Start Over says Human Rights Commission
After publicity about how the Select Committee was not going to let the Human Rights Commission be heard from, they did get to do an oral submission today in a special session. I’ll quote from the NZPA article:
The Human Rights Commission told a select committee considering the Government’s Electoral Finance Bill that the impact of measures in the bill could have a deadening effect on democracy.
The commission wants the bill scrapped and started again.
If it has to stay wants to see the present three-month regulatory period limiting election spending kept instead of increasing it to the whole of an election year;
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan said the cumulative effect of the measures in the bill meant it was incompatible with the Bill of Rights.
Active participation in the political process was vital to democracy and the bill’s provisions could stifle legitimate debate and political contributions for nearly a third of the electoral cycle, she said.
Prime Minister Helen Clark has previously indicated there could be changes to the definitions of electoral advertising, spending thresholds and time limitations. But Ms Noonan said any changes needed to be consulted on and the best way to do it was with a new bill.
“The commission’s preference is and remains that the … bill is withdrawn and redrafted to take into account the very substantial and in depth submissions of the over 600 submitters to this committee.”
The commission also thought there was an issue around the benefits the party in power had during election campaigns; advantages included being the mouthpiece of policy and having the infrastructure of government.
Incidentially Chief Commissioner Ros Noonan is a former Head of the NZEI Union and a former CTU official. Not someone who would go out of their way to over-hype how bad a Government bill is.
In their press release, they also deal with what to do if the Select Committee ignores the plea to drop the Bill and introduce a new one.
If the Committee decided to proceed by simply amending the bill, it was imperative that members of the public are given a further opportunity to scrutinise it and make submissions before it is referred back to Parliament, Ms Noonan said.
This is the challenge for Peter Dunne. If he ignores the advice of the Human Rights Commission that it is imperative that members of the public are given an opportunity to scrutinise and submit on a revised bill, then he will be guilty of standing up for Human Rights in Taiwan, but not in New Zealand. Dunne has said the bill need radical rewriting. I agree. And any radically different bill needs to have public scrutiny and input into it. Especially one that restricts the rights of the public to criticise or campaign against MPs. That makes it even more crucial there is public input.