Groups set to put Electoral Finance Act to test

Lobby group the Sensible Sentencing Trust is planning to defy the Electoral Finance Act in the lead-up to the general election.

The group has decided on its course of action after receiving conflicting legal advice over whether material it intends to distribute during the election campaign contravenes the act.

Its decision highlights a common problem facing similar groups pre-election and one which has forced Family First to abandon a pamphlet drop to all households outlining the voting record of MPs on what it identifies as "important family-based legislation" such as civil unions, anti-smacking and prostitution law reform.

The groups say the act which limits advertising spending by non-political parties soliciting votes for or against a party unless they register as a third party is anti-democratic and stifling public debate.

Sensible Sentencing Trust national spokesman Garth McVicar said his group's first test would come with the giveaway of a DVD next month in which victims of crime tell their stories about how legislation had failed them.

"There are a number of high profile cases in which three or four areas of legislation are exposed, such as bail and parole decisions that have failed people," he said.

McVicar said Sensible Sentencing had sought a number of legal opinions on what they "could and couldn't do" and received a variety of views. "Some said we would be skating on thin ice but no one said we would actually be in breach of the act.

"We decided if it was that murky that it's hard for anyone to make a decision, we'd run with a campaign and wait for officials to come to us."

The group has a back-up plan which would see victims it represents lobbying on their own behalf.

"It would be a pretty brave government who would take a victim to court," McVicar said.

He also believed that if Sensible Sentencing was "dragged through the courts" its membership would skyrocket.

"It would be the best promotion we could ever get. People are irate about this act. They want the freedom to have their voice heard."

Family First has taken a different approach to the same problem.

National director Bob McCoskrie said his organisation wanted to ensure it was adhering to the law and sought a clear ruling from the Electoral Commission over its pamphlet on MP voting records.

In its response, Helena Catt of the Electoral Commission said the organisation did not provide pre-approval of items.

"I can give you some general guidance along with the recommendation that you obtain your own independent advice as well," she said before pointing out relevant sections of the act for McCoskrie to refer to.

McCoskrie labelled the response "totally unsatisfactory" and said it left the group in no man's land. The organisation then decided to seek a legal opinion which cost it $2500.

Law firm Bell Gully replied that the act was "unhelpfully vague in a number of important respects including the definition of an election advertisement".

It then advised Family First that the commission and the courts would be likely to regard the organisation's pamphlet as an election advertisement and it did not believe minor revisions would be sufficient to overcome this.

"We were gutted," McCoskrie said. "We haven't got the financial resources to mount a legal challenge if we press ahead."

Of further concern to McCoskrie was Bell Gully's assessment that the Electoral Finance Act "implicates the right to freedom of expression under section 14 of the Bill of Rights in several respects". However, the law firm advised that in view of the contentious nature of the Electoral Finance Act it did not "consider it prudent to rely on the possibility of a court reaching such a conclusion".

The option of registering as a third party was not a solution, McCoskrie said.

"We would have all kinds of administration things to add on and there are huge questions over whether the Charities Commission would then regard organisations like ours as a political lobby group."

McCoskrie said he had reached the conclusion that having an opinion "was almost illegal in New Zealand".

"We are are an organisation advocating for certain issues and we have as much of a right to be heard as anyone else. That is what an election is about. We shouldn't be afraid of the debate of ideas."