The balloon law
The Electoral Commission met yesterday and released some decisions, and is seeking further information on other cases. What literally had me bursting out with laughter was this statement:
The commission deferred consideration of whether a balloon bearing a party logo and website address was an election advertisement pending Crown Law advice
This is just too funny for words. Crown Law has to give advice on balloons!! Will they be researching overseas precedents concerning balloons? Will they look at other laws around the world which regulate balloons? I mean how will society cope without regulated balloons.
Will Crown Law blow up the balloon, and inspect it from all angles? Will the colour of the balloon be a factor? How about the shape of the balloon? And let us not forget size – at what point does a balloon become a blimp?
The Crown Law advice will normally be signed off by the Solicitor-General. An excellent use of time for the Government’s chief legal advisor!
Audrey Young had referred a number of taxpayer funded items to the Electoral Commission, including said ballons. In their response, they rule:
- Labour broke the law with their “We’re making a difference” booklet as it an election advertisement and lacked an authorisation statement. This may mean that the cost of such booklet (despite being paid for by the taxpayer) should be included in Labour’s expenses return.
- National’s Blue Green Vision did not break the law, as it was not an election advertisement.
- ACT’s “Not your typical party” booklet is an election advertisement, but the lack of authorisation may not have broken the law as it is unsure whether distributing to journalists at a party conference counts as publishing it. Again, this suggests the cost of it should be included in their expense return (less of an issue for ACT as unlikely to reach the $2.4 m limit) unless it qualifies for the parliamentary purposes exemption.
- The Labour Party balloon is having advice sought on it
The Electoral Commission decided not to ask the Police to prosecute Labour for their breach of the Electoral Finance Act, and to use it as an educational example. This is a reasonable decision. It does highlight however that Labour have basically broken their own law. They have also been breaking the law by using a non residential address in their authorisation statements.
The issue of the EPMU’s eligibility to be listed as a third party has been decided, but that decision will not be communicated until next week, after it has been written up in full.