process.85 To interpret election programme as we have done is consistent with that distinction. [99] As noted, the legislative history shows that Parliament did not have parallel campaigners in mind. We discount Ms Aldred’s submission that the legislation contemplated them because political parties were not required to register as such at the time; parties advertise their existence in a democracy, and there is no reason to think that Parliament anticipated any difficulty in identifying them.86 Prohibition not confined to paid programmes [100] We turn to the question whether the legislation controls only paid programmes. As noted at [79] above, the heading to s 70 refers to paid election programmes but the text does not. After a careful survey of the legislative history, Clifford J took the heading as some support for his view that the legislature was concerned to prevent political parties purchasing broadcast time for electioneering.87 [101] We accept the Commission’s submission that the prohibition is not limited to paid programmes. The word paid appears to be an oversight, perhaps attributable to the Broadcasting and Radio Communications Bill being passed through its second and third readings under urgency.88 The Bill originally proposed to maintain the 1989 prohibition on the broadcast of election programmes “for a fee or any other consideration”, but that provision was removed during the legislative process, leaving the heading unchanged. Further, the model eventually adopted involved an allocation of broadcast time that was either free (for opening and closing statements) or paid from public funds, with other broadcasting being prohibited to support that allocation regime; that being so, there was no need to focus on prohibiting paid programmes. We agree with Clifford J that in practice commercial broadcasters are 85 86 87 88 High Court judgment, above n 1, at [222]. They are required to register now, but that is because the electoral system under MMP is based explicitly on the existence and effective organisation of parties. High Court judgment at [207]. Urgency was accorded on 21 August 1990 and the second and third readings took place on the same day, the original Bill having been split into the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) 1990 and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) 1990.