To Contact Us
to page back through Previous Editions click here Index is in right hand column

December 2011 Edition ----

We wish to stop the partial sale of cert of NZ's State Owned Enterprises. We say the Electoral Commission has not done its job properly and should be forced to correct things which will reduce the National majority by one, so stopping the sales.

Here is our argument:

We claim that for the purposes of section 192 (2) (a) of the Electoral Act 1993 as applied to the 2011 general election, the successful constituency candidate for Epsom, John Banks, and the successful constituency candidate for Ohariu, Peter Dunn, are both constituency candidates for the National Party. Section 192 (2) (a) states that winners of constituency seats are to be deducted from a party's MP entitlement, for the purpose of allocating list candidates, if the are (were) constituency candidates "for that party".

We believe there is no further clarification in this Act, nor in any other Act, as to what the term "candidates for that party", as contained in section 192 (2) (a), means. We claim that this is for the Electoral Commission to determine having regards for the facts of the cases and the general objective of the election system, being that the proportion of Members of Parliament representing each party reflect the party's share of the party vote.

Although these two constituency candidates were not nominated by the National Party and had the logo of another party alongside their name on the voting papers for their respective electorates, prior to the election day each was endorsed by the leader of the National Party as a candidate for which it would be appropriate for members and supporters of his party to vote for. There has been no suggestion that he did not have the support of the party in making such statements. The statements of support were welcomed if not requested by both the candidates so supported. The constituency candidate "officially" nominated by the National Party in each of these two electorates were hesitant about saying they were seeking to become the member of Parliament for the electorate, instead emphasising that the were seeking to maximise the National Party vote in the electorate. We submit that the nomination of these two candidates by the National Party was not a valid action because the party did not wish them to win and it advised its voter supporters of this.

I claim that substance must take priority over form. We submit that the National Party wished John Banks and Peter Dunn to win their respective electorates and clearly spelt out these wishes to its supporters in the electorates. Both these candidates have served as ministers in National Party lead Governments and apparently finished up on good terms with the National Party.

We submit that although these two constituency candidates claim to be candidates "for" a party other than the National Party it is their support of the National Party and the National Party's endorsement of them that has resulted in them being elected the MP for their respective electorates. They were clearly also "candidates for the National party".

It makes a farce of the MMP system if major parties instruct their supporters to vote for a constituency candidate other than any one which they might have nominated. That fact that this supported candidate might be nominated by and supported by another party is irrelevant to the matter. The fuss about them negotiating a coalition agreement after the election was just a public relations exercise aimed at giving this improper support validity. Banks and Dunn could be relied upon and the matters which they "extracted" from the new Government as the price of the coalition were no doubt agreed to before the National Party asked its voter supporters to support the two. They can continue to represent the parties which they claim to support but the two lowest ranked National list candidates should have their warrants withdrawn since Banks and Dunn come in their place. Two further list candidates should be appointed as per the system to bring the total up to 120 (+1) which would probably mean that the higher ranked of the two National candidates would be reappointed.

We seek support for protest to have this correction actioned.

We offer a link to the latest published Feltex information here

Advertising section

------------------------

Suitable Objectives

Register of Members

Members Forum - Topical
* open to all meantime:

Plenty of Opinion

Magazine Plans

Need an Accountant?
or Prepared to Change?

Users Forum
* have your say

Ready to Join?

Knowledge Tests
* being developed

What's Wrong with
the existing 
accounting body?

So called BNZ Audit
an extensive case study

 Visit our Advertising
page from 
Here