I was wondering what the budget was for informing the public on the costs of MMP and the new Electoral Finance Act. The efficient people at the Electoral Commission responded promptly to my inquiry (thank you).
They need a million dollars.
Political Interest Groups in New Zealand now have a budget of $120,000. Is that really enough to have a fair chance of reaching all Kiwis? The amount of $120,000 was not a figure the public EVER got to make submissions on. We were actually presented with a figure of $60,000, which even the PSA union balked at. The Electoral Commission suggested $300,000 to $400,000. They understand the modern day costs of advertising.
However, NZ Labour decided that $120,000 was a good limit to impose, and we have to conclude their motivation is to shut down counter-opinion. Because any more might actually have the power to inform people. Informed people might make bad decisions. They have reduced the number of groups that are capable of feeding information to a far more manageable number. Over time, they will no doubt refine this list. And with the passage of the EFB, the system is even more weighted to the incumbent government.
The overwhelming mindset is that $120,000 reflects the buying power of a "rich prick". The media has never (to my knowledge) pointed out that 10,000 people putting in $20 each are also unable to advertise their opinion and provide a small voice to counter the huge effect the government of the day has, not just in its spending power, but the fact that the media will put whatever Clark and her government say as prime time news. She can get an interview with any number of media muppets with one phone call. A level playing field doesn't even come into this.
And the public never really had a chance to debate this and provide input into what reasonable limits might be, and what a reasonable regulated period might be (and 11 months can be argued as unreasonably long in a three year election cycle.)
They have left us with only one viable option to register our protest. We must vote them out in the next election.
Slightly Related Link: NZ Labour election Strategy
They need a million dollars.
Kia ora Zen,
Our advertising alerting people to key requirements of the Electoral Finance Act appeared in every daily newspaper (21 papers) on either 1 or 2 January (depending on publication) and the three Sunday paper's on 6 January. The schedule will cost $21,244.81.
We currently have an available budget of $500,000 for MMP related advertising etc in conjunction with the general election. This is about half of what we usually use, and we are seeking further funding to make up the difference. The Electoral Enrolment Centre (roll maintenance) and Chief Electoral Office (election day) have separate budgets for their advertising requirements.
You may be interested to read our current statement of intent and last annual report available here http://www.elections.org.nz/ec_corp_info.html They include further information on our information and education programmes, including the election year campaign.
Thanks for your inquiry,
Political Interest Groups in New Zealand now have a budget of $120,000. Is that really enough to have a fair chance of reaching all Kiwis? The amount of $120,000 was not a figure the public EVER got to make submissions on. We were actually presented with a figure of $60,000, which even the PSA union balked at. The Electoral Commission suggested $300,000 to $400,000. They understand the modern day costs of advertising.
However, NZ Labour decided that $120,000 was a good limit to impose, and we have to conclude their motivation is to shut down counter-opinion. Because any more might actually have the power to inform people. Informed people might make bad decisions. They have reduced the number of groups that are capable of feeding information to a far more manageable number. Over time, they will no doubt refine this list. And with the passage of the EFB, the system is even more weighted to the incumbent government.
The overwhelming mindset is that $120,000 reflects the buying power of a "rich prick". The media has never (to my knowledge) pointed out that 10,000 people putting in $20 each are also unable to advertise their opinion and provide a small voice to counter the huge effect the government of the day has, not just in its spending power, but the fact that the media will put whatever Clark and her government say as prime time news. She can get an interview with any number of media muppets with one phone call. A level playing field doesn't even come into this.
And the public never really had a chance to debate this and provide input into what reasonable limits might be, and what a reasonable regulated period might be (and 11 months can be argued as unreasonably long in a three year election cycle.)
They have left us with only one viable option to register our protest. We must vote them out in the next election.
Slightly Related Link: NZ Labour election Strategy
Political Interest Groups in New Zealand now have a budget of $120,000.
ReplyDeleteThat's just not true. Lobby groups can spend as much money as they want informing the public in their stance on SIT's funding, the length of criminal sentences or the need to stop mining coal. The budget limitation comes in when you actively campaign for or against a candidate. The intention is to stop parallel campaigns (like Labour spending their allotment and then the unions spending $500 000 to say "vote labour").
Ah, the illusion of free speech.
ReplyDeleteApparently, you can document saying "I think free speech is great"
and everyone goes "yeah, cool"
but what does that achieve? It might even allow all parties to leverage the general message without talking about the detail of their policies. sometimes, you need to reference the specific policies to hold a party to account and get them to discuss the consequences publicly.
So pointing out voting Labour could end free speech, or rort public money (ie the Election Pledge Card Scandal) and pointing out why, becomes illegal. One avenue of criticism of the government has now become illegal.
And what happens in the situations I outlined in my previous post, when Labour leverage the Ministry for the Environment's advertising as a form of parallel campaigning?
And of course, in the interests of a level playing field, when the Unions announce as a press release "vote National and people will die" (which they did in the 2005 election) we see a big skew where the media supports a position simply because it sells papers.
Does this mean groups will resort to increasingly sensationalist stunts to ensure they get the media coverage they need to sway opinions, in the absence of being able to present their ideas sensibly?
I think this Act is fundamentally flawed, ill conceived and rushed through without proper process befitting such important legislation.
We'll see how this plays out in Election 2008.
I think that act is hastily drafted and a far from optimal (and the political handling has been pretty bad) but what you said isn't true.
ReplyDeleteIf there is going to be a limit on the amount of money that a party can spend on a campaign there needs to be a limit on the amount others can spend to get that party elected. The brethren spend half as much as the spending limit again last election encouraging a change of governmnet which makes the cap a joke. It would be every bit as bad if the unions did the same.
The act doesn't prevent people or groups from criticising, highlighting or rating anyone's policies. Tim Shadbolt's first ad and the motor-vehicle-sellers-for-pollution campaign would be fine.
Again, the limit only comes in when you tell someone to vote, or not vote, for a particular party.
Any spending limits which are introduced without effective checks on the Government's ability to use it's position and resources to campaign in ways not available to the opposition are in reality muzzling the opposition.
ReplyDeleteThe act doesn't prevent people or groups from criticising, highlighting or rating anyone's policies
ReplyDeleteWhat? Are you serious? Given that this useless bill was all about stopping 7 people of the Exclusive Brethren (and I suspect they are also Automobile Association members too) from criticising the Green's policies, then either:
1. The whole exercise was a pointless waste of time as it will be easy for people to criticize the government and ignore the cap, and they failed to prevent parallel campaigning etc.
2. You are wrong, and the law will be interpreted to shut down criticism as parallel campaigns, as an implicit invitation to not vote for a party by inference and critique, or just getting people on bureaucratic loopholes such as not registering properly etc.
Stephen Win put his name down on the EB Brochure, but apparently has to declare himself a member of the EB, the AA, the local library, the coalition to save the wales, and the thespian society.
I think you will find that should the EB reprint their one page brochure, and try to send it around to NZ letter boxes (which could possibly cost more than $120,000), I suspect they will find the full force of this new law coming down upon them, and we will see just how this will be interpreted.
The original EB brochure could remove the words "use your party vote to change the government" and otherwise be (according to you) allowable. Do you really think it would be?
IANAL but the relevant bit of the EFA is talking about "any form of words or graphics which can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote for or not vote for a party or a candidate or a type of party or candidate"
ReplyDeleteSo, the brethren could say their batshit-insane things about teaching criminals art and 1080 killing off birdsong but they couldn't put bloody great blue ticks all over the place and probably couldn't get away with claiming the Green's policies would 'ruin NZ.' Unless of course they registered and spent less than $120 000.
"any form of words or graphics which can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote for or not vote for a party or a candidate or a type of party or candidate"
ReplyDeleteI'm no lawyer either, but I read the above to be that criticizing a party's policies will be interpreted by the courts as encouraging people not to vote for that party.
And that is the horror of the legislation - it will require lawyers to sort out the claims and counter-claims.
If one party takes exception to an interest group criticising them, will they be able to get all future adverts blocked whilst it goes to court?
OOTLD,
ReplyDeleteActually the EB "secret seven" could spend more than $800,000 if each member registered as a third party.