Russel Norman

Can we be constructive now?

Published: August 23, 2007

by Russel Norman

One of the overlooked elements of John Key’s overcooked speech to the National Press Club yesterday is his proposal on electoral finance reform, rather than his rhetoric as to the problems with the current bill before select committee. His approach on non-party interventions in elections is interesting, if underdeveloped. Key said:

For example, we would support a limit on third-party spending in an election period. Political parties and candidates are capped in their spending so it makes sense that third parties are as well. Organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election.

Now I am absolutely in agreement with Key on this point. Which raises the awkward question of: How do you do it? How do you do it? Which is exactly the question that the select committee and all the rest of us are having to grapple with in the midst of an hysterical campaign by the Nats which is making it hard to hear oneself think.  

In order to acheive Key’s goal, what kind of spending should be capped? What is it about an advertisement by a non-party actor that makes it an election advertisement? What kind of definition captures the intervention of the Exclusive Brethren that was clearly aimed at getting National elected, but will exclude the statement by an NGO that is less directly (or perhaps not directly at all) aimed at influencing which party gets more or less votes. This is precisely the nub of the issue that Key and English have been avoiding in their grandstanding on the bill.

Now Coalition for Open government have suggested as a solution:

The Coalition suggests that the law on third parties should control advertisements that “can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election”. This is the phrasing used in the UK’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Now this seems a reasonable place to begin the discussion. Of course like any rule in this area it still leaves grey areas, and arguably simply leaves it up to the courts to figure out on a case by case basis, but it does at least provide a starting point.

So why, according to National, aren’t we allowed to have this discussion in the select committee after receiving submissions from the public? Especially now the Nats have agreed that capping non-party interventions is a worthy goal….?

Believe it or not but bills, even government bills, routinely get significantly changed in select committees. The Gambling Bill, for example picking on one that I worked on as a researcher, got significantly changed in select committee. It’s normal and it’s one of the things about our MMP system that actually works a lot of the time. That’s why the Greens pushed for all parties to be on the select committee. But the campaign being run by the Nats is making this process extremely difficult. C’mon John get constructive and help make a better bill.

Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Thu, August 23rd, 2007   

Tags:

More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman