National has its foreshore ads vetted

By RUTH BERRY political reporter

Amid mounting criticism over the use of taxpayers' money to fund political advertisements, National has had full-page foreshore ones running today.

To try to avoid criticism, the party has had the advertisements vetted by the Auditor General.

Act, National and the Greens have raised questions about full-page advertisements run by New Zealand First over the past couple of days, labelling them inappropriate because of their campaigning tenor.

Other parties have also come under the gun with National and the Greens criticising Labour's Budget advertisements which assert "you're better off with Labour".

National MP Murray McCully has asked the Auditor-General to investigate the budget advertisements, claiming they cross the line by effectively soliciting votes.

He revealed National had taken precautionary measures by seeking an Auditor-General vet before the foreshore advertisements ran today and tomorrow.

The advertisements are paid for by Parliamentary Service "party and member support" funding which can be used for advertising, as long as certain conditions are met. They must bear the parliamentary logo and must not campaign by soliciting money or votes.

The support funding is an annual appropriation which can't be rolled over at the end of the financial year, which helps explain the recent rash.

One advertising source said yesterday a full-page advertisement ranged from $13,000 to $25,000 in the big daily papers, but Government and multi-ad discounts would lower the price for political parties.

United Future has also run newspaper advertisements concerning the civil union bill.

Green MP Rod Donald, who believes Labour's advertisements are the most questionable, has long argued they should be more transparent, believing few taxpayers are aware they are paying for them. He believes all the advertisements should explain this.

Most MPs spoken to yesterday had different interpretations of what crossed, or might cross, the line and none advocated eradicating the funding.

Mr McCully said if Labour's Budget advertisements were cleared, he believed the rules would need tightening.

He said Mr Peters' advertisements had involved "inaccurate policy portrayals of other parties", which also raised questions.

He denied Labour could make the same claim about today's foreshore advertisements - which say the foreshore bill will foster "extortion" - because these were about "informing the public".