Principles Must Continue to Guide as We Work Out Electoral Finance Details

“The way the Government defines ‘election advertising’ will have a significant impact on political participation—a central aspect of New Zealand’s democracy,” says Alex Penk, Policy and Research Manager at Maxim Institute. “This means the Government will need to proceed with caution when it fleshes out this definition.”

Commenting on the electoral finance proposals released today, Mr Penk says, “A definition that is too broad will stop people participating—speaking out about issues they care about—as we saw under the Electoral Finance Act. The Government’s proposal sounds reasonable—covering ‘campaigning that seeks to influence voting behaviour by encouraging or persuading voters, or appearing to encourage or persuade them to vote in a particular way.’ But it’s crucial that when the legislation is actually drafted, the second part of this doesn’t spill over to prevent discussion of important political issues. People need to be free to comment and debate without fearing an unreasonable or complex law.”

“Because of this, we welcome the announcement that members of the public, and others, will be able to go to the Electoral Commission for advice on whether something is election advertising. We are also pleased that it will be a defence to a prosecution that someone relied ‘in good faith’ on this advice. In practical terms, this will make the regime more workable and provide some comfort for smaller players at election time—those who care about the issues at stake, but don’t have the resources to hire lawyers and negotiate complex laws,” says Penk.

“The details of the regime will require careful consideration when legislation is introduced. The guiding principle for working out the details must be the importance of free public participation in the democratic process,” says Alex Penk.

ENDS

© Scoop Media