KEY POINTS:
It should really come as no surprise that politicians and governments everywhere are self-serving when it comes to election finance and spending taxpayers money.
But I still do a double-take when I see headlines here in Sydney that could so easily have been plucked straight from New Zealand papers.
Just as the debate over government advertising campaigns is heating up in New Zealand over the unlevel playing field the Electoral Finance Bill worsens for non-government advocates, The Australian online reports that the cost of government campaign advertising over here (not electioneering) came to just under A$200 million (NZ$220m) in the last financial year.
It says that figure was fractionally lower than the A$208.5 million (NZ$230m) spent during the 2005/6, which took into account the first raft of information campaigns on the Coalition Government's "Workchoices" labour market reforms. (Imagine how much more unpopular Workchoices would be if the government hadn't spent tens of millions of public money selling the public a policy it didn't want.)
The response of Labor in Australia to the big spend on government ads was to calculate how many hip replacement operations, hospital stays and dental consultations that might pay. As Steve Maharey might have said, that is just one of those things you say on the campaign trail. No one would seriously believe that Labor here would behave any differently to the Coalition - or to Labour across the ditch - to eschew the chance to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars in promoting their policies under the guise of information campaigns.
The other election spending story here that gave me flashbacks to our own fearless auditor general and (Herald) New Zealander of the Year, Kevin Brady, was news that the Australian Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaille, has had to apologise to the auditor general.
Vaille let rip when the equally fearless Ian McPhee released a report last week effectively suggesting the Coalition had been engaging in pork barrel politics by dishing out dosh under a regional grants scheme.
"The report found that grants under the scheme were more likely to be awarded to Coalition seats, and that applications received from government electorates were more likely to be approved, even if they had not been recommended for funding by the department, " The Australian said.
At which point Vaille, the National leader and the other part of the Coalition, attacked the auditor general's independence and questioned the timing of the report.
Having drawn even more attention to the pork barrelling - what in New Zealand would be closer to corruption - Vaille has backed down.
"I regret the inference that I may have left ... I have absolutely no issue with the professionalism of the auditor-general," The Oz reports him as saying.
"I regret any inference that I have left that might have cast aspersions on his professionalism or independence; of course I do. I've expressed regret and in my language that's an apology and I'm sure that Ian will accept it that way."
Speaking of pork barrelling, Howard this morning has just announced that the Coalition would spend another A$470m ($NZ 519m) on roads and rail in Tasmania, specifying this road here, and that road there.
The Sydney Morning Herald campaign pages carry a graphic of what the paper calls "The Porkometer" - a strip across the top page of varying lengths denoting how much Labour and the Coalition and Labor have promised during the campaign.
As of this morning it was Labor: $59, 546,543,500 (or A$54.5 billion) and the Coalition $66,146,781,825.
That will need a little adjusting after today.
