KEY POINTS:
One year ago today, the Herald launched an intense five-week focus on the threat to democracy of the Electoral Finance Act, its unprecedented restrictions on free speech and clamp on election year expression. The weekend's change of government now gives the National Party, which promised to repeal the law, the opportunity to do so. It must undertake the task with great care.
Repealing the act is not on the incoming government's list of priorities for the first 100 days in office, nor need it be. As it stands, the law's anti-democratic provisions do not come into effect again until January 1, 2011, barring a snap election. National and Act, which also stood boldly against the EFA and has in its caucus the campaigner John Boscawen, need to avoid the failings in intent, drafting, consultation and haste which produced such bad law.
The measure passed, hurriedly and unsatisfactorily, into law in a Parliament split down the middle. It was a rare change to electoral law not subject to traditional consultation across parties. Its restrictions applied to all citizens all year until the general election last Saturday, rather than the three months before previous polls. As predicted it had a chilling effect on discussion of public issues, led to court challenges and generally dampened political advocacy. At its core, it sought to protect the interests of the incumbent parties while regulating spending by private individuals and organisations
So how to put it right? Even the previous Government had begun a review of electoral finance, albeit in the hands of publicly funded academics. A people's assembly - an idea from the Greens who helped create the current mess - was then to consider and recommend change. This process should now be halted. The academics could play some part but the Law Commission, which was first ignored then unsuccessfully co-opted to the justice select committee when things started to go wrong, should be National's first port of call.
The party will need to set aside its own partisanship to engage a commission led by former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer. If it cannot do even that what hope is there for honourable reform? Sir Geoffrey has a commitment to freedom of expression influenced by many years in the United States. His parliamentary reforms checked unbridled power of the executive. Critically, he is the architect of our Bill of Rights Act, section 14 of which says, resoundingly: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." That, of course, should include election year. It may be that an inquiry would involve the Electoral Commission, Human Rights Commission and Law Society, all of whom stood against aspects of this law. Public consultation would be the place for political parties to advance their views.
Any new bill would then need wide consultation among elected parties before a measured progress through a select committee and its stages in the House. National must reach out to Labour and other parties, making good on its severe criticism of them last time. While there is no immediate urgency, such a process needs to be under way next year, not rushed through in the days before Christmas in the penultimate year of the cycle.
The restricted period should not be the entire election year, the law should set far higher advertising spending limits for citizens in relation to incumbent political parties, removing the onerous obligations for registration with the state and it should eliminate all secret funding of parties. Broader changes to state-funded broadcasting and use of parliamentary funds must also be considered.
Only then will the chill be lifted, the stain on our democratic freedoms be removed.
