The Electoral Finance Act (2007) has done many things. Confused politicians, party staff, lawyers, the public, journalists, pretty much everyone. This in itself does not mean it is a bad law. I am sure most people would not understand tax law if you whacked the Income Tax Act (2004) in front of them, gave them a highlighter and crayons.
Having to have a test case does not even make it a bad law. All laws have to come in with no previous point of reference for what may happen. Thats what courts do they interpret the law as laid down by parliament.
What the law points out to me, is the need for New Zealand to extend the term of Parliament from three years to four years. Peter Dunne said that there is hardly any time to get a review of the EFA moved up the order paper, so that changes can go through before the election period starts.
If we were to have a longer term it would mean less elections, less money spent on election advertising over the long term, allow governments and oppositions to settle into their roles and get some decent quality legislation passed. MP’s would not feel the need to be on constant point scoring attack. It would also give the media time adequately explain legislation, the electoral system, and their own biases. It also gives the public time to get a good feel for the people involved in government, so instead of just voting them out for the other fulla, they weigh up the total sum of the positive and negative aspects of their term.
The three year term is good for the fact that it supposedly keeps our MP’s honest, because they know that come election time they will probably be voted out. This creates a fear, a fear that makes governments stick to the middle road. Taking popular measures when intelligent measures are what is needed.
We have seen this fear in Labours eyes this term. They desperatly wanted a piece of legislation passed that would protect them from the exclusive brethren, and big money buying elections. They sort of got it. It is hard to tell if it will actually work because of the smoke screen that National is now putting up challenging it at every turn. A longer term would have allowed Labour to sit back, and draft a better piece of legislation that could have been agreed to by both sides of the house.