More Taxpayer Funded Advertising from Labour
From the will they ever learn file, comes this (taxpayer funded - Crest at bottom = paid for by Parliamentary Services) ad on Stuff today:
Such advertising is allowed under the description of commumicating the members views on issues of the day to the electorate - but you cannot ask for votes or donations, as this promoting your party, not the work of Government. Political Parties are voluntary organisations that receive no direct Government funding, except to purchase television and radio advertising in the 90 days before an election. (Some would argue that granting money to aligned organisations that then donate money to your party is sailing a little to close to the wind, but I won't go there.)
What Auditor General Kevin Brady decided was to take a more cautious approach of deciding if a reasonable person would decide if it was designed to influence a vote, and I think that this ad would be seen as being set out to influence a vote.
Clearly this advertisement is setting out to make the reader feel more favourable to Labour - it would fit the description of electioneering that
I would complain about this, except there is no point. Last year Labour passed into law an Act validating all Parliamentary Services expenditure that could be considered electioneering, up to the end of the 2006/7 Financial Year.
And that Financial Year ends next weekend.
Such advertising is allowed under the description of commumicating the members views on issues of the day to the electorate - but you cannot ask for votes or donations, as this promoting your party, not the work of Government. Political Parties are voluntary organisations that receive no direct Government funding, except to purchase television and radio advertising in the 90 days before an election. (Some would argue that granting money to aligned organisations that then donate money to your party is sailing a little to close to the wind, but I won't go there.)
What Auditor General Kevin Brady decided was to take a more cautious approach of deciding if a reasonable person would decide if it was designed to influence a vote, and I think that this ad would be seen as being set out to influence a vote.
Clearly this advertisement is setting out to make the reader feel more favourable to Labour - it would fit the description of electioneering that
I would complain about this, except there is no point. Last year Labour passed into law an Act validating all Parliamentary Services expenditure that could be considered electioneering, up to the end of the 2006/7 Financial Year.
And that Financial Year ends next weekend.
posted by Michael at
8:42 PM
7 Comments:
Not that I disagree, but for the sake of completeness I hazily recall that classification as electioneering included some consideration of how mear the election was.
By
Lyndon, at 11:13 AM
Kevin Brady only examined spending in the last 90 before the last election, but his determination effects all spending by Parliamentary Services on material of this nature - which is why the Government passed validating legislation for all the expenditure for the past seven financial years, not just the 90 days before the last election.
By
Michael, at 8:43 PM
Well it seems that this advertisement is completely legal so where is the beef?
By
Steven McLachlan, at 9:34 PM
Because I paid for it (As did you) by compulsory acquisition of my taxes. All political activity should be purely voluntary.
By
Michael, at 8:32 PM
Surely your not suggesting that all MP's should be unpaid. If so we would only get the rich gentry and the insane to stand for parliament.
Actually I agree with you that political advertising should not be sponsored by the tax payers. In fact it would save money all round if it was banned completely. Only the advertising agencies would loose out.
By
Steven McLachlan, at 10:21 PM
Parliamentary Representation should be paid for by taxpayers - as you say our House of Representatives would not be represntative if it wasn't.
Political Activity should not be paid for by taxpayers.
I agree that this ad is neither wholly one or the other - but I think it's too far on the Political Activity side to be legitimately funded by taxpayers.
By
Michael, at 9:55 PM
I'd say the ad was 75% promoting the new Kiwisaver scheme which in itself has fairly all round support. Most people wouldn't spot the Labour Party byline at the foot.Perhaps the red colour is a bit labourish but then again there seems to be no law against budget papers etc all being done in the appropriate party colours etc. An interesting concept would be requiring all government advertising in neutral colours!
By
Steven McLachlan, at 2:42 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home