By “randomised” I meant “are they different on every ballot?”
No. (This came up on Twitter y'day) What's being used is described as "pseudo-random" in the Local Electoral Regulations for Council elections.
The Electoral Commission drew lots - in front of a Judge - to determine a random order, and that order is being used on all voting papers.
The Electoral Commission also has a useful page on advertising rules, here.
Is there a place where I can see the official submissions besides the media links from Rob's post?
The 214 submissions to the Justice & Electoral inquiry are here
Scrutiny of the rolls was a live issue 30+ years ago, when the rolls were an absolute mess. Indeed, that was one of the key points of the Hunua electoral petition following the 1978 election. Last Thursday I thought it might be useful for the select cttee to hear evidence from the winner* of Hunua, to tell them what things were like then.
But as a result, NZ Post was given responsibility for the rolls - now morphed into the Electoral Enrolment unit of the Electoral Commission. The rolls aren't a problem, and scrutiny has not been a live issue for many years.
* the winner was one W Peters.
As an aside, to add in that the website with all NZ's legislation has been tweaked to improve accessibility. See the bottom of http://t.co/V8sqO3kcNg
Blog in haste, repent at leisure.
Yes, Thu 2 April.
We agree on one thing: statute law does not cover all bases, and clarity is needed.
My inner purist thinks the Electoral Act should be amended to prohibit an MP standing in a by-election; my inner pragmatist tells me this is unlikely to happen.
I addressed the specific situation you posed,and I think that would be a matter of 'straightforward mechanics.'
However I'm saying that there may be many complicated scenarios that could arise, and it may well be that Privileges becomes involved.
In the last 24 hours we've seen Peters frame the debate in terms of whether he will decide to bring in a new MP or not. He's been very good at putting himself centre of the frame going back to (at least) the Antoinette Beck saga.
Thanks Sean - I accept that Electoral Commission are in good faith telling people that. However, they are not the arbiters of whether a vacancy is created or not.
Graeme Edgeler (asked on Twitter)
@philiplyth is it your view that the statement "Members' seats become vacant only as provided in Electoral Act 1993" is debatable?
I note that is the heading to s23 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 the whole of which is:
23 Members' seats become vacant only as provided in Electoral Act 1993
(1)The House has no power to make a member's seat become vacant by expelling the member (whether to discipline or punish the member, to protect the House by removing an unfit member, or for any reason or purpose) from membership of the House.
(2)Subsection (1) overrides any law to the contrary.
To answer the direct question, yes, I can see various MPs, past and present, being only too willing to debate the meaning depending on the circumstances. So it is certainly debatable.
I haven't yet gone back and read all the public domain documents and Hansard relating to that Act. S23 would be subject to interpretation. I doubt it would be justiciable in practical terms. Arguably for example, the meaning of "a member's seat" could be the subject of much argument before Privileges: if and when Peters is sworn in as the MP for Northland (assuming for a moment that is required), then is the list seat still his?
I do not purport to be an expert and I expect this questions will be addressed by Members in the coming weeks and a solution found.