Before you believe Nationals vehement remarks wbout the finance bill, and how it erodes free speech why don’t you read it for yourself.
Electoral Finance Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|Electoral Finance Act 2007|
|Parliament of New Zealand
|Long title:||The purpose of this Act is to strengthen the law governing electoral financingand broadcasting, in order to- (a) maintain public and political confidence in the administration of elections; and (b) promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy; and (c) prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes; and (d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in election activities in order to minimise the perception of corruption; and (e) ensure that the controls on the conduct of electoral campaigns- (i)are effective; and (ii) are clear; and (iii) can be efficiently administered, complied with, and enforced.|
|Introduced by:||Hon. Mark Burton, 26 July 2007|
|Date passed:||27 July 2007 (First reading)
22 November 2007 (Second Reading)
18 December 2007 (Third Reading)
|Date of Royal Assent:||19 December 2007|
|Commencement:||20 December 2007|
|Related legislation:||Electoral Act 1993|
|Status: Current legislation|
The Electoral Finance Act 2007 is a controversial enactment regarding electoral finance law in New Zealand. The Act was introduced by the current Labour Government partly in response to the 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy, in particular third-party campaigns.
The Act amended numerous areas of New Zealand electoral law. Principally, and most controversially, it proposes regulation of “third party” election campaigns
Third party campaigns
The Act makes it illegal for anyone to spend more than NZ$12,000 criticising or supporting a political party or taking a position on any political matter, or more than NZ$1,000 criticising or supporting an individual member of parliament, without first registering with a state agency, the Electoral Commission.
The Act as introduced required that unregistered third parties file statutory declarations before publishing election advertisements.
The Act originally limited the spending of registered third parties on political advertising to $60,000, but this was later increased to $120,000 by the Select Committee.
The regulation of third parties also extends to their finances. The Act requires that third parties disclose all donations they receive over $5000. Anonymous donations third parties receive over this level must be given to the State.
The Act extends the “regulated period” for election campaigning from the current 90-day period to begin on January 1 of election year – from three months to around ten, depending on the timing of the election. This is the period within which electoral advertising must follow election rules, and the period over which the spending limits apply. This regulated period applies to individual candidates, political parties and third parties.
The Coalition for Open Government, a group that advocates the reform of election finance law in New Zealand, opposed parts of the Act, particularly the failure of the Act to ban secret donations to political parties, given the strong financial disclosure requirements the Act placed on third parties.
The broad definition “election advertisement” came in for particular criticism. Critics, including the New Zealand Law Society, Catholic charity Caritas, and the Royal New Zealand Forest and Bird Society argued the definition will catch not just electoral speech, but almost all political speech – including things like placards at protest marches.
The parliamentary opposition, the right-wing National Party, also opposed the Act. Political commentator Matthew Hooton argued that the Bill should not proceed, and that the Minister of Justice is a “danger to democracy“. On 6 October 2007, a group known as the Free Speech Coalition was formed by prominent right-wing bloggers David Farrar and Cameron Slater, and Bernard Darnton, leader of the Libertarianz Party, to oppose the Act. Generally speaking, support and opposition for the legislation has followed predictable ideological and philosophical cleavages. The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society and NORML New Zealand, and theDirect Democracy Party of New Zealand also oppose the bill.
However political commentator Chris Trotter had harsh criticism of the detractors of the Act in several opinion pieces in The Dominion Post he wrote in the 17 August Dominion-Post,”let’s just take a deep breath and examine the rules that govern election spending in Britain and Canada (countries which, the last time I looked, were still counted among the world’s leading democracies). In Britain, “third party” expenditure is capped at 5 per cent of the expenditure authorised for political parties in the 12 months prior to polling day.
In Canada the figure is 1 per cent, but applies only to the period of official campaigning. (Mr Bur¬ton is proposing a cap of 2.5 per cent or $60,000 for 10 months.) In both Britain and Canada, third parties are required to register with the official electoral regulators; both countries also restrict the contributions of foreign donors to third parties; and both require the identity of third party donors to be made public. That is how modern democracies conduct themselves.
But, in New Zealand, it is still acceptable (at least to the National Party) for those with the most money to have the most say.”
On 17 November 2007 a protest in Auckland against the Act, organised by John Boscawen with ties to the Business Roundtable think-tank, drew over 2,000 protestors. A second Auckland protest, on 1 December 2007, drew a crowd of around 5,000 protestors. Smaller protests were also held in Wellington and Christchurch.
The Electoral Finance Bill was introduced on 23 July 2007 by Minister of Justice Mark Burton, who said at the introduction of the Bill “The package of reforms introduced to Parliament will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy, and aims to clean up New Zealand’s electoral system and protect it from abuse.”
Bill of Rights
Under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Attorney-General must advise Parliament at the introduction of a bill if that bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Crown Law Office, which undertook the review, concluded that the Bill was consistent with the Bill of Rights. The National Business Review described Crown Law’s opinion as “…one of the worst, most politically expedient calls on New Zealand human rights legislation in memory.”
The Bill passed its first reading on 27 July 65 votes to 54 with the Labour, Greens, NZ First, United Future and Progressive voting in favour, with the National Party, Māori Party and independents Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field voting against the Bill. ACT failed to vote. The legislation was sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, with agreement from MPs to extend the membership of the committee for consideration of the bill to include members from almost all Parliamentary parties. The Committee’s report on the Bill is due by January 25, 2008.
Public submissions on the Bill closed on 7 September 2007. Radio New Zealand reported on 31 August that the Government has now indicated it may write to the Committee indicating it intends to make unspecified changes to the parts of the legislation dealing with third parties. This would prevent the Committee from hearing criticism of the existing provisions and allow the Government to introduce changes during the Committee of the Whole House without the public being able to make submissions on the new provisions. Prime Minister Helen Clark has, however, denied this.
Investigative journalist Nicky Hager, author of The Hollow Men, submitted in favour of the need for changes to New Zealand Electoral Law. The New Zealand Law Society, and the New Zealand Human Rights Commission submitted against the Bill.
These changes included:
- Increasing the cap on total third party spending in from $60,000 to $120,000;
- Increasing the cap on election advertising before they have to register under the new law from $5,000 to $12,000;
- Changing the definition of election advertising;
- Increasing the corruption penalties to $100,000 fine;
The Bill was put to a second reading vote on 22 November 2007. The Bill passed 65 votes to 54, with Labour, New Zealand First, the Greens, United Future, and the Progressive Party supporting the Bill. National, ACT, the Māori Party, and independents Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field voted against it, the Māori party pledging only two votes out of the four seats it holds.
Committee of the whole House
The Committee of the whole House stage began on 3 December 2007.
The Bill passed its third reading on 18 December 2007. The Bill passed 63 for and 57 against, with the National Party, the Maori Party, ACT, United Future and independent MP Taito Phillip Field voting against and Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First and Progressive voting for. Independent MP Gordon Copeland did not vote.
- 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy
- Campaign finance reform
- Constitution of New Zealand
- Electoral system of New Zealand
- Exclusive Brethren
- New Zealand Parliament – Text of the Electoral Finance Bill
- Knowledge Basket – Clause by clause analysis of the Bill; Full text of the Bill
- Coalition for Open Government- supports Electoral Finance Bill
- Kill the Bill Campaign- opposes Electoral Finance Bill
- Andrew Geddis: Electoral Law in New Zealand: Policy and Practice: Wellington: Lexis-Nexis: 2007: ISBN 9780408718367
- Nicky Hager: The Hollow Men: An Exercise in Political Deception: Nelson: Craig Potton: 2006: ISBN 187733362X
- ^ a b c Electoral Finance Bill. New Zealand Parliament (19 December 2007). Retrieved on 2007–12-19.
- ^ a b Matthew Hooton (12 August 2007). Justice minister is a danger to democracy. Sunday Star-Times. Retrieved on 2007–07-12.
- ^ Audrey Young (14 April 2007). Electoral law review lacks credibility thanks to process. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved on 2007–08-13.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Electoral bill no one wants. New Zealand Herald (11 August 2007).
- ^ Lobby Groups Unhappy With Electoral Finance Bill. Newswire (24 July 2007).
- ^ Free Speech Coalition (6 October 2007). Kill the Bill: Kill The Bill Campaign Launched!!. Retrieved on 2007–10-07.
- ^ Electoral bill ‘backward step’ – Law Society. New Zealand Herald (28 September 2007).
- ^ Rebecca Lewis (18 November 2007). Protest against Electoral Finance Bill. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved on 2007–11-18.
- ^ Protestors send a strong message. New Zealand Herald (3 December 2007). Retrieved on 2007–12-04.
- ^ Hon. Mark Burton (23 July 2007). Electoral finance changes announced. New Zealand Government. Retrieved on 2007–08-13.
- ^ Electoral Finance Bill: Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Crown Law Office (26 June 2007). Retrieved on 2007–06-10.
- ^ Crony Watch special: the Sims. National Business Review (4 October 2007). Retrieved on 2007–06-10.
- ^ Strong Reservations Over Electoral Finance Bill. Radio New Zealand (31 August 2007).
- ^ Government open to suggestions for electoral finance reform. New Zealand Herald (4 September 2007).
- ^ MPs told bill would not stop Brethren campaigns. NZPA (20 September 2007). Retrieved on 2007–07-10.
- ^ Submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Electoral Finance Bill. New Zealand Law Society (4 September 2007). Retrieved on 2007–07-10.
- ^ a b Reported by the Justice and Electoral Committee. New Zealand Parliament (19 November 2007). Retrieved on 2007–12-04.
- ^ Ministerial List for Announcement on 31 October 2007 (DOC). New Zealand Government (31 October 2007). Retrieved on 2007–12-04.
- ^ Revamp of finance bill removes ‘unintended consequences’. New Zealand Herald (19 November 2007). Retrieved on 2007–12-04.
- ^ a b Electoral Finance Bill passes 2nd reading (22 November 2007). Retrieved on 2007–12-04.
- ^ Controversial Electoral Finance Bill passed. Radio New Zealand (18 December 2007). Retrieved on 2007–12-18.