KEY POINTS:
Changes the Government wants to make to electoral law covering party finances are unworkable, a political advertising specialist has told a parliamentary select committee.
Dr Claire Robinson said that under the proposed law, every political party logo published in election year would require the authorising signature of the party's financial agent.
The bill was unworkable and unenforceable and did not reflect "the nature of political communication and electioneering in the modern MMP election campaign".
"We are in an era of the permanent campaign."
Dr Robinson is the head of Massey University's Institute of Communication Design College of Creative Arts. She was appearing before the justice and electoral select committee on the first day of hearings on the Electoral Finance Bill.
She said confining the definition of political advertising to words and graphics was lacking in vision.
"With proliferating channels of communications, rapidly changing technologies and multiple messages competing for attention, the definition of advertisement may also include so much more - a behaviour, a smell, a movement, a location, a physical action, a projection, a shape, a space, a smile, third screen digital and virtual content. Anything may signify an offering. Anything therefore may be constituted as an advertisement."
She agreed with National's Chris Auchinvole that it was "state of the ark" law, not "state of the art".
Questioned by National MP Chris Finlayson, Dr Robinson said parties would find themselves in trouble over the use of their logos in the regulated period.
"A party logo is a very condensed advertisement for a political party. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have it on your car, on your letterhead and on everything like that."
The bill requires all party political advertising to be approved by a financial agent.
"You are going to have to have that signature on every single instance of that party logo being used."
Otago University associate law professor and election law specialist Andrew Geddis said the bill breached the Bill of Rights in regards to the restrictions on third parties' election expenses.
His view opposes that given to the Government by the Crown Law Office.
He accepted that it was a matter of balancing the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the electoral process against measures to counteract the electoral impact of unequal distribution of wealth in society.
Mr Geddis, speaking to the committee through an audio link also criticised the bill for restricting participation of younger people in social and political debate.
No person aged under 18 could register as a third party and no unincorporated body could register as a third party - and be able to publish election advertising - if any of its members were under 18.
"A measure that effectively penalises groups that engage youth in political or social advocacy is in my opinion a retrograde step."
Mr Geddis said the way the bill was written meant any advertisements relating to issues would come under its restrictions.
That meant organisations could accidentally send out messages that would be considered electioneering, and could therefore stop them expressing views shared by any political party.
Had the anti-smacking law change been done in an election year, debate may have been stifled, he said.
"It would be very, very difficult to know which communications around the smacking debate would fall under this definition and which wouldn't."
Electoralfinance Bill
* The bill extends the period of pre-election regulation of political advertising to begin on January 1 of election year, instead of the present three months before an election.
* It places a $60,000 cap on third party campaigning, and broadens the definition of political advertising to include third parties taking a position on a proposition with which one or more parties is associated.
- additional reporting NZPA
