KEY POINTS:
The Electoral Finance Act has claimed its first scalp after a 21-year-old was obliged to take down his website when the Electoral Commission said it breached election rules by not including his name and address.
Andrew Moore, 21, set up the anti-Labour Party dontvotelabour.org.nz website this month but
the commission contacted him soon afterwards to say it was election advertising and therefore an offence not to carry an authorisation statement with Mr Moore's name and address.
After a series of exchanges with the commission, Mr Moore took down the site yesterday, saying he could not afford lawyers' fees or the potential $10,000 fine if he was prosecuted.
"It would have cost thousands to take it through the courts.
"One shouldn't have to be wealthy enough to afford lawyers' fees to be able to say on your own personal website that you don't support the Government."
He replaced the anti-Government material with an explanation of why he had removed the site.
It urged people not to vote for Labour, specifying reasons including the Electoral Finance Act and the anti-smacking law.
An authorisation statement with a name and contact address were also required on advertisements under old electoral law.
However, the new law exempts "the publication by an individual on a non-commercial basis, on the internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog)".
While Mr Moore's website was not a traditional diary form of blog - which would be exempt from the law - he said it was a website which stated his own personal view and should not be treated differently from a blog, many of which were highly partisan.
He said it was ridiculous that he should be forced to take down his website when the websites of the political parties did not carry authorisation statements.
Mr Moore said he lived at home and although the website had his cellphone number on it, he was unwilling to put his name and address on the site for reasons of his family's privacy and security.
He said the website had cost less than $100.
One month since the new law came into effect, the internet is causing the most headaches so far under the Electoral Finance Act.
As well as Mr Moore's website, said Electoral Commission spokesman Peter Northcote, there was a trickle of complaints about suspected breaches of the law, mostly from the online arena and the blogosphere.
The Electoral Commission has sought advice about online advertising, as well as other issues, including whether the websites of political parties are considered electioneering if they do not specifically urge people to vote for them.
It will meet next month to clarify matters.
David Farrar, author of Kiwiblog, who also fronts the Free Speech Coalition which is running a billboard campaign against the Electoral Finance Act, said the rules for online material remained confusing, which was frustrating many.
He said the furore over The Standard, a left-wing blog which was found to be hosted on a Labour Party domain site, was one example.
He said he had asked the commission to clarify the law.
"We are in the ridiculous situation where blogs are sort of exempt but there's confusion about whether group blogs are exempt, and what constitutes a non-commercial blog."
* THE STATUTE
Non-political "third parties" and all individuals are subject to controls for almost the entire year before an election.
Citizens must now register with the state - through the Electoral Commission - if they want to spend $12,000 or more on advertising a cause that might influence voters, even if their message does not name a party or candidate.
The "regulated period" law prevents individuals and groups spending more than $120,000.
Political parties will be allowed to spend 20 times as much as that to promote their messages and will be able to use taxpayers' money from their parliamentary budgets to communicate with voters well beyond that limit.
Political parties will retain taxpayer-funded broadcasting rights worth millions.
* WHO ARE OUR THIRD PARTIES?
The most active so far is the Free Speech Coalition - led by former National Party worker and right-wing blogger David Farrar.
Mr Farrar said the group had so far spent about $30,000 on billboards in Tauranga, Wellington and Auckland featuring dictators Frank Bainimarama, Kim Jong-il and Mao Zedong congratulating party leaders who supported the new law.
The group has attracted criticism for taking donations from people including former National Party leader Don Brash and members of the Business Round Table.
* Former Herald publisher Michael Horton says he intends to spend up to the $120,000 in a campaign against the new law.
* Auckland-based shareholder activist Tony Gavigan listed despite not intending to campaign, saying his action was "civil disobedience" and urging all New Zealanders to list to turn the issue into "a nonsense".
