Court fails to overturn Climate Voter decision

Climate Voter is a campaign by six NGOs to put climate change on the agenda this election. Photo / Greenpeace NZ

The High Court has declined to rule on whether Climate Voter's website is election advertising but has reversed the classification of a separate Greenpeace campaign.

Climate Voter - a joint campaign by Greenpeace, Forest and Bird, Oxfam, WWF, 350 Aotearoa, and Generation Zero - asks people to sign up to vote in this year's general election based on candidates' and parties' climate change policy.

Nearly 60,000 people have signed up since the campaign's launch in June 2014 and the group has said over 13,000 people watched its political debate last week.

The Electoral Commission had advised the campaign that its website was election advertising, which would require it to comply with certain legal requirements.

It made the same decision for a separate Greenpeace campaign that used a parody version of Energy Minister Simon Bridges' website to oppose deep sea drilling.

The groups involved challenged both decisions in the High Court, arguing that non-partisan civil society groups should not be captured by the Electoral Act.

In a decision released yesterday, Justice Cameron Mander said Greenpeace's spoof website was not election advertising as - among other reasons - it did not refer to the election.

He declined to rule on whether or not the Climate Voter website was an election advertisement, in part because its content was constantly changing.

"It is to be acknowledged that the website does not seek to discriminate between parties that fall into the category of wanting to take real action on climate change."

However, he said, some content could "reasonably be regarded" as encouraging viewers to vote for parties that would put in place particular strategies.

A live feed of the campaign's Twitter account also "identifies and highlights parties who have not provided answers, or which highlight a lack of engagement".

The organisations behind Climate Voter said they were "vindicated" by the ruling.

Climate Voter's lawyer Matthew Palmer QC said it confirmed its core argument that normal issues-based advocacy should not come under the Electoral Act.

"It upholds the right for websites to promote an issue as long as they do not encourage people to vote for or against a party or type of party."

The group said it would look at the parts of the website flagged by the court.

The Electoral Commission said the court had confirmed that the version of the website it had considered was an election advertisement under the Electoral Act.

It said it would "carefully consider the judgment and its implications" and would not make further comment until that was completed.

Like what you see? For weekly Element news sign up to our newsletter. We're also on Facebook and Twitter.