Summary
Kill this Bill. Throw this poorly Sellotaped, arrogantly presented, viciously swift, merciless and dangerous Bill in the rubbish and start again. Nail down the worst excesses of electoral abuse that occurred last election, the ones which necessitated retrospective legislation to excuse. For any more radical ideas, go the hustings with them and seek a mandate from the people.
Main Points
- Where did this Bill come from? Certainly not the public. The closest this Bill came to public engagement was at the Electoral Symposium held in June at Victoria University, where various party hacks talked at the crowd. Consultation has been conducted under a cone of silence between support parties. Parliament does not have a mandate to propose any regulatory regime on alleged 'third parties'. The public have not demanded it.
- The public response to retrospective legislation over election spending has been much less ethereal. The public understand that UnitedFuture and New Zealand First have outstanding debts to the taxpayer even after the rules were temporally re-written, and that these two parties support this doggerel Bill. The public will react accordingly at the next election.
- The academics have not demanded this Bill. The Electoral Commission report to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the 2005 election only mentions third parties in passing, and only as a radical option once political parties submit to extensive disclosure requirements and limits on donations. Lacking any check and balance on the political parties, the Electoral Finance Bill cannot justify its draconian stifling of non-party political expression. Any Bill that so radically alters the democratic landscape should be led by open, transparent and wide consultation, explanation and debate, followed by a mandate to ensure legitimacy.
- The definition of 'election advertisement' is way too nebulous to be taken seriously. Such a definition is so unenforceable, it begs to be ignored.
- While the Electoral Finance Bill creates a severe and compliance-heavy regime for 'third parties' to follow, the rules on parties and candidates remain largely status quo. If anything, this Bill gives more loopholes for parties to exploit, even as it stands on the throat of public expression. The incumbent party on the government benches are particularly well-placed, as absolutely no controls are placed on government advertising.
- The course is weighed heavily in favour of parties for anonymous donations as well. While $20,000 is the laundry limit for parties, 'third parties' are limited to a puny $500. I believe that this should be turned around. $500 limit for party and candidate anonymous donations, $20,000 for 'third parties'.
- 'Third party' financial agents are solely authorised and responsible for any alleged 'election advertisement'. Party activity, on the other hand, may be authorised by the financial agent or "the party" Section 80(a)(i). The party is authorised but the party is not responsible. One more bad law in favour of the party.
- The notion that one third of our lives are to be considered a "regulated period" of speech is a repugnant thing. If any part of the EFB crystallises the wrong, wrong, wrongness of this whole Bill, it is this. While three months is the standard unit of time to accord an electoral period, and is used in the case of by-elections in this Bill, the last four weeks is the real season. Until election day is set in legislation, at not at the whim of the incumbent, leave it alone.
- As former Speaker Doug Kidd said at the Electoral Symposium: "Trust the People."
Conclusion
I strongly and respectfully advise the Justice and Electoral Committee to recommend to Parliament that this Bill not proceed. Thank you.
