Dr. Jane Suiter:

There is debate about posters.

In some ways we have relatively high turnouts and there is some evidence to suggest that seeing posters alerts people to the fact an election is on. They are something children see when they are walking around and there is some evidence this will spark conversations about politics and about issues within families. In some jurisdictions where posters are much more limited the overall engagement can be more limited. Certainly from a political engagement and political education point of view, limiting posters is not necessarily the ideal way to go.

I know people have some environmental concerns around them in terms of what they are made of, or Tidy Towns committee sometimes have concerns because they think they look messy. There are also concerns about people spending various amounts. If we think about it in terms of new candidates and new parties, it is one way for them to get their faces out. If we limit posters, it gives an advantage to incumbents whom people already know rather than to challengers.

The electoral commission could certainly be involved in a debate on the amount of spending that could be allowed on a poster campaign by candidates, especially when it comes to SIPO being incorporated. If some of these functions were allowed to be expanded, that is something the commission could do. I do not think we would want to put into legislation that the commission necessarily must act to limit posters. It could be that there is some way to limit them and the amount a major party or an individual candidate can spend.