KEY POINTS:
An advertisement by Jim Anderton's Progressives party will be referred to the police to decide if the party should be prosecuted for breaching the Electoral Finance Act.
The decision by the Electoral Commission that one of the Progressives' advertisements did not meet the law means all four parties
which supported controversial electoral law changes last year have now fallen foul of its rules in some way.
The Electoral Commission yesterday said it will refer to police the Progressives advertisement which carried the party's election slogan but did not have the name and address of the promoter.
The advertisement by Progressives candidate Matt Robson ran in the Southland Express on 10 April.
Party leader Jim Anderton had argued it related to debate on a law change classifying BZP as a class A drug, rather than electioneering. However, the Commission decided it was an election advertisement because it carried the party's election slogan "the strength to care" as a sub-head.
He said the party would write to all political parties and financial agents warning the use of election slogans or other campaign elements were likely to be treated as election advertisements, regardless of the content of the rest of the advertisement.
National, Act and the Maori Party - all of which opposed the changes to electoral law last year - are now the only parties which have not yet been ruled in breach of it, although Act MP Heather Roy was cautioned over a newsletter she produces.
The Labour Party was the first to breach the act for its "We're Making a Difference" brochure, which did not have a promoter statement.
However, the commission decided to use the first breach as a cautionary example for other parties rather than refer it to police.
Last month, the commission referred NZ First to the police after a supporter and occasional staff member displayed banners on his house without the necessary statements on them.
The Green Party has not been referred to police, but has slipped up earlier in the year with billboards which used the business address of the financial agent, rather than residential, and after a supporter put up posters after removing the promoter statements. The commission said the first was inconsequential and the second was not the fault of the financial agent.
The commission has also asked police to investigate a reported case of apparent push-polling after a member of the public reported being rung for a "purported survey" which included arguments for and against support of political parties.
It has released eight other decisions on election advertisements which help clarify the limits of what is considered an election advertisement.
The PPTA was cleared for its "How dense do you want them?" billboards, advocating smaller class sizes, which the Commission said was "not presently" directed at the election.
However, the decision made it clear it related to the present - an indication its status could change if one of the political parties also began to campaign on smaller class sizes.
The Commission also ruled on an NZ First advertisement opposing the China free trade agreement, saying it was not an election advertisement "by a close, but distinguishable margin" because it stated the party's policy on matters that were then current.
It said it could not consider a complaint about Labour MPs displaying red boxes with the Party logo on them in the debating chamber, because it was covered by Parliamentary privilege.
A National Party van used for electorate purposes was cleared because it did not carry electioneering material. It follows an earlier decision that Trevor Mallard's red car, featuring his photo, was an election advertisement.
NZ First and the Greens were also cleared for filing late donation returns after the commission decided they had reasonable excuse for doing so.
