The High Court has supported the Electoral Commission’s contention that a Greenpeace advertisement is electioneering.
The High Court in Wellington has today released a judgment in two cases filed concerning decisions of the Electoral Commission (Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc & Ors v Electoral Commission CIV-2014-485-8997) and (Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc v Electoral Commission CIV-2014-485-8998).
In the first case, Greenpeace and others were seeking a statutory declaration that the Climate Voter website was not an election advertisement under section 3A of the Electoral Act 1993. The Court rejected Greenpeace’s arguments and said that the website that the Electoral Commission considered when providing its advisory opinion was an election advertisement for the purposes of the Electoral Act.
In the second case, regarding a Greenpeace website criticising Simon Bridges, the Court has declared that the website was not an election advertisement as it related to his role as Minister of Energy and could not reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading people not to vote for a candidate or party.
The Electoral Commission will need to carefully consider the judgment and discuss the implications of the decision further with Greenpeace and others.
No further comment will be made while the judgment is under consideration . . .
Of course the advertisement was electioneering.
It was clearly aimed at persuading people to vote the way Greenpeace and its fellow travellers wanted them to.