7: Whether the size of wards is too big.

6/7.1 SOLGM considers that these two issues are matters of a policy/governance nature and therefore has no comment.

Issue 8: Any effects of the new campaign spending limits and offence provisions surrounding communications with voters on the intensity, quality, and the media coverage, of election debate and on the turnout.

8.1 SOLGM has no comment on this issue.

Issue 9: Whether STV would have increased voter participation, success rates of Maori or Pacific Island candidates, young candidates, etc.

9.1 The proponents of STV would argue that STV would at least impact positively on the electoral success rates of Maori or Pacific Island candidates, young candidates, etc.

9.2 Under the Local Electoral Act, all local authorities are required in September 2002 to decide whether to adopt STV or continue with FPP for the next two triennial local authority elections. There is also provision for electors to seek a binding poll on this issue. This requirement on local authorities will provide them with the opportunity to examine the demographics of their district/region and consider what benefit STV may offer in terms of the representation of particular ethnic or other groups on the Council.

Issue 10: For local authorities, an early indication of which areas may introduce STV for 2004.

10.1 This is a matter for individual local authorities to advise on.

Issue 11: Whether there should be a national body promoting local elections.

11.1 For the 2001 local authority elections the Table on pages 59 and 60 and the responses to Question 48 on pages 60 to 61 of Appendix A demonstrate that:

· the majority of territorial authorities participated in the SOLGM organised national advertisement for enrolment of ‘non-residential’ ratepayers;
· 25 territorial authorities ran their own voter election awareness programme; and
· 9 territorial authorities co-operated with other local authorities to run a joint voter awareness programme

11.2 When the voter turnout figures are compared with whether a local or joint voter awareness programme was run or not, the results are mixed:

(a) in some cases where no voter awareness programme was run, turnout increased or remained constant – Buller, Gore, Ruapehu, Wanganui and Tauranga

(b) where a voter awareness programme was run, voter turnout decreased – Auckland, Marlborough, South Taranaki, Hutt, Palmerston North, and Hamilton

11.3 As the Committee may be aware, Local Government New Zealand also ran a 0800 PARTICIPATE campaign to encourage people to stand for election and also vote. This campaign was also linked to Ministry of Health’s DHB election awareness campaign.

11.4 While a voter election awareness programme may heighten public awareness of an election, as already mentioned, the replies to Question 49 of the survey show a range of other factors which influence voter turnout, either singly or in combination.

11.5 As to whether there should be a national body to promote local elections, SOLGM considers this is really an issue for Local Government New Zealand to comment on. If such a body was considered desirable, SOLGM believes it should be local government sector based and led.

Issue 12: New technologies for voting and counting.

12.1 The Table on pages 77 and 78 of Appendix A shows that most local authorities used electoral software of either Napier Computer Systems, election.com, or Fujitsu at the last elections. Several local authorities operated their own ‘in-house’ systems.

12.2 The graph on page 80 of Appendix A shows that "wanding" was the dominant method used to count votes in 2001. This method of vote counting is popular because of the following features:

· is cost effective
· is accurate
· is transparent
· uses well proven equipment
· it operates effectively with early processing

12.3 Regarding the planning and preparation for the use of STV in 2004 for DHBs and by those local authorities which resolve to use STV, SOLGM understands that the Department of Internal Affairs will report to the Committee on this. SOLGM is a member of the Department’s Task Force on STV.

12.4 At this time SOLGM is not aware of any local authority yet giving consideration to using any new voting methods aside from postal voting in 2004. The Regulations would need amending to provide for this.

12.5 However, the technology allowing electors to vote through the internet is available and was used in 2001 to elect members to the Hutt Mana Energy Trust. Electors were sent postal voting papers accompanied by a personal pin number and password for use if instead of completing their postal voting documents, they wished to make the vote through the internet.

12.6 The SOLGM Electoral Working Party intends to undertake a technical review of this election in April. Aspects that will be examined include cost, data integrity and integration, voter take-up and turnout. We will also be closely following the experiments with new technology in the local elections in May in some UK cities. Voters will be able to exercise their votes by digital TV, mobile phones and text messaging and at kiosks.

Recommendation 5

That the Committee note that:

(a) “wanding” was the dominant form of vote counting technology used in the 2001 local authority elections; and

(c) SOLGM would be pleased to report to the Committee on the outcome of its reviews under (b) above.

PART II – SPECIFIC ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMITTEE

Issue 13: Candidate profile statements. Issues identified by the Justice and Electoral Committee include: word limit, provision in Maori or other languages; administrative requirements/feasibility; accuracy; when these are provided to electors; references to in voting documents; explanation of skills involved in positions up for election.

13.1 Candidate profile statements (CPS’s) were a new and high profile component of the nomination process at the last elections. Several issues arose from the nomination process which SOLGM considers would benefit from some changes to the Act for future elections. This submission deals first with general matters relating to the receipt and lodgement of nominations and then deals separately with CPS’s.

Nominations

13.2 The majority of electoral officers responding to Question 14, highly rated the operation of the nomination provisions of the Act and Regulations as demonstrated by the following graph.

13.3 However, the following are areas of the nomination process where improvements are recommended.

13.3.1 Faxed Nominations: As indicated in responses to Question 15 of the survey, clarification is sought as to whether nominations can be faxed to the electoral officer. Legal advice from Simpson Grierson, concluded that the Local Electoral Act allows for consents and certifications to nominations to be given in a manner other than writing. Coupled with this, as ‘writing’ has a wider meaning under the Interpretation Act 1999, this would allow nomination papers as well to be faxed to the electoral officer.

13.3.2 Obviously, this opinion can be used in 2004 to advise that nomination papers can be faxed and the Code of Good Practice could refer to it. However, it is noted that Section 143(2) of the Electoral Act 1993 explicitly provides for faxed nominations for Parliamentary candidates. Accordingly, it is considered that the Local Electoral Act should also explicitly provide for faxed nominations.

13.3.3 Furthermore, in keeping up with technology, it should also clarify that such nominations can be emailed if accompanied by signatures.

Recommendation 6

13.3.4 Candidates Nominating Themselves: It is unclear under the new Act (section 55) as to whether a candidate must be specifically nominated by 2 other electors. In other words, can one of the two nominators be the candidate him or herself?

13.3.5 Under the previous legislation, the nomination form was statutory prescribed and clarified that 3 different persons were contemplated through references to “A.B, CD and EF’.

13.3.6 Under the new legislation the nomination form is not prescribed and section 55 does not specifically say that one of the two nominating electors cannot be the candidate. To remove this doubt, section 55 of the Act should be amended to specifically state that a candidate cannot nominate him or herself.

Recommendation 7

13.3.7 Duty of Electoral Officer Regarding Candidate’s Qualification: Section 55(2)(b) requires that an electoral officer must not accept a nomination unless the person nominated is qualified to be a candidate.

13.3.8 This is a change from the previous legislation and Case Law (Re the Election for Mayor of the Far North District [1993’ DCR 769] where a Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to determine the question of qualification.

13.3.9 Legal advice obtained suggests that under the current law, the electoral officer should take some further steps to confirm that each candidate is in fact qualified, eg, investigate beyond the signed nomination form. This duty is reasonably straightforward in the case of establishing that the candidate is:

· a parliamentary elector
· not standing for a regional council and a constituent territorial authority

13.3.10 However, as raised in responses to the electoral officers survey, and at the Debriefing Forum, there is a problem in clearly establishing that where a candidate is not a New Zealand citizen, he or she was as at 21 October 1982 either enrolled as a local authority elector or was qualified to be enrolled and had applied. Together, the passage of time and the significant merger of local authorities in 1989, creates difficulty in corroborating enrolment or application for enrolment prior to 1982.

13.3.11 It is also noted that this form of grandparenting no longer applies to Parliamentary candidates. New Zealand citizenship or permanent residency are the core requirements for Parliamentary candidature.

13.3.12 Therefore, it is considered that the abolition of section 25(1)(b) of the Act relating to candidate qualification would:

(a) remove the difficulty electoral officers have under section 55(2)(b) in determining for particular candidates that they are qualified under section 25(1)(b) of the Act; and

(b) would align the local authority candidate qualification in this respect with that applying to Parliamentary candidates.

Recommendation 8

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of an amendment to the Local Electoral Act abolishing the grandparenting provision in section 25(1)(b).

13.3.13 Title and Rank: Section 56(c)(iii) of the Act indirectly provides for a candidate to include in their name an official “title” or “rank”. This is a new provision and also the Act and Regulations do not define title or rank.

13.3.14 As the responses to Question 15 of the electoral officers’ survey show, some difficulty was experienced with this new provision. Legal advice from Simpson Grierson said:

“In our opinion, the following constitute an official title or rank:

(a) an honour bestowed on a person by the Government such as a knighthood. For example, “Sir”, “Dame” which occur before a person’s first name and OBE which is placed after a person’s surname;

(b) an official designation or appointment in the Government such as a Registrar-General, the Auditor-General, or a Registrar;

(c) the holding of a rank in the New Zealand Defence Force, the New Zealand Police, the Fire Services or the judiciary. For example, Colonel, Sergeant, Private, Rating, Detective, Inspector, Commander, Justice, Judge, or Master.

The grey areas arise with terms such as doctor or professor. These terms seem to resemble an official title. If the candidate can provide adequate justification for the use of the title, we think it would be difficult not to accept the candidate’s nomination. However, similarly, we do not think that terms such as “nurse”, “lawyer”, or “teacher” constitute an official title. Nor do we consider that a degree constitutes an official title such as “BSc”, “MBA”, or “LLB”.

The difficulty is in deciding what constitutes an official title in these grey areas and applying a consistent rule. Perhaps one way to determine the issues may be to approach it from the “ordinary person”. What would an ordinary person consider an official title?”

13.3.15 The opinion went on to conclude that “… an official title or rank is one area where we think consistency is important ..” and suggested that guidelines be developed in the Code of Good Practice.

13.3.16 Even with such guidelines, it is considered that this is an area of potential ongoing dispute with candidates and that it will be difficult to introduce national consistency. It is noted section 150(11) of the Electoral Act 1993 explicitly excludes the use of identifiers such as occupation, title, honour or degree on the ballot paper for parliamentary elections. It is considered that this approach should be adopted for local authority candidates.

Recommendation 9

Candidate Profile Statements

13.4 SOLGM considers the introduction and operation of candidate profile statements (CPS’s) at the local elections is one of the successes of the new Local Electoral legislation.

13.5 The provision of information about candidates and their policies has been positively welcomed by electors from the feedback given to the electoral officers and their local authorities. The general tenor of this feedback is outlined under Question 20 on pages 31 to 33 of Appendix A. It’s nature demonstrates that CPS’s facilitate the achievement of the principle in section 4 of the Act – “… for persons to have a reasonable and equal opportunity to cast an informed vote...”

13.6 The lodgement, receipt and acceptance of CPS’s was rated ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ by 57 percent of electoral officers as demonstrated in the following graph:

13.7 However, 39 percent rated the CPS provisions ‘acceptable’. Their implementation for the first time did present electoral officers (and probably some candidates) with some angst and a range of ‘teething’ problems. These matters are outlined below and some recommended legislative changes or other action are made in the context of commenting on CPS aspects the Committee identified an interest in.

13.7.1 Lodgement of CPS’s: Electoral officers received CPS’s in a wide variety of forms (typed, handwritten, digital photos, negatives, etc), styles (first person, third person, layout, etc), and content. Also, CPS’s were generally received very late in the nomination process by electoral officers, thus causing significant processing and administrative difficulties.

13.7.2 In response to survey Question 19 (pages 28 to 31 of Appendix A), suggestions were made to:

(a) prescribe/standardise the format and styles of CPS – e.g., in typed form, digital photos

(b) rather than refer a CPS back, allow electoral officers to make minor changes (grammatical) to CPS’s after consultation with the candidate

(d) provide guidelines/templates on model CPS’s

13.7.3 Ideally, if the form of CPS’s was to be prescribed/standardised, it would be in electronic form with digital photos. This would facilitate necessary referrals for corrections and also transfer to Mailhouses for printing. However, such prescription may discriminate against candidates who don’t have the necessary equipment or access to it to lodge a CPS in the required timeframe.

13.7.4 Suggestions to achieve efficiency gains in dealing by agreement between the electoral officer and the candidate with minor changes to CPS’s are sensible. The referral back process is a cumbersome way of dealing with such matters and should be restricted to the more fundamental issues in section 61(2) and (3) of the Act for referring a CPS back to the candidate.

13.7.5 Section 61(2)(b) provides that any CPS must accompany the candidates nomination paper. Prior to the introduction of CPS’s, the general practice was for the majority of nominations to be lodged late in the nomination period. CPS’s may have further exacerbated this practice. Most candidates submitted their nomination papers late, possibly believing that other probable/intending candidates may see/steal their ideas/policies before submitting their own nomination paper and CPS. Given the extra administrative tasks associated with accepting CPS’s this further pressurised the nomination process.

13.7.6 Introducing provision for the nomination paper and the CPS to be submitted separately within the nomination period may alleviate some of the pressure placed on electoral officers towards the deadline for nominations. Such a provision may entice candidates to submit their nomination earlier and then focus on preparing their CPS. Although some comment has been made that the two processes should not be separated to avoid additional administrative tasks and potential errors.

13.7.7 Dealings between electoral officers and candidates regarding the statutory requirements for CPS’s was a real learning experience for all concerned. From this experience it is intended to prepare candidate guidelines for preparing a CPS for inclusion in the Code of Good Practice. These in turn could be included in Candidate Information Packs. It is proposed that the CPS guidelines could cover among other things:

· format and style
· examples of defamatory statements
· advice on what a ‘word’ is
· need to check number of words before lodging CPS
· use of honorifics and rank

Recommendation 10

That the Committee:

(a) note that the SOLGM Electoral Working Party will prepare CPS guidelines for inclusion in the Code of Good Practice

(b) support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of amendments to the Local Electoral Act to:

(i) allow a CPS to be submitted separately from the nomination paper under

section 61(2)(b) but still within the nomination period.

(iii) insert in section 61 a provision empowering an electoral officer, subject to

consultation with and the consent of the candidate, to make minor grammatical, factual, style, layout changes to a CPS without the need to refer the document back to the candidate.

13.7.8 CPS Word Count and Translations: It is also evident from responses to Question 19 that electoral officers experienced interpretation issues with what is a ‘word’ in the context of the CPS 150 word limit. Legal advice from Simpson Grierson has provided guidance on the definition of a ‘word’ and as already mentioned, this guidance will be included in the proposed CPS guidelines.

13.7.9 In relation to English to Maori translations or any other language translation for CPS’s, responses under Questions 17 and 18, (pages 26 to 28 of Appendix A), show that:

· the majority of electoral officers were not required to deal with CPS translations;
· for the 19 local authorities where candidates submitted their CPS in Maori, the percentage of candidates was mostly less than 5 percent;
· only 2 electoral officers experienced CPS translations in languages other than Maori – Christchurch (1 in Cantonese) and Manukau (1 in Mandarin).

13.7.10 However, for some electoral officers who dealt with Maori translations, the 150 word limit presented problems, the prime reason being difficulty in accurately reflecting and translating an English CPS into Maori within the 150 word limit. There is also the requirements of Maori protocol, that in introducing themselves Maori need to first explain their whakapapa, which can consume a considerable portion of the 150 word limit. It is understood that some Maori candidates felt that they could not adequately acquit themselves under the 150 word limit in terms of Maori protocol. On the other hand, some got around the difficulty by having an English CPS which fell short of the 150 word limit.

3.7.11 An approach to this issue may be to increase the word limit in the case of CPS’s in Maori. However, the question is what should this increased limit be? It could be arbitrarily increased by 50 or 100 words, but whether this would be appropriate and reasonable for most circumstances SOLGM cannot say. An appropriate body to comment on this issue more authoritively may be the Maori Language Commission.

Recommendation 11

That the Committee:

(a) note that some difficulties were experienced in translating CPS’s from English into Maori within the 150 word limit due to the Maori protocol and the nature of Maori language; and

(b) give consideration to increasing the 150 word limit for CPS’s in Maori and seeking advice from the Maori Language Commission on what an appropriate increased word limit should be.

13.7.12 Processing of Nominations and CPSs: The following key factors cumulatively made the tasks of electoral officers extremely difficult in the week following the close of nominations at noon on 24 August 2001:

(a) the introduction of CPS’s and the associated responsibilities to ensure that they complied with the Act in terms of content and translations which frequently resulted in action under the Act’s 3 day refer back process;

(b) the responsibility of arranging for and conducting DHB elections, with in many cases, considerable numbers of candidates, plus their attendant CPS’s and COI’s;

(c) deadlines imposed by the Mailhouses for preparing and printing voting documents and CPS booklets to enable their despatch to voters from 21 September (see comments in response to Question 62 in the Tables on pages 72 to 74 of Appendix A). Generally, electoral officers had approximately 4 days following close of nominations to have drafts of required documentation with the Mailhouse. It is understood that many electoral officers had difficulty in meeting this deadline and required extensions.

13.7.13 Experience from the 2001 local election clearly demonstrated that, with the advent of the two factors in (a) and (b) above and driven by the operational needs of the Mailhouses, which likewise were driven by the statutory deadline governing the despatch of voting documents, the overall election timetable is too tight. While all parties – electoral officers, the Mailhouses, and New Zealand Post – managed to meet the 21 September statutory deadlines for despatch of voting documents, this was not achieved without significant pressures on all concerned. This resulted in quality control issues and associated inefficiencies and costs (also see responses under Question 62 in the Tables on pages 72 to 74 of Appendix A).

13.7.14 The general conclusion at the electoral officers Debriefing Forum was that an extra week between close of nominations and despatch of voting documents is necessary. There are two approaches to providing for this extra time:

(a) by commencing the election timetable a week earlier so as to effectively provide for nomination day to be the 57^th rather than the 50^th day before polling day; or

(b) if it is decided that the current 3 week postal voting period should revert to the former 2 week voting period, this would automatically provide an extra week for administrative purposes following close of nominations 50 days before polling day.

13.7.15 The following Table provides examples of what the electoral timetable for the 2004 elections would look like under the above two approaches against the status quo.

Function

Status Quo 3 week voting period and a 4 week preparation period

3 week voting period and a 5 week preparation period

2 week voting period and a 5 week preparation period

Rolls and Nominations Open

Rolls and Nominations Close

Commence Special Voting

Commence Sending Voting Documents Overseas

Commence Ordinary Voting

Election Day

Friday 23 July

Friday 20 August

Friday 17 September

Saturday 9 October

Friday 16 July

Friday 13 August

Friday 17 September

Saturday 9 October

Friday 23 July

Friday 20 August

Friday 24 September

Saturday 9 October

Recommendation 12

(a) changing nomination day to 57 days before polling day if the postal voting period remains at 22.5 days ending at 12 noon on polling day; or

(b) retaining nomination day at the 50^th day before polling day if the postal voting period is reduced to 15.5 days ending on 12 noon on polling day.

13.7.16 Availability of CPS’s: Several responses to Question 19 (pages 28 to 31 of Appendix A) sought clarification of when CPS can be made available to the public, media and other candidates.

13.7.17 Section 62 of the Act and Regulation 29 of the Regulations, together provide that:

(a) the minimum requirement is for CPS’s to be made available to electors with the voting documents; and

(b) in addition, a local authority may take extra steps to publish or display CPS’s during the voting period.

13.7.18 However, prior to the voting period commencing, electoral officers received requests from media, members of the public, including candidates, for copies of CPS’s.

13.7.19 Legal advice from Simpson Grierson concludes that the provisions of Section 62 of the Local Electoral Act and Regulation 29 do not override the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). This Act establishes a regime for persons to request official information from local authorities and operates on the principle of availability whereby information must be available unless there is good reason for withholding it. Simpson Grierson concludes a CPS to be ‘official information’ and doubts if requested (either inspection or copy thereof) that this could be denied under Sections 6 or 7 of the Act.

13.7.20 Obviously, the availability of CPS’s under LGOIMA prior to the voting period may not be welcomed by:

(a) candidates, especially prior to close of nominations, on the grounds that other intending candidates could advantageously develop their own CPS’s from seeing those of others. As a result, their strategy may be to submit their nomination and CPS as late as possible before the deadline.

(b) electoral officers, due to the need to deal with requests for information during a crucial and busy part of the election process.

13.7.21 To set aside LGOIMA for the two reasons set out in the above paragraph, and rely solely on the provisions of Section 62 and Regulation 29 to govern the availability of CPS’s, would not be acceptable.

13.7.22 If LGOIMA was to be set aside, this should only be until the issue of the notice of election, required after close of nominations, under Section 65 of the Act. This notice requires notification of candidates and at this stage it is doubted that they would be concerned about protecting the secrecy of their CPS’s.

13.7.23 In summary, SOLGM considers that it would not be appropriate to set aside the provisions of LGOIMA in relation to CPS’s on basically reasons of political expedience and administrative convenience. In the review of the Code of Good Practice for 2004, SOLGM will include advice relating to the availability of CPS’s under LGOIMA prior to the commencement of the voting period.

Recommendation 13

That it be noted that the Code of Good Practice will be amended to contain advice that CPS’s are ‘official information’ under LGOIMA and must be made available on request once lodged.

Issue 14: Limits on candidates’ electoral expenses and disclosure of expenses and donations. These include: levels expenses are set at; what is an ‘electoral activity’ in terms of expenses including possible loopholes; use of trusts.

14.1 SOLGM has no comment on the application of particular candidate expenditure limits. This is more a matter for Local Government New Zealand. We also note that the Department of Internal Affairs has compiled from electoral officers, statistics of expenditure and donations on a candidate basis for reporting to the Committee.

14.2 The 2001 local authority elections were the first elections at which candidate election expenses have operated. To facilitate the introduction of these new requirements the Code of Practice included a set of recommended practices for electoral officers. These included among other things:

· Electoral officers advising all candidates of the requirement, whether elected or not, to complete a return of electoral expenses and electoral donations.
· Providing each candidate with a copy of an election expenses return form with the nomination form in the Candidate Information Pack.
· Establishing a system to remind each candidate of the date their expenses return is due and to monitor compliance.
· Providing with the nomination papers and in the Candidate Information Pack an explanation (based on Simpson Grierson’s legal advice) on how the appointment of electoral expenses on electoral activity should be approached.
· Providing all candidates, either separately or as part of the Candidate Information Pack, with copies of the offence provisions in the Act relating to electoral expenses.

14.3 Despite implementation of the above good practices by electoral officers it is still obvious from the survey responses to Question 39 pages 52 to 54 of Appendix A, that “teething” problems existed with candidates been fully aware of their obligations. The key problems experienced were:

· actually receiving returns without reminders, particularly from unsuccessful candidates.

· when returns were received, they frequently did not include the required information.

14.4 Advice received from one electoral officer is that the incentives on candidates to lodge their election expenses return are not strong. Following the non-receipt of election expense returns, after two letters and phone calls, from 10 candidates the Police were advised. They recognised that this was an offence under the Act, but advised that it was too minor an issue to prosecute.

14.5 Arising from the above mentioned difficulties and the time required to resolve them, electoral officers have commented that it should not be their duty to ensure that returns of electoral expenses are made. However, it is noted that under Section 210 (7) of the Electoral Act 1993, Returning Officers have similar responsibilities in relation to election expenses of parliamentary candidates. Although it is acknowledged that they do not experience the large number of candidates that local authority electoral officers face.

14.6 As mentioned, the 2001 local elections were the first time both candidates and electoral officers experienced an electoral expenses regime. It is considered that all concerned will have learnt about their respective obligations from this experience and if involved in 2004 this should assist the operation of the electoral expenses regime. To assist this further the 2001 experience has provided ideas improving the Code of Good Practice, and Candidate Information Packs in relation to electoral expenses.

14.7 A small amendment to the electoral expenses provisions that electoral officers have advocated relates to the timing of when election expenses are destroyed. Section 109 of the Act provides for a 55 day deadline period for the lodging of expense returns. During this period returns will be received at different dates. Some will be received after that deadline. Section 110 provides for returns to be open for public inspection for a period of 6 months following their receipt by the electoral officer, and then, must be destroyed. The outcome of this is essentially a staggered destruction programme for election returns. In the case of electoral officers who administered elections with significant numbers of candidates e.g., Auckland 331 candidates, this is an administratively cumbersome requirement.

14.8 It is considered that to simplify the process, all electoral returns be destroyed 6 months after the 55 day deadline for their lodgement with the electoral officer.

Recommendation 14

That the Committee support inclusion in Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 of an amendment to Section 110 of the Local Electoral Act to provide that election expense returns are all destroyed 6 months after the 55 day deadline for their receipt under Section 109.

Issue 15: Advertising, including signs. Issues include: accuracy; authorisation; lack of offence provisions re s.135; when advertising is permitted; Internet advertising.

15.1 Under this Issue, an area of concern that came through responses to the electoral officers survey (Question 39 pages 52 to 54 of Appendix A) and at the Debriefing Forum was the administering and enforceability of Section 113, particularly in relation to hoardings and signs which did not have the proper authorisation required by subsection (2).

15.2 Notwithstanding that Section 135, the offence provision applicable to Section 113 was not in force for the elections, it would normally be expected that persons would still comply with the law. However, the cause once again is probably the new requirements relating to the introduction of a candidate electoral expenses regime. The introduction of authorisation of hoardings and signs was necessary in terms of ascertaining a candidate’s election expenses. The Code of Good Practice recommended that the ‘authorisation’ required be drawn to the attention of candidates, media organisations and facilitated groups. However, for candidates with previous election involvement, this had never before been a requirement and they may have simply relied on previous experiences and practices.

15.3 As mentioned under Issue 14, drawing on the experience in 2001, for the 2004 local authority elections, future candidates should be better informed as to their obligations under the electoral expenses regime. Also, ways of further improving information on these obligations through the Code of Good Practice and Candidate Information Packs will be introduced.

15.4 Finally, it is welcomed that Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001 intends to re-enact and bring into force a redrafted section 135 relating to offences for unauthorised advertisements under Section 113 (1) of the Local Electoral Act.

Issue 16: Increased postal voting period from two to three weeks.

16.1 In the July 2000 Policy Position Statement “A New Legislation Framework for Local Government Elections” by Local Government New Zealand and SOLGM, the introduction of a three week postal voting period was recommended.

16.2 A key driver for this recommendation was the recent encroachment of school holidays into the postal voting period which had caused a marginal increase in the number of special votes at the previous elections. Also, time difficulties were experienced in sending and receiving back overseas voting documents before close of polling. Furthermore, it was also mentioned that special votes were expensive to administer and were not the most straight forward and convenient way for electors to cast their vote. Therefore, in accordance with what is now a principle in Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act “all qualified persons have reasonable and equitable opportunity to cast an informed voted…” the three week posted voting period was recommended.

16.3 Responses to the electoral officer survey produced both positive and negative impact responses relating to the three week voting period.

16.4 In response to Question 4 (a) (pages 10 to 12 Appendix A) in relation to the conduct and management of the elections, positive comments can be generally grouped as follows:

· the ability to conduct early processing of voting documents over a longer period.
· enabled electors on holiday/overseas to be sent and return an ordinary postal vote in time.
· allowed an overall less stressed/pressured work environment for all electoral staff.

16.4 In response to Questions 31 and 32 of the survey 10 local authorities reported fewer special votes from the last election as a result of the extended voting period. The reported decrease ranged from 10 to 300 percent. In cases like Christchurch 15 percent equals 220 special votes – a significant savings in terms of administrative and processing costs. Correspondingly, those 220 electors avoided the procedural difficulties of applying for a special vote. See responses to Question 33 on pages 41 to 42 of Appendix A for some of these difficulties.

16.5 However, as the responses to Question 31 (page 41 of Appendix A) also show, the majority of electoral officers did not experience a decrease in special votes as a result of the longer three week voting period.

16.6 Although not a managerial impact, many responses to Question 4 (b) (pages 12 to 14 of Appendix A) commented that the three week period did or may have contributed to lower voter turnout, e.g. voters lost interest, misplaced voting documents, procrastinated, etc. Some did however, comment that the three week period caused resources/administrative impacts – e.g. occupied staff and premises for an extra week, required extra security demands. Others considered the extra week in the overall election cycle constrained the timeframe for preparing voting documents and CPS booklets following close of nominations.

16.7 Under Issue 5 relating to voter participation rates and turnout, we referred the Committee to Dr Graham Bush’s paper on turnout. We also referred to a table of factors which may have all or in part been influential where voter turnout was lower than the previous elections.

16.8 The three week voting period is just one of those possible potential influential factors. As a potential influential factor, it was rated as follows by electoral officers in those local authorities with a lower turnout than 1998.

Very Influential	Influential	Not Influential
9	16	15

16.9 In summary, SOLGM considers there have been demonstrated benefits from the three week voting period in terms of:

(a) allowing voters a longer period to exercise an ordinary postal vote,

(b) a significant reduction for several local authorities in the number of special votes with the added advantage of those electors not experiencing the difficult special vote application process and risk that their vote will be disallowed due to incomplete declaration, etc.

(c) increased time to process voting documents in a more manageable, less pressured environment. (This is covered further under Issue 17)

16.10 In particular, the benefits in (a) and (b) above contribute to the principle in Section 4(1)(b) of the Local Electoral Act – “… all qualified persons have a reasonable and equal opportunity to

(i) cast an informed vote …”

16.11 However, it is acknowledged that a few electoral officers experienced some increased resource impacts through processing voting documents over an extra week. Likewise, it is acknowledged that the extra week for voting may have been one of a range of factors that contributed to a lower turnout. How these more negative factors are weighed up against the above positive factors and their contribution to the principle in Section 4(1)(b) of the Act is difficult. Accordingly, as SOLGM considers that any proposal from the local government sector to maintain or reduce the current three week postal voting period is a policy matter, we leave any recommended approach to Local Government New Zealand.

Issue 17: Early announcement of results after the close of the poll.

17.1 Empowering electoral officers to announce the preliminary election results as soon as they were ready after the close of voting at 12 noon under Section 85 of the Act worked extremely well. Under the previous Act, preliminary results could not be announced until 7pm, notwithstanding that they may have been ready much earlier.

17.2 The Table on pages 47 and 48 of Appendix A shows the spread of announcement times under early processing. The earliest time being 12.15pm and the latest being 6.30pm. The Table also shows that the majority of local authorities’ preliminary results were released before 3.00pm.

17.3 The release of the majority of preliminary results so soon after the close of voting was dependent on the use of early processing. Furthermore, such processing could be operated up to a maximum of the full three week voting period rather than limited, under the former legislation, to 84 hours before close of voting. The Table on page 44 of Appendix A shows the early processing periods used by local authorities.

17.4 One local authority which did not use early processing released its preliminary result at 7.30pm.

17.5 The following graph demonstrates how electoral officers highly rated the operability of the early processing provisions of the Act and Regulations.

17.6 In addition to the benefit of being able to release an early and more accurate preliminary result, the other early processing benefits advised by electoral officers (see Question 35(iii) on pages 44 to 47 of Appendix A) can be broadly categorised as follows:

· resource cost efficiencies – less staff required, better staff utilisation, equipment savings
· reduction in time/work pressure – less staff stress, more time to deal with technical and legal issues, fewer errors.

17.7 Several electoral officers questioned the value of and necessity for JPs to observe the early processing of voting documents (see Question 35v page 48 of Appendix A). However, it is considered that the presence of JPs provides an element of public confidence in early processing.

Recommendation 15

Issue 18: Fines and offences, including requirement for electoral officers to report complaints to Police.

18.1 Under Section 138 of the Act, if an electoral officer receives a written complaint that an offence under Part 7 has been committed, or believes that an offence may have been committed, then he or she must report the matter to the Police, together with any enquiries made by the electoral officer considered appropriate.

18.2 Given the national magnitude of the local authority (including DHBs) elections in terms of the number of issues for which an election was held, and the number of candidates, then the number of reports of offences to the Police by electoral officers was exceptionally small. Results from the survey of electoral officers (Questions 40 and 41, pages 54 to 56 of Appendix A) show that:

· 11 written offence complaints; and
· 3 electoral officer initiated offence complaints

were reported to the Police.

18.3 Obviously, many electoral officers received calls from people inquiring about whether or reporting that an offence had been committed, and spent time dealing with these calls. However, as the graph shows on page 41 of Appendix A, the time spent by the majority of electoral officers on potential or actual offence complaints was insignificant. No doubt the Police will also have also received complaints directly from the public that an electoral offence has been committed.

18.4 However, SOLGM considers the exceptionally small number of offence complaints reported to the Police nationally by electoral officers does provide a high level of confidence in the integrity of the conduct and management of local authority elections.

Issue 19: Increase in nomination deposits from $100 to $200, including issues about refunds and return of deposits.

19.1 During the early stages of the drafting of the Local Electoral Act, SOLGM’s position on the deposit was that it should be converted into a non-refundable candidate fee. The idea being that all candidates should be treated equally and whether elected or not, or withdraws, retires or dies, the candidate should make a contribution towards some of the costs incurred by the local authority in dealing with their nomination and subsequent administrative action.

19.2 This approach was not acceptable and Section 59 of the Act and Regulation 25 set a deposit of $200 GST inclusive and provide for a refund if the candidate is elected, withdraws or retires, or dies before close of voting or becomes incapable of holding office before close of voting. If a candidate receives less than 25 percent of the votes of the least successful candidate, they forfeit their deposit.

19.3 SOLGM accepts that the law is unlikely to be changed to convert the deposit into a fee. However, given the difficult experience of obtaining election expense returns from candidates within the 55 day deadline, the deposit could be used as an incentive for achieving timely returns. The approach could be that the deposit is repayable once the election expense return is lodged.

19.4 A weakness in this approach however, is that it would not provide any incentive for those candidates who would lose their deposit through polling insufficient votes.

Recommendation 16

Issue 20: Legality of collecting votes from households.

20.1 Please refer to our comments under Issue 4.

Issue 21: Filling extraordinary vacancies: requirement for by-elections.

21.1 Several matters relating to this Issue which were raised at the electoral officers Debriefing Forum or through the survey will be covered in our submission on Part 13 of the Local Government Bill 2001.

Issue 22: Definition of local authority.

22.1 One of the issues in the lead up to the elections was where a territorial authority resolved to use early processing under Section 79 of the Act, did that resolution cover the early processing of voting documents for the elections of other local authorities (Regional Council, DHB) the territorial authority electoral officer was conducting? It would be totally impractical for the local authorities concerned to resolve differently, causing the territorial authority to deal with voting documents separately and differently between elections it conducts.

22.2 Following discussion at SOLGM’s electoral officers Forum in June and with Ministry of Health, a logical and practical approach was taken in the Code of Good Practice. The Code recommended the following:

“(i) for the 2001 triennial local authority elections any resolution under Section 79 of the Act to process voting documents during the voting period be made by territorial authorities and not by other local authorities whose elections are being conducted by territorial authorities. Electoral officers of territorial authorities should urgently meet with their respective DHB electoral officers and agree that any resolution under Section 79 of the Act should only be made by the territorial authority and that this be formalised in the Memorandum of Understanding between the territorial authority and the DHB

(ii) the territorial electoral officer ensure that before the date for giving public notice, under Section 52 of the Act, of an election or poll (25 July in the case of this year’s elections) the local authority has resolved under section 79 that it intends to process voting documents during the voting period

(iii) the resolution be forwarded to any other local authority (District Health Boards, Licensing Trusts, etc) whose elections are being conducted by the territorial authority”

22.3 SOLGM is not aware of any problems that arose from the above approach. However, it is pleased to see that this matter is being clarified in the Local Government Bill 2001.

Recommendation 17

Issue 23: Voting documents, including format and use of honorifics.

23.1 Section 157 of the Local Electoral Act applied the voting documents contained in the former Local Elections and Polls Act to the 2001 local elections.

23.2 Sections 75 and 76 of the Act prescribe particular characteristics of voting documents for future local elections and polls. Section 77 of the Act provides that any future voting document must be consistent with one of the general formats approved by the Secretary for Local Government or other person appointed by the Secretary for that purpose.

23.3 Accordingly, Question 29 of the survey sought key improvements to the current voting documents for 2004. Most electoral officers suggested no improvements. This would tend to suggest that the current FPP voting document is considered generally acceptable, understandable and workable in practice by electors. While the new STV voting document will contain many of the characteristics of the current FPP document, it will also require characteristics specific to that electoral system and method of voting.

23.4 The most frequently suggested improvement to the voting document related to the need to more effectively instruct voters to ensure that they have dealt with all issues in their voting documents. From voting returns, where voting documents comprise two or more pages, there is a greater likelihood that an elector may miss voting on some issues.

23.5 The SOLGM Electoral Working Party will discuss the suggested improvements to voting documents received from electoral officers with the Department of Internal Affairs.

23.6 In relation to the inclusion of honorifics on the voting document, we recommended under Issue 13 (Recommendation 9), that provision for official titles or ranks be deleted from Section 56c(iii) of the Act. This would also indirectly mean that any rank or title would not appear on the voting document.

Recommendation 18

That the Committee note that the SOLGM Electoral Working Party will discuss with the Department of Internal Affairs the suggested improvements to voting documents received from electoral officers.

23.7 In relation to special voting papers, electoral officers rated highly the operation of the Act and the 1992 and 2001 Regulations (see graph on page 40 of Appendix A).

23.8 In terms of key improvements to the special voting requirements and procedures, the common theme of most electoral officer suggestions received was “simplify”, “make easier”, “reduce detail”. This theme particularly related to the applicant’s declaration. On the other hand, several electoral officers felt that the procedures were not complex and were necessary to ensure an authentic special vote.

23.9 The requirements of the special voting declaration are prescribed in Regulation 38 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001. As no actual form was prescribed, a model declaration form was developed based on the prescribed requirements and included in the Special Voting Section of the Code of Good Practice as a guide. The SOLGM Electoral Working Party will discuss with the Department of Internal Affairs the special voting regulations and model declaration form with the aim of developing a more “user friendly” process for special vote applicants.

Recommendation 19

That the Committee note that:

(c) the operation of the special voting provisions were rated highly by electoral officers;

(d) electoral officers expressed mixed views on whether the special voting procedures are too complex; and

Issue 24: Role of, and requirements regarding, scrutineers, including appointment and provision of rolls.

24.1 From the responses to the electoral officer’s survey, it is evident that not many candidates appointed scrutineers, and where appointed, in some cases they did not always turn up or understand their role.

24.2 The responses to Question 23 (page 35 of Appendix A) show the percentage of candidates who appointed scrutineers. For the majority of local authorities, it was less than 10 percent. For the elections of 20 local authorities no scrutineers were appointed.

24.3 Where scrutineers were appointed, the graph on page 36 of Appendix A demonstrates that the operation of the provisions of the Act and Regulations governing scrutineers was highly rated. It is expected that this was facilitated by the SOLGM Handbook for Scrutineers.

24.4 However, some responses to Question 26 (pages 36 and 37 of Appendix A) suggest that even with the booklet, scrutineers did not understand their role. This was complemented by the dominant response to Question 26 from electoral officers, questioning the continued need for scrutineers. The national use of postal voting, coupled with early processing has significantly altered the traditional “booth” concept and role of scrutineers.

24.5 A suggestion that emerged from the survey and which was discussed and supported at the Debriefing Forum, was that electoral officers be empowered during early processing, to make available lists of those electors who have voted. This would allow candidates or any other interested person to see who had voted. The lists would be made available in whatever form the electoral officer considers most practicable and at a ‘reasonable’ charge.

24.6 At this stage, SOLGM would not see the provision of such a list replacing scrutineers. Rather, the operation of such a facility could be monitored over a couple of triennial elections and assessed against the number of scrutineers. This should provide a measure of the continued utility and value to candidates of scrutineers and the need to continue legislative provision for them.

Recommendation 20

Issue 25: Opinion polling during the voting period.

25.1 SOLGM does not have any views on this issue.

PART III: DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD ELECTIONS

26.1 Under the New Zealand Health and Disability Act 2000, territorial authorities were required to conduct the elections of the new District Health Boards (DHBs) in conjunction with the local authority elections.

26.2 This was the first time that there had been elections in the Health Sector for over a decade. Accordingly, for the majority of electoral officers conducting the DHB elections, it was a new experience, and an extra challenge to working with the new electoral legislation.

26.3 In preparation for this, SOLGM and the Ministry of Health developed a template Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for agreement between each DHB and the territorial authorities conducting its election. We also developed a cost-sharing arrangement to reimburse territorial authorities for the costs incurred in conducting DHB elections. This cost-sharing arrangement is included in clause 10 of the MOU. The MOU is attached in Appendix C.

26.4 Of the 52 territorial authority electoral officers responding to Question 50 of the survey, 51 authorities entered into a MOU with their DHB applying the template as a model. By far the majority of those electoral officers rated highly the operation of the MOU in setting out the election relationships and responsibilities between the territorial authority and the DHB as per the following graph.

26.5 As would be expected, there were some operational and relationship “teething” problems arising from the operation of the MOU and the conduct of the DHB elections. The dominant problem that came through under Question 52 seeking suggested improvements to the MOU, related generally to the need to further clarify the roles and responsibilities between territorial authority electoral officers and DHB electoral officers. The main areas of concern here were:

· need to revisit/clarify responsibilities in areas of receiving and processing DHB nominations, deposits, etc
· appreciation of territorial authority electoral officer timelines by DHB electoral staff and the need for timely communication, co-operation and application of resources
· the application to a DHB electoral officer and the DHB, of the principle in section 14(1) of the Local Electoral Act, whereby a territorial authority electoral officer is not subject to the directions of the council in carrying out his/her duties under the Act.

26.6 As mentioned, the MOU also included a cost-sharing arrangement which was negotiated between SOLGM and the Ministry of Health. Clause 13 in the Second Schedule of the NZ Public Health and Disability Act 2000 provides that costs incurred by every territorial authority in conducting a DHB election must be paid for by the DHB.

26.7 The approach adopted was to develop a formula which could be applied nationally rather than requiring the Ministry of Health to negotiate separate arrangements with 74 territorial authorities. Briefly, the pricing regime developed is as follows (see clause 10 of the MOU for full description):

Amount (plus GST)	For	Paid by DHBs to	Payable
$10,000	Services of the DHB EO	DHB EO Employers (21)	1.8.01
$0.07 per elector	Pre-electoral Costs	Territorial Authorities	24.8.01
$0.64 per elector	50% of Electoral Costs	Territorial Authorities	14.9.01
$0.64 per elector	50% of Electoral Costs	Territorial Authorities	10 days after official results declared

26.8 In general, from responses to Question 53 (pages 66 to 68 of Appendix A), the majority of electoral officers considered the pricing regime in the MOU to be equitable for both territorial authorities and the DHB.

26.9 However, there were several electoral officers who felt that the pricing regime was inequitable. A few of these felt that their DHB may have paid too much. The majority however, considered that the DHB paid too little under the pricing regime. The large number of DHB candidates, and the extra time and cost in dealing with them, was the most common reason given. Notwithstanding this, it is understood that the Controller and Auditor-General has not been requested to settle any dispute regarding election costs between a territorial authority and a DHB under section 147 of the Local Electoral Act.

26.10 For the 2004 elections, particularly with the use of STV for DHB elections, the current pricing regime will need to be revisited. In this context, drawing on the experience of the 2001 local elections, the factors which may have given rise to inequities for either territorial authorities or DHBs will also be examined.

26.11 At the Debriefing Forum, the Ministry of Health provided a brief overview of how the DHB elections were conducted from the Ministry/DHB perspective. It is understood that this perspective came from a questionnaire of DHBs. The key points were:

(a) Effectiveness – DHB arrangements with territorial authorities

· 16 DHBs – very effective
· 4 DHBs – effective

(b) Did territorial authorities meet all DHB expectations?

· 85% – yes
· 15% – no

· 18 DHBs – yes
· 2 DHBs – don’t know

(d) DHB rating of relationship with electoral officers

· 40 – excellent
· 10 – good
· 5 – fair
· 0 – poor
· 2 – don’t know

(e) DHB use of territorial authorities – happy with same again

· 90.6% DHBs – yes
· 1.8% DHBs – maybe
· 7.6% DHBs – no

(f) If legislation allowed, would DHB want to conduct own election in future?

· 12 DHBs – no
· 5 DHBs – maybe
· 3 DHBs – yes

26.12 The Ministry’s overall conclusions were

· virtually all territorial authorities provided excellent professional service at a fair price
· in most cases, relationships between DHBs and territorial authorities were very good
· future DHB elections should be based on similar arrangements

26.13 In summary, the conduct of elections in the Health sector for the first time in over a decade did present the majority of territorial authority electoral officers with new challenges and pressures. Likewise for the many DHB candidates it was their first experience as a candidate and exposure to the electoral procedures of candidature.

26.14 However, from a managerial perspective, it generally appears that the overall conduct of the DHB elections went relatively smoothly from the perspective of the key parties – territorial authority electoral officers, DHB electoral staff and the Ministry of Health. A key driver for this smooth management was the harnessing of the experience of territorial authority electoral officers and the application of their systems and processes built up over successive local authority elections.

26.15 Lessons learnt from the 2001 elections and the experience gained by electoral officers will assist with the conduct of DHB elections again in 2004, although early planning and arrangements for the introduction of STV for DHB elections will be a priority.

Recommendation 21

That the Committee note that:

(c) it may be desirable to receive a fuller report, than in this submission, from the Ministry of Health on its perspective of the management and conduct of the 2001 DHB elections; and

(d) that a key priority to manage and conduct DHB elections in 2004 will be the early planning for and introduction of arrangements for STV.

PART IV: CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL ELECTIONS AND POLLS

27.1 In our submission to the Committee on the Local Electoral Bill, we advised that SOLGM would prepare a Code of Good Practice to guide electoral officers in operating under a modern and flexible local electoral framework. This would follow on from the work SOLGM did in preparing the Code of Practice for Returning Officers Adopting Processing of Voting Papers Before Close of Voting for the 1998 local elections.

27.2 The Code was prepared by the SOLGM Electoral Working Party and was examined at the Electoral Officers Forum on 29 July 2001 before being finalised. The Code was promoted within the sector and made freely downloadable from the Resource Library of Local Government Online, http://www.localgovt.co.nz/. A copy was sent to the Committee Chairperson on 31 July 2001.

Nature of Code

27.3 The aim of the Code is to underpin the new Local Electoral Act and Regulations through recommended good practice processes which will assist electoral officers to effectively and efficiently arrange and manage elections and polls. The Code does this in two ways:

· by providing non-statutory practices and processes which are important to good election and poll management
· by providing model examples of forms and other practices which meet the minimum requirements prescribed in the Act or Regulations

27.4 The Code however, is not a step by step manual to every task or process involved in the preparation for and conduct of an election or poll. Electoral officers should develop their own procedural checklists for particular election or poll tasks according to their needs.

Operation of Code

27.5 Electoral officers rated the Code highly as a guidance document as shown by the following graph and made some very positive comments as to its value and utility under Question 2(a) (pages 2 to 4 of Appendix A)

27.6 From the table under Question 43, electoral officers dominantly classified all Code sections in the “most useful” category except Section 4: Multi-language Information.

27.7 The Code will be a continuously “live” document. From the experience of the 2001 elections, some inconsistencies between the Code and the Act and Regulations have been identified, together with several suggestions for further improving the Code. Furthermore, it will be augmented to take account of new roll compilation provisions, STV, voting documents, and any other changes that emerge from the Select Committee’s Inquiry and also the Local Government Bill. SOLGM will undertake this review in 2003.

Recommendation 22

The Committee note that the Code of Good Practice:

(a) was highly rated by electoral officers as a guidance document; and

(b) will be totally reviewed and updated in 2003.

CONCLUSION

28.1 In summary, from a managerial perspective, SOLGM considers that the new local electoral legislative framework very successfully completed its first test at the 2001 local elections. From electoral officer experience, no ‘fatal flaws’ appeared in the new legislative framework.

28.2 There was a high level of electoral officer satisfaction with how the Act, Regulations and Code of Good Practice operated – 81 percent rated it ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. The more flexible approach allowed particular election procedures and practices to reflect local diversity and also the more simple plain English style of the legislation was greatly appreciated. As a guide for electoral officers in a less prescriptive legislative environment the Code of Good Practice was also highly valued.

28.3 The new legislation also exhibited some important success factors:

· the high adoption of early processing of voting documents delivered significant benefits in terms of resource efficiencies and accurate preliminary results, and in particular, enabled the majority of local authorities to release their results before 3pm
· the majority of electoral officers received positive electoral/public feedback on the value of the newly introduced candidate profile statements

28.4 As mentioned however, electoral officers experienced some ‘teething’ problems with aspects of the new legislative framework’s operation. Likewise, there were also aspects which candidates and electors experienced some problems with.

28.5 Some of these difficulties could be described as ‘orientation’ difficulties as various parties to the elections come to terms with the new tasks, responsibilities, and expectations arising from the new legislation. It is anticipated that these may diminish with experience gained from future elections and require no legislative change.

28.6 However, the alleviation of some difficulties will require legislative action and many of SOLGM’s recommendations seek to remedy these. In the main these recommendations are generally simple and technical or practical in nature. This fact supports our view that the new local electoral legislation provides a modern, sound and flexible base to build on for the conduct of and management of future elections.

[1] See Donald Riezebos, Universal Postal Voting in New Zealand, Department of Internal Affairs, 2002

[2] see Department of Internal Affairs Series on Local Authority Election Statistics

Appendix "A" - SOLGM 2001 Post Local Authority Election Questionnaire - Summary of Responses

Appendix "B" - Reflections on the Local Body Election Turnout 2001

Appendix "C" - Memorandum of Understanding District Health Boards & Territorial Authorities

INQUIRY INTO THE 2001 LOCAL ELECTIONS

SOLGM

INTEREST IN LOCAL ELECTIONS

Follow us on