Geddis on Herald Campaign
Professor Andrew Geddis talks about the Electoral Finance Bill. First he notes the four major problems with how Labour has gone about this:
- First, the failure to consult with opposition parties before introducing the Bill to the House leaves it vulnerable to allegations of partisanship. Electoral law should not be, nor be seen to be, a vehicle for one party to gain an advantage over others.
- Second, there was inadequate consideration of the Bill’s effect on the individual rights affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Consequently, the original measures introduced into the House contained what are now widely agreed to be excessive restrictions on free speech.
- Third, by failing to address the problem of large, anonymous donations to political parties, the Bill ignored one of the most pressing problems with our electoral process. The fact it imposes significant restrictions on fundraising by all other electoral participants makes this basic failure even worse.
- Finally, the failure to address problems with parliamentary and governmental advertising in a way that is consistent with the Bill’s provisions raises legitimate concerns about incumbent advantage at election time.
Geddis goes on to then say that it is reasonable to have some restrictions on third party advertising:
We also should remember that the issue of third party spending does not exist in a vacuum. It is rather a part of an overall system of regulating the conduct of election campaigns in New Zealand; along with the role money plays in these.
Our current rules place a range of restrictions on the use of money to try to bring about a particular result at election time. Using cash to bribe voters, or treat them to food and drink, has been unlawful since 1858. Individual candidates have faced limits on their total campaign expenses since 1895. Limits on political party election spending have existed since 1995.
And I agree with him. The problem is that Labour has soiled it by breaking all the conventions, as alluded to in point one. It is writing the rules for pure partisan gain. It is seeking to legalise its illegal activities from 2005, and has shut the public and non supporting parties out of the pre-legislative process.
The dirty sordid deal on anonymous donations between Labour and the Greens shows that it is a bill not based on what is good for the public, or for democracy. It is a blatant attempt to screw the scrum to help get re-elected.
The precedent it will set, if the bill is passed, is horrible. The Electoral Act will be up for grabs every election. How could anyone on the left criticise National if they do the reverse of what Labour has done this time? Sure John Key has pledged to do the right thing and have some sort of Royal Commission of Inquiry make recommendations on the big issues. But National would be 100% justified to do what Labour has done and design a bill in secret with its allies. Do people really want the governing party after every election secretly negotiating changes to the Electoral Act to screw over their critics and opponents?