KEY POINTS:
Lobby groups say the new regime for campaigning in an election run-up is frustrating and so confusing it's almost impossible for them to know what they can do.
Electoral Commission head Helena Catt has described the law as having a "chilling effect' on political debate in New Zealand,
and several third parties say uncertainty about what is caught in the net of "election advertising" has muted normal public debate in election year.
Most third parties are running conservative campaigns in case they accidentally breach their spending limits by using ads that are later ruled to be election advertising.
Martin Taylor, chief executive of HealthCare Providers, said the lack of clarity meant he had to pull out of running his main election ads.
He said the group had saved its main firepower until this month - but then became concerned that fairly neutral billboards and advertisements earlier in the year could be considered election advertisements and put the group over its $120,000 spending limit.
Mr Taylor said he sought advice from the commission but it would not give a decision, so he decided to pull the second lot of ads, saying it was not worth the risk of going to prison.
Family First's Bob McCroskrie faced the same problem and said he was being careful in case ads he did not believe were election advertising were later found to be so.
"If political parties with all their financial backing and advice can't get it right, how are small advocacy groups supposed to cope? It has made people steer clear of speaking up. Election time should be for full-on debate but all the law has done is take out the voice of the voters and left it to the politicians to say what they think."
His group had to shelve an initial plan for a pamphlet for every household because the cost was twice that of the $120,000 spending cap. Its main focus was the anti-smacking law and "social engineering" policies, as well as others deemed family friendly.
There are also questions about the balance of the political debate surrounding the election - of the 24 registered third parties, nine are unions, giving them a potential spending pool of over $1 million.
There are no business advocacy groups, no Maori groups, and major lobby groups such as Federated Farmers, Grey Power and the Sensible Sentencing Trust have steered clear of the new regime, opting for more muted campaigns on "issues".
Even the major unions are quieter than usual and most do not plan to spend their total amount.
The Council of Trade Unions has mounted the most aggressively political campaign, including advertisements that endorse left-aligned parties, for which it has secured their written authorisation.
But individual unions have been more subdued, although they contribute a strong on-the-ground presence for Labour's campaign in the form of volunteers. CTU national president Helen Kelly said the new rules meant the council had to plan ahead better and watch its budget, but it did not think it would hit its limit.
National Distribution Union national secretary Laila Harre estimated the union's election expenses return would be nil. It had spent about $10,000, but all on internal communications to its members, which was not considered election advertising under the law.
She said the union "listed" as a precaution after the commission raised a warning about some material on its website. She said the effort of obtaining political parties' approval put the union off campaigning more widely than its 20,000 members.
Despite an eight-month struggle to be listed after the National Party objected because it was an affiliate of Labour, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union is also keeping its overt push for Labour "in-house".
National secretary Andrew Little said he did not consider the campaign on workers' rights as election advertising.
Its checklist of workers' rights and analysis of policies will be sent to members next week - and the union had advised it should be read only by members.
The National Union of Public Employees is registered and pushing for fishery officers to be given batons and pepper spray. Its postcard lists parties that support the step.
David Farrar's protest group against the Electoral Finance Act has had the most fun with the new regime - running "attack" billboards deriding those who supported the act. It also used the abilities of National's Iwi/Kiwi billboard mastermind, John Ansell.
Yesterday, it put up his "It's about Trusts" billboards in Tauranga - pillorying Labour's own campaign line and featuring Helen Clark and Winston Peters hand in hand.
Another group registered as a third party is Vote for the Environment, a coalition of entities such as Greenpeace and Forest and Bird which do a comparison and ranking of party policies at each election.
Two other third parties - Mr Farrar and Michael Horton - have listed to oppose the Electoral Finance Act, and the Foundation for Economic Growth wants policies such as lower taxes.
Terence Dell from Mt Maunganui remains a mystery, and the Food Industry Group is on the list, but its chief executive, Vicki Hamilton, said it had no plans to be involved in the election. It had wanted to comment on the Public Health Bill this year and was warned it should take care, so listed.
But the bill was deferred until after the election and so the advertising did not go ahead.
FALLOUT FROM THE NEW ELECTION RULES
CAUTIONARY TALE: Cycling Advocates' Network:
One small advocacy group found out how easy it is to catch the Electoral Commission's eye. The Cycling Advocates' Network has a website and email-based campaign, including posters for download urging people to "make your vote a vote for cycling".
Last week it added the results of its survey of how cycling-friendly parties and candidates were - a survey that concluded in favour of Labour and against National. Soon after, the Electoral Commission contacted them.
Spokesman Stephen McKernon said it would add an authorising statement to its website and change some of its content after the Electoral Commission told him political parties would have to give written approval of claims they were 'pro-cycling'.
"For a little advocacy group, it's a huge hammer for a tiny thing. We're just trying to help cyclists - we're not advocating for a particular party."
Mr McKernon doubted it had spent enough to tip the threshold required for third-party listing - $1000 for a candidate or $12,000 for a party - although it had paid for the design of a logo and poster, which he estimated at nearly $1000. It effectively prevents the group from going any further - the deadline for listing as a 'third party' was 17 October.
ON THIN ICE?
The Post-Primary Teachers' Association was one union that decided not to list, saying it was operating 'business as usual' and its campaign will not breach election rules.
So far it has focused on classroom sizes - ads the Electoral Commission has said are not election ads - but it has indicated this could change if a political party starts to campaign on such a policy.
Federated Farmers has produced a checklist of policies it wants in Election 08 with ticks next to the policies, many of which are held by National. It has no authorising statement on the brochure or its website.
President Don Nicolson said the group was apolitical and did not promote any particular party. He believed its contribution to the election was on issues alone and would not be caught up in election advertising rules.
ONCE BITTEN:
The Employers and Manufacturers Association was referred to the police for an advertisement opposing a law change to stop employers giving more pay in their pay packets to non-KiwiSaver members.
The Commission said the ad - "stop Mallard's attack on workers" - gave the wider perception of discouraging people from voting for Mr Mallard and the Labour Party.
WHERE ARE THEY?
Businesses: Business NZ head Phil O'Reilly says there is a lot less debate from business and trade associations in this election, despite its focus on the economy.
While his organisation stayed out of politics, he suspected other groups which would normally be active did not want to get caught up in it.
"In newspapers, there is next to no interest-group advertisements and usually this is their one chance to get their say in. I think it's an enormously dangerous development."
Religion: The Catholic Church has released a statement outlining principles and values of the church which Catholics might consider when voting, but does not endorse any particular party.
THE RULES: * Only groups listed with the Electoral Commission can spend more than $1000 trying to influence people to vote for or against a candidate or $12,000 on a party in an election year.
* They can spend only up to $4000 on a candidate, or $120,000 on a party.
* Endorsement or support of a particular candidate or party requires their specific approval and must also be included in their spending cap.
* Such advertising can mention the parties by name, or by reference to policies held by specific parties.
