KEY POINTS:
One of the unfortunate elements of the Electoral Finance Bill introduced to Parliament recently is a provision that aims to regulate political advertising not for the three months to election day, as is the case now, but from the beginning of the election year. Elections in this country are nearly always held in September or October. A nine-month restriction of free speech is unnecessary and probably untenable.
This bill would curb the free speech of any individual or group who wants to promote any social interest that might favour a party or candidate at the election. The provision is Labour's response to the campaign by a group of Exclusive Brethren at the last election. They were primarily concerned at the country's moral drift under Labour and used secretive and dubious tactics to try to influence voters.
The bill will require any campaign costing more than $5000 to identify itself to the Chief Electoral Officer and register its intentions well in advance of the election. It will not be allowed to spend more than $60,000 a year. These sums might sound a lot but in advertising terms they are not. And the net might catch many more social advocacy groups than the Government has realised.
The definition of political advertising has been broadened by the bill from the usual one, material that seeks to persuade people to support a candidate or party, to anything "taking a position with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated". This is fraught with dangers.
Almost any worthy cause is likely to be associated more strongly with one party than another. If, for example, it is an appeal for more state funding of a teaching or caring industry, it will seem to have a Labour flavour; if it promotes a personal freedom or a traditional value, it will be seen as a National plug. The advocacy group may have no partisan intentions and be overjoyed if any party is moved to answer its call, but if its cause is naturally associated with one or some parties, its voice will be severely restricted.
In imposing these electoral spending restrictions from the beginning of election years, the Labour Party might discover it has made more problems for the Government than for any other party or pressure group. Not much material aimed at voters is likely to be published by other parties, or non-parties, more than three months before polling day. It is hard to raise much interest in the issues until the election looms much closer. But the Government will have decisions and programmes it wants to explain.
It, of course, calls that sort of material legitimate information as distinct from party propaganda. But, as the electoral pledge card debacle has illustrated, Labour cannot see the distinction as clearly as the Auditor General and practically everyone else can. Most people sense when information is fair, full and objective, and they recognise political propaganda when they see it.
For those who have difficulty, a rule that controlled material for the duration of an election campaign was a good rule of thumb. Labour could safely assume that anything it wanted to pump out to voters in the month or so before election day was likely to be subject to election spending restriction. The bill would remove that guide. By seeking to limit all political material from the beginning of election year, the Government has made a rod for its own back. It would be ironic if the party is ruled to have spent to its limit by this time next year when the campaign could be just beginning. The party will be able to blame its own exaggerated fears of other's finance. It could be defeated by its own demons.
