Period of “regulated speech”
Under the Electoral Financing Bill we will have free speech for two years and one month of every three year electoral cycle and “regulated speech” for eleven months when it will be illegal to take a position on a policy proposition associated with a political party unless you are registered and/or don’t spend more than a couple of ads.
So for 30% of our lives, we will live under a regulated speech regime. But will it stop at 30%?
You see the traditional 90 day period which restricts political expenditure has a sensible basis to it. A lot of research shows many people decide during that period. The active intense campaign occurs during that period, and it is also a short enough period of time that one can halt Government and Parliamentary advertising.
But what is the logic for 1 January in election year – 11 months before most elections? Do people suddenly wake up with a New Year Eve’s hangover and start thinking about how to vote? So what is to stop a future Government deciding 11 months of regulated speech is not enough? They may say people start to focus on an election at the halfway point of an electoral term, so let’s ban any advertising over minimal limits for 18 months before an election. I mean it makes as much sense as 11 months.
Then once we get to 50% of our time being regulated speech instead of free speech, a Government can make a case that a new Government is vulnerable to attack while it is getting its feet. If a Government gets off to a bad start, then it may never recover from it (as did Nat/NZF in 1997). So hey we need to protect Government while they are in start up mode. So let’s also regulate criticism of them which involves advertising for their first year in office.
And no doubt at some stage the remaining six months of free speech will be deleted as an anomaly!
Okay I am being dramatic, but there is a very important principle at play here. Any restrictions on freedom of speech should be as minimal as possible, and apply for as short a period as possible, and need the highest standards of proof of necessity.
Now I am now against there being a restricted period. I’ve seen nothing at all to justify extending it from 90 days. The fact National had some billboards is a pathetic excuse. In previous elections I can recall many a Labour advertisement attacking the Government outside the 90 day period.
But the limits proposed are appallingly low. $60,000 over 11 months is miniscule. We have 2.5 million voters. That allows a spend, over 11 months of 2.4c per voter. Per month it is a mere 0.22 of one cent.
That’s not buying elections. Hell that doesn’t even buy a grain of rice.
The answer is not fiddling though with what the limit should be. $100,000 is no more satisfactory than $60,000.
The answer is to have a much shorter period. There is no sound public policy reason to regulate speech for an entire year, during which time the Government is announcing policy and initiatives non stop.
The period should be short enough so that Government spending can also halt during that period.
It is unthinkable that the Government can release a budget with multiple initiatives and any organisation that wants to say bad things about it [clause 5(1)(a)(iii)] on their website [paragraph (g) of the definition of a publication] will need to file a statutory declaration [Clause 53(3)] with their website hosting company that they will not be spending more than $5K [Clause 53(3)(b)] over the year on commenting on Government policies. And if you do want to spend more than $5K in election year on promoting your view on policies, then you need to register to do so.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
This will bring about quite an upsurge in graffiti around cities – freedom of expression will out, whatever
July 25th, 2007 at 11:07 am
.000048 is the approximate cost of a grain of rice in a $1.78 1kg bag, assuming there are 1000 grains per 27 grams.
[DPF: Ha I knew someone would actually calculate it]
July 25th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Strip away one freedom at a time and hope people don’t notice.
We wake up one morning and realise we have given away everything that is important to us. Our fault if we let it happen.
Where is guy fawkes when you need him.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Can someone look up the “Bill of Rights” and say if this trumps this proposed new silly law?
Thanks in advance!
[DPF: No the Bill of Rights will not trump this law.]
July 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Agreed Sofia, like I said in my previous post.
I think a couple of cans of spraypaint, a boxcutter and some cardboard come under the $60,000 mark. Creativity is free too.
Reminds me of a stencil down the Allenby steps:
“
Don BrashJohn Key sez I’m richer, you’re poor, so fuck you!”Charming. Could have used a bit of polish on it though.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I am for once speechless. The Labour government has sunk to a level I could never have imagined.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:31 am
David’s got a good point here. (Also, he’s plainly paying too much for rice). But before we start ranting about free speech, bear in mind that the Crown Law Office has vetted this bill, and says that any restriction on free speech is demonstrably justified. (See http://www.justice.govt.nz/bill-of-rights/bill-list-2007/e-bill/electoral-finance-bill.html). Now, I watch these vets closely because I want to make sure that restrictions on free speech are properly justified. I can say that this vet is more thorough than usual. That doesn’t mean I agree with it, and it doesn’t mean that they’re right. But it does suggest that there are some good arguments on both sides: this isn’t a slam dunk free speech violation. You might note that the Canadian Supreme Court upheld similar third party restrictions. (Importantly, though, those didn’t apply for the whole election year as the government is proposing here.) I think most people – including DPF – agree that reasonable limits can be imposed on third parties spending money to affect the outcome of elections. The question is where to draw the line. The sensible arguments – and DPF is making some of them – are addressed to drawing that line in a better place, not getting rid of it altogether.
[DPF: Yes I am not against there being a time period where there are restrictions. I am not against spending limits. I am strongly against this particular combination. I do think the time period is vital - it does need a logical basis to it. And as I say a period, which can also be mirrored by Govt advertising going to the core minimum. What worries me with 1 Jan on the basis that we have campaigning all year is most people accept we now have a permanent campaign over the whole electoral cycle, so one is setting up an intellectual basis for extending these restrictions further]
July 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
So will the register of people spending money on given issues be used as a “Do not hire” list?
July 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I think you’ll find ‘we’ will have free speech for three years. I presume by ‘we’ you’re referring to taxpayers?
July 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Your hypothetical paedophiles wouldn’t need to form a party, DPF, just stand a single candidate!
July 25th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) and the proposed Electoral Finance Bills would never have raised their ugly heads if the lollowing involved persons had had the guts to do anything about it.
Reproduced here is only part of the letter 08 08 2005 (Pre election) sent to Police Commissioner R Robinson and copy emailed to Members of Parliament, Media, Auditor-General, Serious Fraud Office and Electoral Commission. Most in the Service of the Crown
“I allege the Labour Government’s announced Labour Party Policy second key election pledge:
“No further interest will be charged for those with student loans who reside in New Zealand” constitutes breaches of Sections of the Crimes Act 1961.
This public pledge by a political party organisation to use taxpayer money to seek to advantage a section of the community over other sections of the community, is conditional on that organisation’s nominated representatives being elected to Parliament and becoming the Government. Thus it seeks support from students and intending students, their parents and grandparents by pledging monetary gain, in return for their vote in order to bring this pledge to fruition. This promised action constitutes Bribery, as a Bribe promises, offers or gives something esp money to (a person) to procure services or gain influence in return. It is a reward, such as money given or offered for this purpose. In this case it is in the form of an interest free loan. It also advantages the Labour Party to the disadvantage of other Political Parties. At present Members of Parliament in the Service of the Crown and paid by the Crown are extolling the merits of the scheme and thus by this massive bribe of Crown money, are seeking to return to Parliament. The outcome of the election is affected by this alleged, Illegal, fraudulent proposal.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
DPF: You are right. People may get around the rules by criticising the Labour Party in advertising in August, September, October, Novemeber and December of this year. It makes sense to extend the new laws back to today’s date. Clark will be grateful to you for pointing this out. Well done.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
mebe we go to jail for saying
LABOUR HELENGRAD DEAD
reintroduce them seditionary conspiratorial act for saying thing,
mn and girls,
July 25th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
In the 2005 General Election, only 47 of the top 120 spending electorate candidates won their seat.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
Section 14 [Freedom of expression],/b>
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
This does not preclude comment in the internet which makes the dissemination of information very cheap. But there should be a shut-down in the Government publicity machine in the run-up to the election except for very narrow purposes with the Auditor General approving payment
July 25th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
What does the Liarbour’s precious United Nations bill on human rights have to say on this sort of issue?
Having said that given the way the UN works Dear Leader will probably be on top of the UN shit pile if she pulls this one off, instant promotion.
I suggest we all fill our lungs with a breath of fresh air, no sorry didn’t work, the stench of opression is still thick in the air.