KEY POINTS:
The Law Society says the Electoral Finance Bill is irredeemable and should not proceed.
On the eve of the committee stage of the controversial bill, the Law Society said it stood by its submission, which called for the legislation to be completely thrown out.
The society makes submissions on most new legislation, but in a very rare move it wants the bill to be completely thrown out.
"There is no one part of the bill that is problematic," the submission reads. "Rather, the bill in its current form is a flawed attempt to achieve a legitimate social objective. Its cumulative defects make it irredeemable - the bill ought not to proceed. Instead, the issue should be approached afresh."
John Marshall, the society's president, said at the time that he supported the bill's purposes but that it had "serious defects that meant it would not achieve those purposes".
The society pointed at about 20 issues which it said showed why the bill should not succeed.
An overly long restricted period, unduly low spending limits and an unfair third party regime, all put an unacceptable restriction on free speech, it said.
And people could unwittingly break the law simply by participating in debates on election issues.
"The rules regarding registration, disclosure, spending limits and related offences are so complex, vague and uncertain as to make participation in our parliamentary democracy an arduous and perhaps even legally dangerous undertaking for ordinary New Zealanders," Mr Marshall said.
The bill aims to make political funding and third party campaigns more transparent, by requiring clear information on who is behind "election advertisements", setting a $60,000 spending limit for third-party campaigns in an election year, and requiring more disclosure of donations.
"Legislation such as this, which goes to the heart of our democratic system of government, should be broadly accepted both within Parliament and in the wider community. The controversy surrounding this bill shows it does not have that broad acceptance," Mr Marshall said.
The society said transparency for donations and third party activity were necessary but the bill did not achieve the right balance between those restrictions and requirements, and the objective of the promotion of participation by the public in parliamentary democracy.
