Monday, February 06, 2006

Undue influence?

Via DPF, I see that a Northland Maori leader has proposed that iwi bar their members from accessing money from tribal lands or Treaty settlements unless they are on the Maori roll. My initial thought was that this would constitute exerting undue influence - a corrupt practice under s218 of the Electoral Act 1993. But I'm not so sure. "Undue influence" is defined as threatening or infliciting (among other things) "damage, harm, or loss" in order to

induce or compel that person to vote for or against a particular candidate or party or to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted for or against a particular candidate or having voted or refrained from voting

Which seems to be very specifically about voting. Wheras what Mr Perry is seeking to compel (by threats of harm or loss) is enrolment, and specifically which roll people enrol on.

This ought to be illegal, because it is fundamentally about trying to force voters to make certain political choices - but I'm not sure that it is. I've written to the Electoral Commission in an effort to get some answers, but if its not, then its a glaring hole in the law which needs to be patched ASAP.

6 comments:

  1. What this does is no different to official government policy: that as many people as possible should be enrolled, there's even adds on TV and stuff.

    Asking people to be on the Maori roll does influence their voting options in regards local candidates, so they may have to change it to either roll to stay within the law. Good luck following it up, I/S.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tussock: its also compulsory to be enrolled, with a penalty of a $100 fine. No, its not enforced.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Surely, by influencing which roll you are enrolled on, you are inducing them not vote for candidates on the other roll.... which would be against that law?

    Fletch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It might be against the terms of the settlement legislation or the governance entity that manages the settlement funds.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fletch: there's no particular candidate, so I think it falls through the cracks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't this a form of blackmail - if you don't do what we want you to do then you will be financially penalised.

    It should be up to each individual to decide what roll they wish to be on without threats.

    ReplyDelete

Due to abuse and trolling, comments have been disabled. If you don't like this decision, you can start your own blog here

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.