Herald on effects of Electoral Finance Act

The Herald’s editorial uses the case of Andy Moore’s Don’t Vote Labour website to remind people why it opposed the Electoral Finance Act:

Barely a week into the year and the Electoral Finance Act has bared its teeth. The body charged with policing the act, the Electoral Commission, has contacted a 21-year-old about his website, named “dontvotelabour”. He was told he had to put his name and address on the site.

Is this going to be the story of the year: constant vigilance of any form of public speech to ensure it complies with all 148 clauses of the act? How absurd that New Zealanders can no longer make a political statement in an election year without satisfying a welter of petty regulation.

Indeed.  The EFA extends the regulated period from around 8% of an electoral cycle to a massive 30%.  It also extends what is considered a regulated election advertisement from paid advertising to basically any form of written advocacy for or against a party.

… Andrew Moore, whose site has come to the commission’s attention, would prefer not to put his home address on his site partly to protect his family. Why does he have to?

… It is outrageous that they even need to concern themselves with such rules. When people come to wonder what has happened to a freedom they once took for granted, the answer is seldom a single, memorable edict. It is more often a hundred trifling rules, requirements and restrictions, each defensible within the logic of the law but together oppressive in their effect.

Fortunately the Government’s attempt to monitor political expression will not long outlast its lease on power. But if the commission continues as it has started, the spectacle will be ridiculous.

I actually feel very sorry for the Electoral Commission.  Their job is to enforce the law, not to write it. They, and the Chief Electoral Officer, acted bravely in 2005 by referring Labour to the Police for over-spending.  They take their job very seriously of running fair and undisputed elections.  Of course it doesn’t mean they are beyond criticism and like anyone can’t make mistakes, but I’ve dealt with various electoral agencies over the years and they try to be scrupulously fair and professional.

They’re a bit damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  If a breach of the law is made known to them, and especially is very public, then if they do not take action they can be criticised for allowing people to choose which parts of the law they obey.  And if they do take action, they get seen as the bad guys.