 | Elections: NORML's submission on the Electoral Finance Bill |
 To the Justice and Electoral Select Committee
Submission on the Electoral Finance Bill
6 September 2007
This submission is from the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML New Zealand Inc)
We wish to appear before the committee to speak on our submission.
 About NORML NZ Inc.
NORML New Zealand was founded in 1979 as an non-profit incorporated society that campaigns for an end to marijuana prohibition. We support the right of all adults to use, possess and grow their own cannabis. We recognise that some commercial market for marijuana will always exist, and we therefore support ways to best to control that market. Our aims are:
To reform New Zealand’s marijuana laws
To provide neutral, unbiased information about cannabis and its effects
To engage in political action appropriate to our aims
To inform people of their rights
To give advice and support to victims of prohibition
Summary
NORML NZ strongly opposes the entirety of this Bill.
We consider the Bill anti-democratic, draconian and corrupt.
We believe the Bill does not address the main public concerns that arose from the 2005 election, namely the overspending by many political parties and the lack of accountability thereof.
We strongly recommend that this Bill be withdrawn.
General Policy statement rebuttal
This Bill claims to "provide more transparency and accountability in the democratic process, prevent the undue influence of wealth, and promote participation in parliamentary democracy."
The bill fails to provide more transparency and accountability in the democratic process because it fails to address anonymous donations to political parties, and does not resolve the overlap between uncontrolled government marketing campaigns and political advertising.
The Electoral Act 1993 describes "undue influence" as a corrupt practice (Section 218), and is defined: "makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or herself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person..." Wealth cannot in itself cause such undue influence.
Voter turnout is already at near-record low levels. Raising the barriers and compliance costs of speaking one's mind will reduce this level further, jeopardising the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Commentary
While not everyone agrees with what NORML stands for, it is the mark of a liberal democracy that we have the right to hold opinions and to freely express ourselves. Yet the Bill’s definition of “political advertising” is so broad that it will encompass almost everything we do. Any such campaigning is restricted to a paltry $60,000 covering every third year.
We do not oppose there being some limits on third party campaigning. However this Bill goes too far. Political dissent, commentary and advertising campaigns - whether biased or unbiased - are legitimate parts of the democratic debate.
Section 5(1)(a)(ii) of the Bill includes encouraging votes for or against a type of party or candidate, referred to by their views, positions or policies. Section 5(1)(a)(iii) says an election advertisement includes “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated”. In order to promote sensible drug laws, it is crucial for us to support parties and candidates who share our goal, or campaign against those who do not. We can only see this as wanting to shut down criticism of the Government in an election year.
While the Government will be free to promote it’s policies and achievements throughout election year - at the taxpayer’s expense - criticism of this by opposition parties and third parties will be greatly constrained. We consider this unfair, unjust and anti-democratic.
The definition of political advertising should be changed. If there is any limit imposed, it should have a much higher threshold - say, $1 million. The timeframe for registered parties and third parties should remain unchanged - covering the period 3 months out from an election.
We’re very concerned that the bill treats anonymous donations to political parties preferentially to third party donations. While a $10,000 limit is imposed on political parties, third parties are limited to $500. Not only is this disproportionate, it is repugnant. Lobby groups, unlike political parties, are not seeking the Treasury benches. As an organisation that represents the 52 percent of adult New Zealanders who have tried marijuana, we could claim to represent a larger proportion of New Zealand than any single political party. Yet, because of the current prohibition regime, many people are reluctant to openly donate to a cause they believe may harm their professional or personal reputation. They have good reason to remain anonymous.
The Electoral Commission Report after the 2005 election recommended third party regulation only once extensive disclosure requirements and donation limits were imposed on political parties. Lacking anything resembling these prerequisites, it seems impossible to justify the stringent regulation of non-political party lobbies.
We are also concerned that making the Chief Electoral Officer responsible for monitoring compliance of third parties will dilute its monitoring of political parties.
Conclusion
NORML asks the Justice and Electoral Committee to recommend to Parliament that this Bill be thrown out. It is unprincipled, unbalanced, undemocratic, unintelligible in parts and, ultimately, unenforceable.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Login |
|
You can register for some special extra features. | |
|
