That last post was just the first.
Think about what else is caught – and just not by a $60,000 limit, but by a $5000 limit.
The Vote for the Environment Campaign which rated each party’s environmental policies jointly run by Greenpeace, Eco, and Forest and Bird would be limited to $5000.
If the Civil Union debate had occurred in election year, the Wellington-based Campaign for Civil Unions would have been limited to $5000 (the Auckland-based group endured the process to register as an incorporated society and would have been allowed to spend $60,000).
And this $5,000 limit (or the $60,000 applicable to those who can and do register with Chief Electoral Officer) covers money spent on a pretty broad range of things.
The definition of “electoral advertising” is broad – it encompasses:
“any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as:
…
(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not vote, for [a party or candidate]
or
(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions or policies…
or
(iii) taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated
For a third-party campaign, what’s covered by (i) is pretty simple – something that says “don’t vote for United Future” or, for example, the Exclusive Brethren’s “Green Delusion” leaflet; (ii) is also pretty simple – the “Vote for the Environment” campaign is covered there, or the various union’s analyses of the parties’ industrial relations policies.
It’s (iii) where we need to worry – it covers not just advertising relating to the election, but any advertising relating to politics in an election year: campaigning for or against legislation, protesting against government policy (or the policy of foreign Governments if that coincides with the view of a New Zealand political party).
Civil Union Campaign, Foreshore and Seabed opposition, Section 59 repeal, GE Free NZ, US out of Iraq – these are all propositions with which New Zealand political parties are associated, and those taking a position on them – in “any form of words or graphics” – are limited to spending $60,000 – or in many cases $5000.
And now things start to get silly.
The Green Party could propose that people shouldn’t eat McDonald’s and McDonald’s advertising budget for the year would be slashed.
And it’s not just propositions associated with political parties in Parliament that your limited how much you can spend supporting or opposing – it’s also propositions associated with parties outside Parliament.
And it’s not just parties. It’s any electorate candidate.
This will sound ludicrous – and one would hope if passed the Courts would somehow read down the incredibly broad language – but if a candidate for Southland is associated with a proposition then someone in Auckland will be limited in what they can say on it to $60,000 – and a group to perhaps $5000.
NZUSA, in a protest against university advertising budgets, could stand a single candidate somewhere who proposes that everyone should attend the university nearest to them – and thereby limit each University’s advertising budget to $60,000 in election year (telling Aucklanders to come down to Otago would take a position on a proposition associated with that candidate).
So yeah, it needs some work.
Graeme Edgeler
Coalition for Open Government
