Previous 29 / 40 Next

allocated to that political party or group of related political parties under section 74A; or (c) an election programme— (i) broadcast for a fee or other consideration; and (ii) relating solely to 1 named constituency candidate at an election; and (iii) used or appearing to be used to promote or procure the election of the candidate; and (iv) broadcast by the candidate or with the candidate’s authority within the election period; or (d) any advertisement placed by the Electoral Commission, a Registrar of Electors, a Returning Officer, or other official for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1993; or (e) any non-partisan advertisement broadcast, as a community service, by the broadcaster. (2A) Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the amount of money that a political party or group of related political parties may spend on the production costs of an election programme. (2B) Nothing in this Act derogates from section 214B of the Electoral Act 1993. (3) Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the broadcasting, in relation to an election, of news or of comments or of current affairs programmes. … It will be seen that the heading refers to “paid” election programmes but the section itself does not. Further, the prohibition on broadcasting election programmes does not extend to news, comments or current affairs programmes. These terms inform the meaning of election programme, illustrating the legislature’s purpose in prohibiting their broadcast. [79] The Act regulates broadcasters by, among other things, requiring that they maintain standards, one of which is a principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts should be made to present significant points of view “either in the same programme or in other programmes

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Electoral Commission v. Watson

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the video and song Planet Key are considered election advertisements and/or election programs.

Alleged Acts: Planet Key is an satirical song and video that was intended to be broadcast during the 2014 Election. The video included commentary on the Prime Minister’s upbringing, early careers, and relationships. The video also included a message note to vote for Mr. Key “if they wanted compassion.” Watson and Jones, the creators of the song and video were not affiliated with any political group and paid all expenses. Watson and Jones sent out the video within the three-month regulated period surrounding the 2014 elections. The Electoral Commission intervened in its broadcasting because the classified the song and video as an “election program” under the Broadcasting Act.

Procedural history: The Commission produced an advisory opinion stating that the broadcast was an election program because it was reasonably considered to encourage voters not to vote for Mr. Key or his political party. Further, the broadcast was considered an election advertisement under the election act because it was avaliable for public download even though it was the individual political views of Watson and Jones. Thus, Watson was required to include a promoter statement in order to comply with the Electoral Act. Watson alleged that his individual political rights were limited because he was not able to publish the song.

Summary: The first considered that the creators of the video and song were not themselves campaigners under the definition of election advertisements. They were only expressing individual political rights. The costs to create the song and video were less than eight hundred dollars, so even if theses were advertising expenses, they were not substantial. Further, the court considered that the material denigrated Mr. Key but did not encourage voting implicitly or explicitly. Thus, any impact would be too indirect to actionable by the court. The song and video had a clear entertainment value rather than factual accuracy. The court considered that video and song were never dispensed through a broadcaster, but through an politics based radio program — except after the Commission’s intervention. Thus, the court could not determine whether the video would surmount to advocacy because the context was not permitted to take place (i.e. balancing with other opinions). The video is not an election program, but rather an election comment because it was offered by individuals that were not candidates or political representation.

Conclusion: The song and video are not election programs or election advertisement. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Social Media

Applicable Law(s): Electoral Act; Broadcasting Act

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: New Zealand

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Oct 20, 2016

Geolocation

Latitude: -41.263917612080235

Longitude: 174.77498988598148

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Electoral Commission v. Watson.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Electoral Commission v. Watson

Primary Documents

Notifications