Election spending loop holes make $4000 limit ‘pointless’

Press, 20 October 1981, Page 21

Election spending loop holes make $4000 limit ‘pointless’

By

KARREN BEANLAND

The triennial scramble to persuade electors to vote for one political party and not another has started.

Already, as in every other election year, there have been complaints about the forms of advertising used by the political hopefuls and the amount of money being spent.

The laws controlling electioneering are covered in the Electoral Act of 1956 and its subsequent amendments. The chief provision limits the total election expenses of any candidate to $4OOO in the three months immediately before polling day. Expenses are defined as those incurred by or on behalf of a candidate and related only to the return of that candidate.

The aim is to stop a candidate "buying" his or her way into office. It also prevents a candidate with bigger financial resources having an advantage over other candidates.

There is no limit on spending. however, before the three-month period begins. Yet candidates, who are commonly selected as much as 12 months before the election, are now frequently mounting extensive, and expensive. campaigns before that time.

Speculation has put National Party spending in the hotly contested Rangetiki seat up to $BO,OOO. Opponents of Mrs Margaret Murray. the National candidate for Yaldhurst. have claimed that her campaign has cost $40,000. although she has refused to give an amount.

Policing of the provisions in the Electoral Act are the of the returning officers ’for each electorate. Candidates also keep a close eye on the campaigns of their opponents.

Within 70 days of the declaration of the election result candidates must submit a return of their election expenses. Each expense must' be vouched by a bill "stating

the particulars" and a receipt.

Failure to supply a return will cost the candidate a fine. Supplying a deliberately false- return is a. corrupt practice.’ which would make a candidate liable to a fine or a year in prison, or both. '■ These returns are open for public inspection for a year after the election, after which they are destroyed.

A Christchurch political scientist. Mr Alan Mcßobie, says that there are many ways for candidates to "get around" the three months limit on spending. One example is the use of television advertising before the start of -the three-month period.

Mr Mcßobie says that there are other loop holes in the act and attempts by Parliament have failed to tidy them up. Given the loop holes, the $4OOO limit in the last three months of an election campaign is “pointless," he adds. It is also difficult to determine whether breaches of the act occur. "I don't know the extent to which candidates' returns are scrutinised. In some cases very little information is provided." Mr Mcßobie says.

He points out that the $4OOO limit has acted as a restraint in this year's election. With the threats of a snap election in August, candidates were forced to keep their spending down in case they were caught out by an unexpectedly early start to the three-month period.

The chief electoral officer, Mr Peter Horne, says that there were no problems with candidates filing incorrect returns after the 1978 General Election. "There is a very severe penalty and a candidate who did this would lose his seat," he says. "The candidates ob-

viously must gear their campaign and their expenses towards this particular provision."

Occasionally, a complaint is made by one candidate checking another’s return, says Mr Andy Wright, a legal officer with the Department of Justice. These are checked, but there have been no prosecutions in recent years, he adds. One aspect of the law which has bewildered even some candidates and party officials ;is the definition of incurred expenses. There are still claims that candidates pay for expensive advertising before the three-month

period begins and use it in the run-up to the election.

However. Mr Horne is firm that incurred expenses do not relate only to money spent within the final three months. He says an expense is incurred if a commitment is made before that time starts.

Even though candidates may find ways to skirt around the limits on election spending. Mr Mcßobie believes the scale of party

spending as a whole is a far more serious problem. “Four thousand dollars is pretty small beer compared to what the parties are pouring into the elections." he says.. j Limiting the amount of money spent at the electorate level is using a "sledge hammer to crack the nut." he adds.

If parties spent $4OOO on every electorate it would add up to a national total of $368,000. Yet the three main parties spend much more than that, and they are not required to produce a balance sheet.

“The fight today is a party fight. The candidates are travelling 'along the coattails of the party," Mr Mcßobie says. “If we are to exercise meaningful control on election expenses, we need some way to control the amount of money parties have to spend."

A measure, of support for this argument comes from the difficulty independent candidates have in getting themselves elected. Independent candidates have been few and far between in New Zealand’s recent political history, and this is at least partly because they do not have the support of a nation-wide party campaign. Local spokesmen for the three main parties say there is no problem with candidates exceeding the $4OOO spending limit.

One reason for that is that, in some electorates, raising even $4OOO is hard work. The parties have different ways of raising money. Generally it is raised within each electorate. With the exception of Social Credit. electorate organisers also have to,raise money for a levy or contribution to the national administration and campaign. The way campaign funds are used is largely left to the discretion of each party's electorate organisers and the candidate. The local spokes-

men say that their influence on spending comes only tn the form of advice.

There are no problems with Labour Party candidates over spending, says the regional secretary. Mr Brian Arps. “We don't have that kind of money to spend."

As a general rule, he maintains. National will spend three or four times more than Labour. He does not see that as a disadvantage. Labour, he says, has learned to economise.

“Basically, we are trying to win l the election on the streets through door knocking and getting face to face with people. That is the best form of advertising," he says.

Mr Arps agrees that the Labour Party is the beneficiary of the $4OOO limit on campaign spending. But, he adds, the public also benefits.

The secretary of the Canterbury-Westfand division of the National Party, Mr Graham Johnstone, says it is "very much a misconception" that National has easier access to money from wealthy supporters than the other parties. Like Labour, every dollar spent in an election campaign is raised by voluntary efforts within the electorate. Mr Johnstone does not think that $4OOO is too small an amount for candidates to run a campaign. “It makes them think how to use the money to the best possible advantage." he says. “If they have spent $BO,OOO in Rangetiki — and I have no idea if they have - it has been collected within the electorate. No national money goes there.”

Social Credit's South Island organiser. Mr John Wright. says electorate organisers are asked to keep their spending down to $3OOO in the final three months.

"If there is a surplus over the $3OOO we would prefer it to go to an area of greater strength. Another $lOOO is not going to win us a seat here, whereas elsewhere it could. We believe in playing to our areas of strength." he says.

Mr Wright is critical of the present electoral law because he says the interpretation is not clear. “My understanding of the law is that money spent outside the three month limit, but which will have an effect during that three months, should be included in the $4000."

The scale of spending in Rangetiki, he says, before the three month period started made nonsense of the law.

He claims that late in August, the National party in Rangetiki distributed $lO,OOO worth of big glossy photographs of the candidate. Mr Paul Bardwell.

He is also critical of the $4OOO limit on campaign spending. He says it is unreasonable in these days of inflation and that the law forces people to be dishonest.

A Parliamentary select committee studied the laws on electioneering this year. It concluded in its report that there was no need for an increase in the $4OOO limit on election expenses, even though the limit was set in 1977.

One concession it made was in travel and accommodation expenses. It recommended that travel costs be excluded from the definition of election expenses. The change, which will apply to this election provided the bill is passed by Parliament, will remove the advantage of sitting members who have free travel privileges. It will also ease the burden on candidates in big rural electorates.