KEY POINTS:
In a damning submission on the Electoral Finance Bill, the usually conciliatory Human Rights Commission says the bill should be withdrawn, describing it as a "dramatic assault" on fundamental human rights.
It says the bill "undermines the legitimacy of political processes".
The two specific rights most seriously affected by the bill were freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.
"The bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn," the submission says.
If it were not withdrawn, it required radical change.
The commission is viewed as a liberal agency of state that rarely uses such strong language against anyone, let alone Government proposals.
But it has joined a stream of organisations and individuals who are criticising the bill, which is before the justice and electoral select committee.
Teacher unions the Post Primary Teachers' Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute yesterday criticised the bill for its restrictions on third parties.
The bill extends the period of regulated political advertising from three months before an election to almost the entire election year.
It widens the definition of political advertising to capture any person or group that takes a position on a proposition taken by a political party or candidate.
And it sets spending limits for such third parties ($5000 for individuals and $60,000 for organisations), requires them to register, appoint financial agents and to file returns.
The commission says: "The bill requires a degree of finance literacy and sophistication that some candidates might not have, which would ... limit their participation."
It believes that an unintended consequence of the bill would be to muzzle any person or group not registered as a third party from responding to criticism.
It used the example of an ethnic group which may have drawn negative comments from a political party.
Like many others, the commission is at odds with a Crown Law opinion which said the bill did not breach the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
"An informed electorate is in the public interest and the inroads on freedom of expression which will result from the bill are disproportionate."
The commission has yet to present its views to the select committee, which is working overtime to hear submitters.
The committee sat in Wellington yesterday.
Most submitters have no problem with regulating political advertising before an election but take issue with how far the bill goes.
Wellington lawyer Graeme Edgeler told the committee that the provisions requiring candidates and parties to appoint financial agents might insulate parties and MPs from prosecution and put more emphasis on the rules.
He also believed that the bill had implications for spending by Government advertising in elections and that there should be "extra vigilance".
