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 itwas a measure to promote transparency around election advertising.
Transparency for everyone except Labour, it seems.
For today, a storm will rage around whether Labour has been duplicitous in using a fake family or employing accepted advertising practise.
The more enduring question is to what extent it has raided the public purse to pay for its election campaign.
Labour's refusal to answer three simple questions on the pamphlet cannot be justified: how many, how much and does Labour believe it is an election ad under its new act.
The Green Party and Act Party, to their everlasting credit, have been completely up front and honest with me whenever I have asked questions about taxpayer funded material they have produced this year that looks like an election ad.
The Greens have been the only party willing to voluntarily provide the Press Gallery with material that looks like it might be election advertising that is paid for by Parliament.
Labour has displayed arrogant disregard in ignoring at least five requests.
On the questions that surround this specific leaflet, Helen Clark - at the Fieldays near Hamilton - a short time ago said: "I think it is a total storm in a teacup and not worthy of my time."
She was talking about the furore over the photograph of the American family.
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.
