Parliamentary Service proposes to limit pre-election spending
The Ministry of Justice has just released to me (thanks to the officials) under the OIA the background papers on electoral finance proposals to date. Still working my way through them, but one stands out as interesting.
It is a paper from the Parliamentary Service dated 2 September 2009 on aligning the definitions of what is election advertising for both parliamentary and Electoral Act purposes.
It reveals that the Parliamentary Service proposes that the standard definition of explicit electioneering (for purpose of being able to use parliamentary funding) will continue to be narrowly defined (the status quo is no explicit solicitation of votes, money or members) but that during the regulated period this will change to a broader persuasive definition.
This is a very good move, as it would not allow pledge cards and the like to be funded during the regulated period. In fact it would prevent parliamentary funding (during the regulated period) any publications that might be seen to persuade someone to support a party.
This is in the fact the position I have long advocated. It would be too restrictive to have the broader definition through the entire three year electoral cycle (it would be unworkable and probably ban MPs newsletters) but once you get close to an election, then any material which is persuasive would not be allowed.
Now this is only the proposal of the Parliamentary Service, and has yet to be adopted by the Parliamentary Service Commission itself. Hopefully they will do so.
If the regulated period is set to start 1 August in election year, it would mean the status quo applies up until 1 August 2011, but after 1 August 2011 the Parliamentary Service could refuse to approve funding for any material that is seen to be persuading people to support a party. This will limit a party’s ability to use taxpayer money to find their election campaigns.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
This doesn’t go far enough, the total amount of public funding available to a party should be inversely proportional to the number of rich pricks in and associated with the party
December 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
This is an excellent proposal. I hope it is put into effect.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I am not sure if I understand this but I think it would be far better if parliamentary funding is treated as being PART of the regulated spend even though it would still need approval for parliamentary purposes. I also think parliamentary spending should not be GREATER than the average spend in the preceding 12 months during the regulated period. That is a greater spend up of parliamentary money in the regulated period should NOT be permitted. We all know that parliamentary spending assists incumbent MPs but counting it as part of the regulated spending and not allowing a “spend-up” should help remove this gross distortion in favour of incumbency.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
DPF:
“If the regulated period is set to start 1 August in election year, it would mean the status quo applies up until 1 August 2011, but after 1 August 2011 the Parliamentary Service could refuse to approve funding for any material that is seen to be persuading people to support a party. This will limit a party’s ability to use taxpayer money to fi[u]nd their election campaigns.”
I don’t think so.
Assuming a fixed election date prevents gaming is problematic. Are the Parties supporting a Government going to have their expenditure retrospectively recharacterised if there is an early election? What about those Parties outside Government? If the current non fixed election date is retained, will Parliamentary expenditure for both Government and non Government Parties re-characterised?
More importantly the “broad definition” is extremely problematic – what is persuasive is a matter of taste or subjective judgement. This puts Parliamentary Service in a difficult position what expertise do they have to do this?
In reality, the “broad definition approach” simply drives expenditure into non published material, most likely polling. Is DPF suggesting Parliamentary paid for polling within 3months of the election not indirectly funding the election campaigns of Parties? And consider whether Parliamentary funding polling outside the three month period also contributes to the success of political parties?
The likelihood that Parliamentary Parties will not spend a large portion of one third of their budgets in the financial year that includes an election is probably pretty low. Surprise surprise I suspect the funds will not go unspent
Parliamentary Service would be better to stick to the narrow definition approach get it legislated in the Electoral Act but adopt an expenditure disclosure regime at frequent regular intervals prior to an election. Then the public can judge for themselves whether parties are spending in order to aid their re-election. Disclosure is a simpler and clean way to fix the problem.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
ALL political parties should be told to spend their own money only (with limits only on individual contributions) for ALL political puposes, taxpayer money only to be used for strictly policed public information purposes.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Chris: In the case of a snap election, then the likely law is that the regulated period starts on the day after the announcement. That way not retrospective.
I do not think the more narrow definition is workable for the entire time. The reality is that you generally can’t draw a line between parliamentary and political, almost all material is both parliamentary and what I call political. An electorate newsletter may be entirely parliamentary but also has an effect of putting an MP in a good light and likely to persuade people to vote for them. PS would need a team on lawyers to try and enforce a narrow definition for all but a brief period.
One can enforce it for the regulated period as Parliament is tending to wind down, and there is little legitimate parliamentary purpose to communications at that stage.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
DPF:
Narrow approach = soliciting, party votes, electorate votes, memberships and money.
Broad approach = reasonable persuasiveness.
Agreed. Broad approach is inappropriate year round. I have never supported a “reasonably persuasiveness” test. Nor do I support it in the Electoral Act for that matter. It will simply force sub-optimal communication practices at public expense. More importantly is the issue of uncertainty; it’s simply a judgement call or a mere assertion. I doubt Parliamentary Service have any more skill at asserting something is reasonably persuasive than anybody else has. I do support putting the narrow approach rules into the Electoral Act if the Act is going to continue with a focus on advertising and publishing.
As it happens both retrospectively re characterising expenditure or not doing so would invite gaming. A Government Party would not have its pre announcement expenditure re characterised in a snap election (and they are best placed to know the timing of the Election) but all other Parties would be prevented from spending likewise post announcement They would have less insight regarding the timing of an early election. For both National and Labour we are talking about the best part of $1.2m minimum each.
My position is that I am against a rule based approach that focuses on a particular type of public expenditure. It simply forces the same expenditure into activities that are not covered by rules focused on published materials. It also treats MPs like naughty children with Parliamentary Service acting like nanny.
Better to focus on regular disclosure regarding ALL expenditure in close proximity to an election. That way the politicians must weigh the political advantage flowing from the expenditure against the likely public response from their potential voters or likely voters. After all, the money is allocated and strangely for most Parties it is spent in full each year including in a financial year that an election occurs. Odd that.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Chris
If we still had the EFA the govt could call a snap election now and would that mean all expenses this year would be counted? Under the previous Act would the previous 3 months be counted? Unless I’ve missed something, parties were not supposed to spend above the cap anyway. It was expediency through having the power to validate that stopped the limits being enforced in 2005 and total confusion that stopped most enforcement in 2008.
All that is going to happen is some self serving muppet is going to screech that PS (the ref) made a bad call and the house will pass validations and move on. I guess the real upside of this if there is one, is that the AG won’t be labeled a chump when the parties know they have stuffed up.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:53 am
I’d actually support legislation that prevented Governments from making ANY huge spending promises or throwing the cash around in their last 9 months in power. Labour during the campaigns made some monumentally expensive pledges and bought the Railways. The Taxpayers are still paying for Labours 2005 election promises let alone the disastrous rail buyback.