Electoral Finance Act still too complex in spite of proposed changes

While a Bill to amend the Electoral Finance Act 2007 significantly improves matters, the whole area of electoral finance remains discouragingly complex and the Bill would benefit from a comprehensive redraft.

This is the opinion of the New Zealand Law Society. The Society today appeared at a Select Committee hearing on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill 2010 to speak to its submission on the Bill.

In the submission, Law Society President Jonathan Temm says particular areas of reform under the Bill have reduced the “chilling impact” of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 on the freedom of expression.

These improvements include a shorter non-retrospective regulated period of no more than three months, no cap on third party promoters’ expenditure, greater transparency in the donations regime, and inflation adjustment of expenditure limits.

Mr Temm says the Law Society believes the limits the Bill imposes on freedom of expression are generally reasonable. However, he says there are several areas where the Society has issues with the Bill.

“Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 currently restricts access to television and radio advertising, which limits the availability of both candidates and parties to effectively communicate their views on issues during an election campaign. This imposes an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression. Part 6 is in need of fundamental reform to address this, but the Bill does not amend it.”

Mr Temm says regulated broadcasting periods should be aligned and political parties and individuals should be allowed access to radio and TV on the same basis as they are to print media. “There is no good reason in 2010 to ration and constrain access to some media but not others.”

Public agencies should be expressly prohibited from funding election campaigns, but this is not done by the Bill. He says public agencies – which include State departments, State-owned enterprises and local authorities - should be apolitical and it is not appropriate for them to spend public money to participate in political debate at parliamentary level.

The Law Society is also concerned at the requirement in the Bill to publish the promoter’s name and address in advertisements.

“The Society has consistently and repeatedly submitted that publication of a promoter’s home address is inappropriate and an undesirable potential deterrent or restriction on freedom of expression,” Mr Temm says.

He says the concerns are that publishing a residential or business address could lead to harassment or be a deterrent to participation in public debate. The only viable option to avoid publishing a promoter’s residential address is publication of a business address, but this could be inappropriate if the promoter is a public servant or the promoter’s employee does not share the promoter’s view.

The Society also submits that the Bill carries forward a “significant defect” from the Electoral Finance Act 2007. The definition of “election advertisement” has an exception for content written or selected by an editor only if “solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening or entertaining.”

“Under the current Bill, an editorial in the Dominion Post or the AA magazine that urges support or opposition for those parties that favour road tolls over fuel taxes (or vice versa) would not have the benefit of the exception,” Mr Temm says.

“It is not practicable, and probably not appropriate, to expect editors to submit editorials to the Electoral Commission for advisory opinions.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media