KEY POINTS:
Two booklets produced by political parties with parliamentary funds and carrying the parliamentary crest have been ruled to be election advertisements under the Electoral Finance Act.
But the Electoral Commission says there will be no consequences.
The parties, Labour and Act, will get a warning and be referred to the police only if they breach the law from here on by not having the proper authorisation of party officials.
Parties have the agreement of the bureaucrats in the Parliamentary Service that they can slap a private party authorisation label on their taxpayer-funded political advertising to avoid being caught by their own law.
But it does mean spending by parliamentary parties will have to be very carefully scrutinised by outside party officials because if it is election advertising, it will have to be declared in party returns.
The items were among four referred to the commission by the Herald and were the subject of accusations by other parties that they breached the law and had been distributed since January 1, the new start of the regulated spending period.
The Herald's interest lay primarily in whether material that MPs insist is not election advertising under Parliament's rules could be classed as election advertising under rules applying to everyone else.
The commission decided at its meeting yesterday that Labour's booklet We Are Making a Difference should have had a "promoter statement", meaning it should have been authorised by the party's financial agent.
The commission decided Labour would get a warning this time.
"The breach relating to the Labour Party will not be referred to the police if they comply with the warning and include promoter statement on all subsequent instances that this booklet is published," it said.
The commission agreed that the Act booklet Not Your Typical Party was an election advertisement but is not sure it was "published" when it was distributed to journalists at the Act Party conference.
It is seeking legal advice. If it decides that distribution to journalists is publication, then it should have had proper authorisation from the party's secretary. But if so, it would almost certainly attract only a warning.
No party, however, was prepared to have the matter tested by the Electoral Commission.
The National Party's discussion booklet A Blue Green Vision for New Zealand was referred to the commission with reference to its pointer to the National Party website.
It has not been clear whether material pointing to a website that was clearly an election advertisement could itself be classed an advertisement. The commission found that the document was not an advertisement, suggesting that a simple reference to a website - at least a website without a message - is not an advertisement.
The commission is seeking Crown Law opinion on whether a taxpayer-funded balloon with a party logo on it is an election advertisement that should have proper authorisation.
The commission has no regard to how an advertisement is financed, only the nature of the ad, which is why it is ruling on MPs' material.
After the Auditor-General found that MPs spent $1.2 million of taxpayers' money on advertisements last election, Parliament validated the spending then changed its rules to introduce a very narrow definition of what consisted an election advertisement. Now most MPs' advertisements actually escape their own definition.
But the new Electoral Finance Act applying to the general population has a broad definition so a lot of MPs' material promoting themselves and their polices is likely to be classed as election advertising.
Justice Minister Annette King said last night that the decisions were "very useful".
"I would say common sense is being used. This is new territory and we have to get up to play with the rules."
