In the spotlight today
The Electoral Finance Bill – 2007-10-17
The Electoral Finance Bill currently before Parliament contains three major flaws which must be rectified if the Bill is to warrant the continued support of a majority in Parliament.
In the wake of the funding controversies that dogged the last election campaign, there is no doubt that major reform is needed. It is wrong, for example, that outside groups can help parties flout their existing expenditure limits by running parallel campaigns.
But in correcting this mischief it is also important that wider democratic principles of freedom of speech are preserved, and that the overall integrity of the electoral system is untarnished.
The proposition behind the Electoral Finance Bill that outside groups (the so-called third parties) who wish to become involved in an election campaign have to accept some accountability for their actions is difficult to argue against.
Where the Bill fails the reasonable test, however, is that the solutions it proposes are at the extreme end of the spectrum. Take the definition of third parties for a start. As it stands, under the Bill's provisions, almost any group that dares to express an opinion that could be construed as political (in that reflects upon the policies of one or other political party) is potentially caught and required to register as a third party. This is clearly absurd, and reflects a level of control over society that even the KGB would have struggled to match.
And then, once a third party is registered, there is the definition of what constitutes any election advertising it may carry out. This is so broad as to capture virtually any expression of a political view or opinion that might be published, however casually or deliberately, and no matter what its intent. Then, there is the limit of $60,000 that those groups cannot exceed in promoting their views. That is barely the cost of one set of national newspaper advertisements.
It is little wonder that groups like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society have condemned the Bill as a massive attack on free speech.
Neither Labour nor National have covered themselves with glory on this Bill. Both are more interested in preserving their existing advantages than developing good law. National wants to continue being able to raise large sums of money through anonymous donations to trusts, which do not have to be disclosed, while Labour simply wants to stop National (and groups like the Exclusive Brethren) in their tracks.
Be all that as it may, the way ahead is straightforward. These presently obnoxious provisions need to be rewritten to ensure that the registration process applies only to those third parties who genuinely seek to mount campaigns around the election. The definition of election advertising needs to be reworked to make it clear that it relates only to activities that they undertake that could be seen as seeking to influence voters to vote for a specific party or group of parties. And the $60,000 cap needs to be substantially lifted to enable their campaigns to be somewhat more than token.
Beyond that we should be looking at the disclosure requirements for individual and corporate donations to political parties and whether these are sufficiently transparent. We should also be looking at the provisions regarding official government advertising during election campaigns to make sure this is not covert election advertising. And in the longer term, beyond this current electoral cycle, we should be prepared to consider the vexed question of whether some form of state funding of political parties is the most transparent way to go.
Unless the Electoral Finance Bill is radically rewritten along these lines, Labour will not get the support it needs to pass the legislation. That would leave National simply rubbing its hands with glee that its status quo has been maintained. And the campaign excesses both indulged in during 2005 would be certain to be repeated in 2008.