Period of “regulated speech”

Under the Electoral Financing Bill we will have free speech for two years and one month of every three year electoral cycle and “regulated speech” for eleven months when it will be illegal to take a position on a policy proposition associated with a political party unless you are registered and/or don’t spend more than a couple of ads.

So for 30% of our lives, we will live under a regulated speech regime. But will it stop at 30%?

You see the traditional 90 day period which restricts political expenditure has a sensible basis to it.  A lot of research shows many people decide during that period.  The active intense campaign occurs during that period, and it is also a short enough period of time that one can halt Government and Parliamentary advertising.

But what is the logic for 1 January in election year – 11 months before most elections?  Do people suddenly wake up with a New Year Eve’s hangover and start thinking about how to vote?  So what is to stop a future Government deciding 11 months of regulated speech is not enough?  They may say people start to focus on an election at the halfway point of an electoral term, so  let’s ban any advertising over minimal limits for 18 months before an election.  I mean it makes as much sense as 11 months.

Then once we get to 50% of our time being regulated speech instead of free speech, a Government can make a case that a new Government is vulnerable to attack while it is getting its feet.  If a Government gets off to a bad start, then it may never recover from it (as did Nat/NZF in 1997).  So hey we need to protect Government while they are in start up mode.   So let’s also regulate criticism of them which involves advertising for their first year in office.

And no doubt at some stage the remaining six months of free speech will be deleted as an anomaly!

Okay I am being dramatic, but there is a very important principle at play here.  Any restrictions on freedom of speech should be as minimal as possible, and apply for as short a period as possible, and need the highest standards of proof of necessity.

Now I am now against there being a restricted period.  I’ve seen nothing at all to justify extending it from 90 days.  The fact National had some billboards is a pathetic excuse. In previous elections I can recall many a Labour advertisement attacking the Government outside the 90 day period.

But the limits proposed are appallingly low.  $60,000 over 11 months is miniscule.  We have 2.5 million voters.  That allows a spend, over 11 months of 2.4c per voter.  Per month it is a mere 0.22 of one cent.

That’s not buying elections.  Hell that doesn’t even buy a grain of rice.

The answer is not fiddling though with what the limit should be.  $100,000 is no more satisfactory than $60,000.

The answer is to have a much shorter period.  There is no sound public policy reason to regulate speech for an entire year, during which time the Government is announcing policy and initiatives non stop.

The period should be short enough so that Government spending can also halt during that period.

It is unthinkable that the Government can release a budget with multiple initiatives and any organisation that wants to say bad things about it [clause 5(1)(a)(iii)] on their website [paragraph (g) of the definition of a publication] will need to file a statutory declaration [Clause 53(3)] with their website hosting company that they will not be spending more than $5K [Clause 53(3)(b)] over the year on commenting on Government policies.  And if you do want to spend more than $5K in election year on promoting your view on policies, then you need to register to do so.