Friday, August 18, 2006

ACT election spending has costs

Oh dear.
Former "perkbuster" Rodney Hide is joining other political parties in fighting the Auditor-General's view that much taxpayer-funded party advertising for last year's election was unlawful...

Among the examples of ACT's pre-election advertising cited by the Auditor-General in his draft ruling were newspaper spreads two days before the ballot proclaiming "What Act Brings To Parliament", and listing things the party wanted.
Taxpayer money is not allowed to be used "for the purpose of supporting the election of any person or the casting of a party vote for any political party."

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Story here. Readers of this blog will remember a few other examples of ACT's 'perkbusting' campaigning being paid for by the taxpayer.

There's a lesson here, isn't there, for anyone who care to learn it.

UPDATE 1: A lesson too this morning from the Solicitor-General's office, courtesy of Audrey Young in the Herald:
A legal letter from the Acting Solicitor-General contradicts political parties' claims that they had approval for taxpayer-funded election spending.
Since the row began, Labour, New Zealand First and Act have said the Parliamentary Service - which runs Parliament - approved the payments.
New Zealand First and Act say they sought prior approval from the Parliamentary Service for their taxpayer-funded election spending.
And Labour leader and Prime Minister Helen Clark says the issue is essentially a dispute between the Parliamentary Service and the Auditor General.
But a letter from Acting Solicitor General Cheryl Gwyn says the Parliamentary Service's job is to administer payments.

It has no decision-making power and is not able to vet spending before the money is paid.

The letter, dated July 27, was written to Auckland barrister Alan Dormer.
He is acting for Libertarianz Party leader Bernard Darnton, who is seeking a judicial review of the spending on Labour's election pledge card, which cost $446,000.
UPDATE 2: The letter from the Acting Solicitor-General can be found here in PDF form, courtesy of Bernard Darnton.

LINK:
Soft-shoe shuffle on ACT's spending - NZ Herald
Official contradicts MPs on electoral expenses - Audrey Young, NZ Herald

RELATED: Politics-ACT, Politics-NZ, Darnton V Clark

Labels:

4 Comments:

Blogger Berend de Boer said...

And the lesson is that if you're not in parliament you can't spend any taxpayers money on advertising?

Keep up the good work Libertarianz.

PS: jest aside, I am disappointed that ACT did do this.

8/18/2006 09:54:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the liberatrianz are against state funding, why did you take your electoral commission allocation?

8/18/2006 10:17:00 pm  
Blogger Bernard Darnton said...

Context. Libertarianz took its broadcasting allocation because it is illegal for us to buy TV or radio time with our own money.
The broadcasting rules are an impediment to free speech - they effectively ban us from being allowed to express our opinions on broadcast media.
In this defective environment taking the broadcasting allocation is the only option available that allows us to campaign on TV or radio.

8/18/2006 11:43:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So that makes it ok? Just because we are in a socialist environment you can act in a socialist way?

Not on libertarianz. If you "had" to take the $20,000 on offer, you could have donated the same amount to charity. You're as bad as all the rest.

8/19/2006 10:59:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home