|
Skip to make comment
| 
Send to a friend
NZCPR
Mid-week Politics
John Boscawen
27 February 2008
An
interview with John Boscawen, campaigner against the Electoral
Finance Act
NZCPR Director, Muriel Newman, interviews John
Boscawen about his high profile opposition to the Electoral
Finance Act.
Question
One: Last
year you took a lead in opposing the Electoral Finance Bill
– why?
There
were a number of reasons I took the stand I did.
Firstly
the original bill severely limited our rights to free speech
in election year and was anti-democratic. While a number of
changes were made to the Electoral Finance Act that was
eventually passed by parliament it too severely limits our
ability to speak out and campaign against an incumbent
government. Key provisions of the new law go far beyond what
the independent Human Rights Commission ( HRC) and the
Electoral Commission consider reasonable. In essence the
government put in place restrictions on what ordinary New
Zealanders could spend speaking out against them, at a time
when it changed another law to enable it spend much more
taxpayers money on expressing it own views.
Secondly,
I was concerned that parliament was proposing to pass a law
that had huge ramifications on our right to free speech and
our democracy that the public had little or no knowledge of.
It also seemed to me that the media were not giving it the
attention such far reaching legislation deserved. The
objective of my campaign was to create a far greater awareness
of the bill’s provisions.
After
an initial legal challenge seeking a declaration under the
Bill of Rights Act in late October, my campaign proper started
with a series of radio ads that ran on seven separate radio
networks on 7-8 November. The ads that ran on the
NewstalkZB network were particularly high profile running
throughout the day in the middle of the news bulletin. I was
pleased when Leighton Smith picked up the issue the first
morning and devoted most of his programme to it.
The following Monday, the New Zealand Herald commenced a
weeklong campaign against the bill under the headline
“Democracy under Attack”. Since then most, if
not all major newspapers have taken a stand against it. (
interestingly I only decided to run the initial radio campaign
after our first day in court, when a representative of the
Crown Law Office argued against our application for urgency on
the basis that parliament’s website showed that the
legislation was due back into parliament until 27 January
2008. I was so incensed I returned to
Auckland
and immediately put in place the radio campaign).
Thirdly
I was particularly impressed with the submission of the Human
Rights Commission and the courage of the Commissioners (
Labour appointees former trade unionist Rosslyn Noonan
and Dr. Judy Mc Gregor). They wrote a damming submission
against the bill, key provisions of which parliament ignored.
The Commission said that the bill in its original form
represented a “dramatic assault on two fundamental freedoms
New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of
informed citizens to participate in the election
process”. They said the bill was fundamentally flawed and
should be withdrawn. They went on to say that if the bill was
not withdrawn, it would be essential that there be a number of
changes. These included restricting its provisions to no more
than three months before an election. They were ignored
on both these ( and other) issues. The Commission was
speaking up for the rights of all New Zealanders and I was not
prepared to sit back and see the Human Rights Commission
ignored on such an important issue. If it happened on this
occasion, it could just as easily happen in the future.
There
were a number of other reasons and without going into great
detail these included provisions that made it much harder for
someone outside parliament to successfully challenge a sitting
MP.
Question
2: Why are you so passionate about this issue?
I
am so passionate for most of the reasons I have listed
above. The law is wrong. Parliament ignored both the Human
Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission on such as
basic issue as the freedom of speech. These are bodies set up
to protect the rights of ordinary New Zealanders. They
are run by state servants, independent of the government. No
government should be able to override such basic protection
mechanisms in such a unilateral way.
Both
Electoral Finance Bill as introduced and the Electoral Finance
Act as passed introduced changes that go to the very heart of
our democracy.
Question
3: Last year, supporters of the Electoral Finance Bill
accused you of fronting the campaign for other big business
interests – what is your response to those claims?
Those
suggestions are nonsense. The decision to run a campaign was
mine alone. This is an issue that affects all New Zealanders
and I did it because I love this country.
Having
said that, it is not surprising that the bill’s supporters
chose to attack me personally. It was to expected that they
would seek to attack the messenger, rather than the message.
For example the Green Party Co-leader Russell Norman issued a
press release that referred to my membership of the NZ
Business Roundtable. My campaign has nothing to do with the
NZBRT and in fact at the time I made my submission to the
select committee I had been to just one BRT meeting. There
were far more members of my Rotary Club on my
Auckland
marches than there were members of the NZBRT.
One
does not have to have business interests to be concerned about
free speech and democracy in
New Zealand
. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner, former trade unionist
Rosslyn Noonan is not a member of the Business Roundtable. I
think Russell Norman did his supporters a disservice. He
should have explained instead why the Green Party MPs were
prepared to ignore both the Human Rights Commission and the
Electoral Commission.
Question
4: Now that it is election year and the Electoral
Finance Act is law, do you plan to continue your campaign?
Yes,
I most certainly do. While I would have much preferred the
bill was not to have passed, (or alternatively the changes put
out for a further round of public consultation as recommended
by the Human Rights Commission) so that I could have
gone back to my business, the issue is far too important to
just sit back and do nothing. However I will need every
bit of help I can get to ensure that people are fully aware of
the provisions of the bill and its effect on free speech.
Question
5: What outcome would you like to see as a result of
your initiatives?
In
the first instance I would like to see the Act repealed before
the election. It will only take one of the three main parties
who supported the bill ( Labour, The Greens, or NZ First) to
vote with the opposition parties to achieve this. Failing
this, in the short term as a very minimum, changes need to be
made to the Act to bring it at least partly inline with what
both the Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission
recommended. These include an increase in the maximum amount
that can be spent by a “third party” in election
advertising and the length of time the restrictions on free
speech remain in place.
For
example, one of the changes the Human Rights Commission
wanted, was that the restrictions on free speech should apply
for no more than three months prior to the election. The
Commission was concerned to ensure that we had an informed
electorate and that restrictions placed on free speech did not
run for an undue length of time. Parliament ignored them on
this and the restrictions we now have commended on 1 January,
and will likely run for more than three times that recommended
by the Commission. Then government has tried to create the
impression that the Commission was completely satisfied with
the changes made to the bill. They were not, and the length of
time the restrictions apply is one of the most fundamental
ones.
Secondly
it is not generally appreciated that the Select Committee was
advised by both the Justice Department and the Electoral
Commission. The Electoral Commission is an independent body of
the state headed by Dr. Helena Catt. The Electoral Commission
actually tried to calculate what an effective third party
campaign would cost to mount. Using an advertising agency they
looked at three theoretical examples and concluded to be
effective a campaign would likely cost $250,000 to $300,000
and recommended that the maximum spending limit be set at the
higher end of this range.
By
setting the maximum spending limit at $120,000 ( rather than
$250-300,000) and having the restrictions apply for a full
election year ( rather than three months) parliament has
ignored these two independent bodies and passed a law that
unduly restricts the right of its citizens.
In
the longer term John Key has said the National Party would
repeal the Act if it got into government. Hopefully however
the bill will be repealed before the election.
Question
6: Who is funding your campaign?
I
am the principal funder. I have however received a number
of donations from many generous people who were keen to help
me with the expenses. In the last of my newspaper ads I
disclosed updated expenditure of approximately $200,000 of
which $50,000 had been met by others. I am very grateful to
the very many people who offered to contribute to the costs of
my campaign. As the campaign is ongoing anyone wishing to
assist me financially can still do so and any cheques should
be made payable to the Freedom of Speech Trust, P. O. Box
42-267, Orakei,
Auckland
.
Question
7: Have you been offered any anonymous donations from
Monaco-based donors?
Sadly
no, but I do think that Owen Glenn was extremely generous in
donating $7.5 million to the
University
of
Auckland
. I also support his right to donate to the Labour Party and I
believe all New Zealanders should be encouraged (rather than
dissuaded as the Act does) to get involved in political issues
and to support political causes financially.
Question
8: How can people who oppose the Government’s
election-year restrictions on free speech help?
There
are many things they can do.
Firstly
having informed themselves of what the Act actually provides
and why it is so objectionable, they can take the trouble to
discuss it with their friends and colleagues, to gain both
awareness and opposition.
Secondly
like all political issues they can express their objections by
writing to the MPs who supported the bill expressing their
opposition, writing letters to newspaper editors or raising
the issue on talkback.
Thirdly
they can assist me in helping create awareness and opposition.
I have established the Freedom of Speech Trust, specifically
to campaign against the Act. I intend to organize marches and
other forms of protest this year in all major metropolitan and
provincial centres. The next of these will be a march in
Queen Street
Auckland
on Sunday afternoon 9 March. Marchers are asked to meet
outside the
Auckland
Town Hall
from 2pm, and we will leave there are march down
Queen Street
to
QE II Square
at 2.30pm. However, I will need help with all of these
activities, particularly in promoting and advertising them.
Last year I organized four protest marches. The two in
Auckland
were incredibly well attended with over 7000 people. This year
it likely to be much harder to galvanise action. In fact I
suspect one of the reasons MPs pushed on and passed the Act
was that they believed that New Zealanders would soon forget
what had happened and would be prepared to sit back and simply
accept that their freedom had been taken from them. I need as
many people as I can get to help me demonstrate this is
not true. I will also be preparing a regular newsletter on
this issue and I want to build up a database of
supporters who I can communicate with. I would appreciate
hearing from as many people as possible so that I can add
their contact details to my database. I can be contacted on john@boscawen.co.nz
Thank
you.
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Send to a friend
Your
Comments:
To comment go to
letters to editor
>>>
Skip to top |
Send to
a friend:
|
