Rudman's city: Away with ideas that vote polls be banned

By BRIAN RUDMAN

Now that Jenny Shipley's been given the heave-ho, here's hoping National abandons one of the sillier policies advanced under her leadership. That's the proposal to outlaw the publication of opinion poll results in the run-up to a general election.

You have only to look at the Auckland mayoral campaign to see the vital role opinion polling now plays in any political campaign, and how lost and prey to wild speculation we are without them.

First, the wild speculation. In the run-up to the mayoral contest, contender John Banks did private polling to check his chances.

The picture that emerged was that incumbent Chris Fletcher was in front, with Mr Banks second and Deputy Mayor Bruce Hucker - who had not declared his candidacy - third.

Mr Banks sensibly assessed his fortunes as being better if Dr Hucker were to enter the race and siphon off some of the liberal vote destined for Mrs Fletcher. To entice Dr Hucker into the contest, Mr Banks secretly wooed him with his polling results.

What happened subsequently is history. Dr Hucker was keen to stand, but could not persuade his City Vision colleagues to endorse him. At that stage Alliance president Matt McCarten jumped in to fill the centre-left gap.

Two weeks ago it was a do-it-yourself poll conducted by Mr McCarten's team that had the various campaigns buzzing. How scientific it was nobody outside the Alliance camp knew, but it purported to have Mr Banks way out in front with 41 per cent, Mrs Fletcher on 29 per cent and Mr McCarten on 19 per cent.

Ever hopeful, Mr McCarten leaked the figures and called on Mrs Fletcher to stop splitting the centre-left vote and to stand aside in favour of him. Mrs Fletcher could do little but copy her fellow also-ran and in a tit-for-tat reaction called on him to withdraw instead.

Last Sunday we got the impartial evidence we needed in the form of a Sunday Star-Times-UMR research poll. It showed that 44 per cent of those who had already voted backed Mr Banks, 26 per cent Mrs Fletcher and 18 per cent Mr McCarten. It was remarkably close to Mr McCarten's do-it-yourself effort.

Of those yet to vote in the Sunday poll, Mrs Fletcher was just ahead (41 per cent) of Mr Banks (39 per cent), with Mr McCarten on 17 per cent.

In a lacklustre campaign, this poll has had a galvanising effect on the candidates and on the 75 per cent of potential voters who have not yet done so.

Yet had this been a parliamentary election under the proposed National-New Zealand First poll-muzzling legislation, we voters would not have been allowed access to this information, or any other poll-gathered intelligence on what issues our fellow citizens thought important.

Of course for the politicos the ban would not apply. They could merrily continue to poll, and manipulate their messages as a result, through to voting day.

To me, what's good enough for the politicians is good enough for you and me. Opinion polling is an integral part of political life.

It makes citizens and politicians alike better informed about what we're all thinking. That is surely a good thing.

Pollsters, rather defensively, argue that a poll is as neutral as a thermometer, just measuring the political temperature at a specific time. Of course polls are much more influential than that. Otherwise why would politicians fret over them?

The difference between a thermometer and a poll is that however worrying the thermometer reading, there's nothing we can do to alter the weather. With a poll we can. I know many Aucklanders who, after reading Sunday's poll, pulled out their voting papers to try to do just that. And why not?

Polling knowledge makes us more intelligent voters. It helps us to vote strategically. In a three-horse race such as the mayoralty, and in the MMP environment of national politics, this helps us better to get the result the majority want.

France's 1977 ban on pre-election poll data publication is held up by proponents as the model to follow. Following a ruling by the country's highest court, the Cour de Cassation, last month, poll-muzzlers will have to look elsewhere.

The court ruled that the ban "creates a restriction to the liberty of receiving of information" under the European Convention on Human Rights. It said it was unfair because citizens with internet connections could consult polls published abroad. This referred to a Swiss paper which, during the 1997 French elections, published the results of a French political poll on its website.

There's every likelihood such a ban would also fall foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. I hope the new-look National Party will get the message and toss its support for it into the same wheelie-bin that carried Mrs Shipley to oblivion.