Worth Richard: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13475] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to contribute on a narrow but I think important aspect of this bill. It focuses on clause 5(1)(a). The clause is headed “Meaning of election advertisement” and it is clearly one of the central definitions in the bill. It is also the subject incidentally of a National Party amendment. I would like to start by asking why this particular clause is a central definition. The reason is that Subpart 5 of Part 2 which has eight clauses in it contains the general rules governing election advertisements. 
I will take one example to show the linkage. Clause 53 is headed “Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless certain conditions met”. I would like for a moment to take the time of the Committee to look at clause 5(1)(a) because three points arise that I think are deserving of further consideration. The first issue is the meaning of the phrase “any form of words”. I ask what “any form of words” means. It seems to me that “any form of words” can mean only two things: either orally or in writing. So in this use of the words “any form of words” are we talking about the possibility of oral-type statements? I think that needs to be made clear. 
The second issue that is tucked away in clause 5(1)(a) is the phrase “can reasonably be regarded”. I would say to the Minister in the chair Rick Barker that that is an unusual form of drafting in this particular context. It poses a possibly objective test but who is the judge the determiner of the phrase “can reasonably be regarded”? If we look at the body of the legislation we see that the possibilities are the Chief Electoral Officer the Electoral Commission the police and the courts. There needs to be greater certainty around that. This is not as another Minister has said all to be judged by the law of common sense—whatever that phrase of gibberish actually means. There needs to be clarity around both those issues. 
There is a third issue that I think is critical to be decided in the context of clause 5(1)(a) and that relates to subparagraph (ii). There we are talking about comments that attract scrutiny that can extend to three classes of case defined in the legislation. Those three classes of case are “view positions or policies” and presumably the draftsman has very deliberately chosen those three categories of activity. But what this bill is supposed to be all about is capturing policy advertisement that should be caught by “election advertisement”. 
I give the example of a radio interview being given by a politician or a politician making comments at a public meeting and he or she says: “In my view what the National Party should do if it comes into Government is” then says whatever that might be. Is it intended that that type of comment would be picked up by this extended definition of election advertisement? I do not think so. I think it is intended to attract proselytising for votes—statements that are more related to policy. What if these aspects of politics do not have any aspect of policy in them? That I believe is a significant shortfall. I invite the Minister to respond to that point because it seems to me that in a setting where what we are looking for on ballot box day and the days that follow—certainty—may well be denied us. 
The Minister started off a few moments ago by offering the view—and I noted the words—that this legislation was substantially about some people who give money to a party and want to know where it came from. That is an amazing test when we think about it because those who presumably gave the money know exactly where it came from. It came from precisely their pockets. It is an example of very loose wording in a statutory setting which causes concern.