And with the bad press (much of it deserved) the Electoral Finance Bill has been getting I thought I’d start with some of the good (or at least it bit that might not be as bad as it seems).
Aspects of the new third-party spending regime have sparked substantial controversy – within political ‘blogs, sure, but also Colin Espiner, and within the wider political arena. Labour has been accused of “screwing the scrum” – of setting up a system where they can spend vast sums of Government money during election year extolling the virtues of Government policies like Working for Families or KiwiSaver, which third parties (and political parties) can’t oppose without having that spend count towards their election limits.
But is it as bad as this? It doesn’t look that way to me.
Why? Because, as the law is written, appear to apply third party spending limits to Government advertising!
Not all Government advertising of course (“your tax return is due on July 7” would be safe) but if that advertising “can be reasonably regarded as … taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties is associated or 1 or more candidates is associated” then it fits the definition of “election advertisement” and is regulated in election year.
Now the Government’s realised this is a pretty broad definition, so it’s included some specific exceptions – publications that might otherwise fall within the definition, but which it does not wish to regulate – ‘blogs and newspaper content for example, and this (it’s the important one for our pruposes):
“an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Electoral Commission, or any other agency charged with responsibilities in relation to the conduct of any official publicity or information campaign to be conducted on behalf of the Government of New Zealand and relating to electoral matters or the conduct of any general election or by-election…
[is not an election advertisement]”
The Government has recognised that without this exception, some “don’t forget to vote” literature or the like might be caught (and limited to $60,000), and have specifically crafted an exception for it. But this exception only applies to an “ official publicity or information campaign … relating to electoral matters or the conduct of any … election” and there aren’t any other exceptions for other Government advertising (like Working for Families).
The rule won’t prohibit all Government advertising – if it’s worded in such a way that it’s purely informational (“you can join KiwiSaver by talking to your employer”) it will probably be fine, but if it gets into advocacy, or takes a position, perhaps like this:
“KiwiSaver has unique benefits to make long-term saving easier. It’s also flexible, to suit you at different times in your life.”
or this one:
“One of the best things you can do for your child is to start their education early … From 1 July 2007, three and four-year-olds enrolled in a teacher-led ECE service and some kōhanga reo qualify for up to 20 hours of free early childhood education (ECE)”
or this (pdf):
“Working for Families is a package designed to help make it easier for you to work and raise a family.”
then it could be banned (exactly what might count as taking a position is obviously a grey area) unless the Government department follows the same rules as apply to everyone else (register as a third party, appoint a financial agent, spend no more than $60,000, etc.).
So perhaps it’s not as bad as it looks (we’ll get to the bad bits next).
Graeme Edgeler
Coalition for Open Government
