Coalition For Open Government, New Zealand

COG supports opening up the sources of finance of third parties, and making sure everyone knows who’s behind election advertising, so people can make informed decisions about what’s accurate, what’s not and how much attention we should pay to any view. We want reasonable limits on third party advertising, because we think there should be a level playing field, and having the potential for individuals to spend more money than political parties doesn’t make sense. The figures are debatable – we think $60,000 is probably too low, and 10 or 11 months too long – but the idea is a reasonable one.

Some reform is needed, but what of the Government’s proposal?

It’s bad. And while I spent my last post on how it’s arguably not as bad as it looks, this one (and maybe a couple to come) will look at how it’s worse than than even those opposed to it have been saying.

So people will be limited to spending $60,000 on political advertising in an election year – is that so bad? How many people’s speech will this limit actually affect? I certainly couldn’t afford to spend $60,000 on advertising in a year. How many people have ever tried it? Last time ’round – when it was perfectly legal – there was the Exclusive Brethren, and maybe the unions (most of them couldn’t have been far over $60,000 ‘though) were there many others? I don’t remember them. Some small campaigns, but not $60,000+.

So? Bad?

Yes, because it’s not even close to that simple – for a whole lot of reasons.

First, the $60,000 limit only applies if you’ve registered as a third party with the Chief Electoral Officer. If you don’t register (or can’t register!) then the limit’s $5000.

So who can register as a third party (and qualify for the increased limit)?

There are three basic categories:

• registered electors
• New Zealand bodies corporate (basically companies or incorporated societies)
• Unincorporated bodies whose members are all registered electors

And the following are, quite sensibly, expressly excluded:

• political parties
• electorate candidates
• list candidates
• financial agents of parties or candidates (these are new to our electoral law – they’re a good innovation I’ll likely get to in a later post)

Obviously there are some implicit exclusions too. People who can’t enrol to vote, for example – individuals under 18, foreigners and others without permanent residency etc. And foreign companies or societies. A maximum limit of $5000 applies to all of these, with no prospect of applying to become a third party with a $60,000 limit.

Foreign companies, I can understand, and foreigners, I can mostly understand that (Canada bans these completely). But New Zealand 17 year-olds – is there really a rationale for banning them for entering the political discourse?

But perhaps I’m overstating my objection – what 17 year-old is going to want to spend more than $5000 anyway? Well, that may be true, but here’s the big problem – unincorporated bodies only qualify to register as third parties (with that financial limit set $55,000 higher) if all their members are registered electors.

If your group is an official incorporated society then you’re fine – you can register as a third party – but if it’s not and you’ve got 17 year-olds who are members, or international students, then you can’t. And your limit’s $5000 from January 1 in election year until the election.

And that’s a whole bunch a political groups. The big ones – a Greenpeace or Amnesty are incorporated – but lots aren’t. We’re not, for example, ‘though the Coalition for Open Government is “lucky” not to have any 17 year-olds at the moment, and our foreigner is an Australian entitled to vote.

And a lot of churches. Some might be incorporated societies, but the vast majority likely have their property owned through a charitable trust, with the actual membership structure unincorporated.

Does your church have 17 year-old members? Or members who are in New Zealand on work or study visas? Maybe your church provides ministry to prisoners? (people in prison for more than 3 years can’t enrol to vote) If so, your church isn’t limited to $60,000, it’s limited to $5000.

What do you think the reasonable market value of the advertising for the Sallies’ “We’re All In This Together” campaign might be? Because poverty is a political issue – our parties are fighting over who’ll do the most to combat it – and asking people to do something about poverty is highly political advertising. I don’t know the cost; but if it’s over $5000, you may not see that campaign next year.

Graeme Edgeler
Coalition for Open Government