I had intended to comment on this last night, but ran out of time. However Audrey Young's blog-piece on Labour's latest EFA fiasco is no less pertinent today! She begins:
"It should hardly be a surprise that Labour is using a sham American family in a taxpayer funded election advertisement on the New Zealand Budget.
A sham is what the whole Electoral Finance Act has become.
Despite the warnings that it wouldn't work, Labour pushed ahead, maintaining it was a measure to promote transparency around election advertising.
Transparency for everyone except Labour, it seems."
I just find it bizarre that the Labour Party, the party which was the driving force behind this legislation, is the party which seems to be having the greatest difficulty complying - complying with its own legislation. Rushed legislation is almost always bad legislation - the EFA is proof positive of that, and I suspect that Labour is rather surprised just how long the opposition to the EFA has endured. And as Audrey Young concludes:
"The question that will not go away is whether Labour is willing to abide by its own flawed law by accepting what it has billed to Parliament is an election ad that must be declared on its election returns and declared as a donation by Parliament to Labour.
It set the new rules. It should follow them, and show some honesty in doing so."
2 comments:
Check out Bill English's latest press release:
NEWS: PM's office may be in breach of election lawby
National Party Deputy Leader Bill English says Helen Clark's office may be in breach of the Electoral Finance Act after all over the production and distribution of a tax-funded election advertisement.
"Comments made by Labour to the media confirm the controversial election advertisement was entirely the work of the Labour Leader's office. That means the Labour Leader's office has become a separate promoter of election advertisements, and should be registered as a third party."
Mr English says anyone who intends to spend more than $12,000 in election year to promote a particular party has to register as a third party.
"Helen Clark's Leader's office is not exempt. Her office should be held to account for its failure to register as a third party. This is a serious breach of the Electoral Finance Act."
Mr English says Labour has confirmed it thinks the pamphlet is an election advertisement, because it has included a party authorisation. The Party has since confirmed the pamphlet was entirely the work of the Labour Leader's office.
"That raises real questions about whether her office should be registered alongside union groups and others who plan to spend more than $12,000 in election year promoting a particular party."
Mr English says Helen Clark's attempts to distance herself from the pamphlet are not credible.
"Her photograph and her signature is on it. Whatever happened to the 1999 promise in relation to the pledge card, 'my signature is on it. I am accountable for it'?"
Mr English says he plans to write to the Electoral Commission seeking an opinion on the question of whether Helen Clark's office should legally be registered as a third party.
"Those who breach the third party rules are subject to a maximum penalty of $10,000. It's not an inconsequential matter."
Cheers for that NX - have created a new thread devoted to English's release.
Post a Comment