1. This paper proposes that limits on campaign expenditure for candidates in district health board (DHB) elections follow any limits placed on candidates in local government elections. These limits can be given effect through regulations made under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill (NZPHD Bill).

BACKGROUND

2. At its meeting on 19 June 2000 Cabinet:
   1. agreed in principle that the same maximum limit on campaign expenditure should be applied for DHB elections as is to be applied for local government elections; and

   2. directed the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs (Local Government), in consultation with other officials as appropriate, to examine the implications of the decision in principle and report back to the Cabinet Social Policy and Health Committee as soon as possible [CAB (00) M 20/5 refers].

LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE

3. Candidates for DHB elections will be responsible for the costs of their own election campaigns. A limit on campaign expenditure would reduce the effect of inequalities in financial resources on the election chances of candidates.

4. There is currently no limit on campaign expenditure for local government elections. The Department of Internal Affairs is in the process of preparing proposals for the Minister of Local Government on issues related to limits on campaign expenditure. These proposals will include advice on how and when limits should apply, the mechanisms for setting and applying limits, including when standing for more than one election (for example, to a district council and to a regional council) and whether limits should be provided for in legislation or regulation. These proposals are just one part of the review of local government electoral legislation currently being undertaken by the Department of Internal Affairs and are likely to be included in the Local Government Electoral Bill (LGE Bill) to be introduced to the House later this year.

5. The arguments for adopting campaign expenditure limits for local government elections, and for setting the level of these limits, will apply equally to DHB elections. If candidates for local government elections are subject to campaign expenditure limits, then candidates for DHB elections should also be subject to campaign expenditure limits, and to the same limits. Consistency between the local government and DHB election processes will ensure less confusion amongst voters and candidates. It will also prevent the potential for any candidate to be unfairly advantaged by standing for two elections. If a candidate was standing for both DHB and local government elections, but only one election had limited campaign expenditure, they could use the other concurrent election to promote their cause.

PROVISION FOR CAMPAIGN EXPENSES IN HEALTH LEGISLATION

6. For electoral processes, the NZPHD Bill will apply a combination of provisions from the Local Elections and Polls Act 1976 as well as provisions specific to the health sector (relating to STV, for example). There will also be regulation-making powers for more minor electoral issues, which could include campaign expenditure. Regulations made under the NZPHD Bill could be introduced at any time up to when campaigning for the 2001 DHB elections begins.

7. Including campaign expenditure limits in regulations will not delay the introduction and passage of the NZPHD Bill.

8. When the forthcoming LGE Bill comes into force, the regulations made under the NZPHD Bill could refer to this legislation (or to regulations made under it) or could replicate the local government provisions. This would ensure that the campaign limits, and the rules around them, were consistent. There would be no limits on campaign expenditure for DHB elections until a limit is imposed for local government elections and officials support this approach.

9. The disadvantage of relying on the LGE Bill, however, is that it is uncertain if and when campaign expenditure limits made under this Bill will be introduced. If the LGE Bill is delayed, and will not apply to the 2001 local government elections, then the proposed regulation-making power under the NZPHD Bill could be used to set campaign expenditure limits for the 2001 DHB elections.

10. The risks with this approach are that there will be inconsistencies between the campaign expenditure limits for both types of election, as discussed above, and possible duplication of policy and consultation processes. For these reasons, this option is not favoured by officials. It is proposed, however, that further advice on limiting campaign expenditure for DHB elections in 2001 should be provided in the event that the LGE Bill is not likely to be passed in time to place a limit on both local government and DHB elections in 2001.

CONSULTATION

11. This paper has been prepared by the Ministry of Health in consultation with the Department of Internal Affairs (Local Government), the Treasury, CCMAU, SSC, HFA and the Ministry of Justice. DPMC, TPK and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs were also given the opportunity to comment on this paper.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

12. This paper has no financial implications.

LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS

13. The NZPHD Bill should make provision for regulation-making powers to set campaign expenditure limits to ensure parity with the proposed local government legislation and to ensure that the limits can be readily changed as necessary.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 IMPLICATIONS

14. The proposal in this paper is consistent with the Human Rights Act 1993.

15. The Ministry of Justice advise that limiting campaign expenditure for local government elections, and therefore DHB elections, appears to raise a prima facie inconsistency with section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (freedom of expression). The Ministry of Justice will continue to work with the Department of Internal Affairs, and with the Ministry of Health if necessary, to resolve this issue.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

16. A regulatory impact statement prepared in accordance with CO (98) 5 is attached.

PUBLICITY

17. Any publicity on matters related to this paper is being managed as part of the Communications Strategy that forms part of the wider work on health sector change.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

Policy objective
1. The policy objective is to ensure that there is equitable access to DHB board positions and that the effect of inequalities in financial resources on the election chances of candidates is reduced.

   Statement of the problem and need for action

2. Cabinet has agreed, in principle, that maximum limits on campaign expenditure should be applied for DHB elections as is to be applied for local government elections [CAB (00) M 20/5 refers]. The attached paper discusses how this decision could be effected.

   Feasible options to achieve the desired objectives

   Non-regulatory measures

3. Non-regulatory measures are not applicable.

   Regulatory measures

4. The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill should include provision to make regulations to limit campaign expenditure for district health board elections. These campaign expenditure limits would match those made for local authority elections.

   Statement of the net benefit of this proposal

5. This proposal would implement Cabinet's in-principle decision on limiting campaign expenditure, would be consistent with local authority limits, and would not delay the introduction and passage of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill. Consultation

6. This paper has been prepared by the Ministry of Health in consultation with the Department of Internal Affairs (Local Government), the Treasury, CCMAU, SSC, HFA and the Ministry of Justice. DPMC, TPK and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs were also given the opportunity to comment on this paper.

THE COMMITTEE, HAVING BEEN GIVEN POWER TO ACT BY CABINET ON 3 JULY 2000 [CAB (00) M 22/21 REFERS];

SPH (00) M 17/5

DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD ELECTIONS: MECHANISM TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE UNDER THE NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC HEALTH AND DISABILITY BILL

BACKGROUND

1. noted that on 19 June 2000 Cabinet:
   1. agreed in principle that the same maximum limit on campaign expenditure should be applied for District Health Board (DHB) elections as is to be applied for local government elections;

   2. directed the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs to examine the implications of the decision in principle and to report back to the Cabinet Social Policy and Health Committee as soon as possible [CAB (00) M 20/5 refers];

2. noted that a limit on campaign expenditure would reduce the effect of inequalities in financial resources on the election chances of candidates;

3. noted that there is currently no limit on campaign expenditure for local government elections, but that the Department of Internal Affairs is developing policy proposals, in time for legislation to be introduced in 2000, to guide candidate expenditure for local authority elections;

REGULATIONS-MAKING POWERS TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE

4. agreed that provision to make regulations to limit campaign expenditure for DHB elections be included in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill;

5. noted that including campaign expenditure limits in regulations will not delay the introduction and passage of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill;
6. agreed that limits on campaign expenditure for candidates in DHB elections should apply when there are limits on campaign expenditure for candidates in local authority elections, and that the limits and rules which are applied should be consistent with local authority campaign rules;

FURTHER WORK

7. directed officials to provide further advice on limiting campaign expenditure for candidates in DHB elections in 2001, should it become apparent that the Local Government Electoral Bill is not likely to be passed in time to put in place a limit for local authority elections in 2001.