KEY POINTS:
If this was election year, John Boscawen would have almost reached his spending limit to speak out against a Government policy.
The Auckland lawyer has been one of those pushing for the Electoral Finance Bill to be ditched and says he has spent $50,000 of his own money
on it in the past two months - $10,000 short of the $60,000 limit the bill sets for third parties to spend in an election year.
Mr Boscawen, an Act Party member since 1994, jokes he has found himself in the peculiar position of "spending thousands of dollars to promote the views of a former trade unionist" - referring to Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan, who has also called for the bill to be scrapped.
He says Ms Noonan is "principled and courageous" for speaking out against a bill that is promoted by the party which appointed her.
He said he has taken "several thousands of dollars worth" of ads on radio and in print, is organising a march on Queen St on Saturday, and - with support from the Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth McVicar, Grey Power's Graham Stairmand and Act leader Rodney Hide - is taking the Attorney-General to court, claiming he had made a mistake by not advising that the legislation was in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.
He said he would be prepared to spend up to $250,000 in his campaign against what he claims will set up "the most restrictive parliamentary democracy in the Western world".
"I'm not rich. I am comfortable. I live on Paritai Drive, but I'm not even remotely close to the Rich List. You must surely understand we are talking about how democracy runs in New Zealand. You can't put a price on that."
But he doesn't hold much hope of success with his campaign.
"They will make changes that are cosmetic, and say it's all OK."
As the bill stands, the breadth of the definitions of "election advertising" could result in people such as song writers and those in charge of Tui billboards falling foul of the law by making political references in their work.
The bill also prompted lawyer Colin Pidgeon, QC, to make the first select committee submission he has made as an individual.
He said it was "absolutely disastrous" legislation, and agreed that a singer could potentially breach the law by advocating in song for a position held by a political party.
"If a pop singer runs the risk of breaching the Electoral Finance law, that shows why it is so ridiculous."
Mr Pidgeon criticised the wide definitions in the bill, calling them "absurd", and said it would turn much of the everyday work of advocacy groups into election advertising and subject them to the red tape and restrictions. His submission said the law would include such things as a Grey Power advert for increased benefits for the elderly because NZ First had a strong position on the issue.
The Law Society submission said the bill was vague and would make participation in democracy difficult for ordinary New Zealanders.
Greenpeace supported the intent of the bill - but said the wide definition of election advertising meant almost all of its everyday activities would be caught under the law.
This ranged from advocacy for environmental concerns, as well as projects aimed at the election, such as the Vote Environment report card which Greenpeace and Forest and Bird compile each election year to weigh up political party's environmental policies.
