A good idea
July 6th, 2008 at 10:31 am by David FarrarThe Rudd Government has changed the rules around Government advertising campaigns:
But the Government will have to tread carefully to ensure it does not breach its own advertising guidelines, unveiled earlier this week by Cabinet Secretary John Faulkner.
Under the rules, the Auditor-General has to sign off on any advertising campaign with a value of $250,000 or more.
This could be a good policy for NZ. At the moment it is up to Ministers and Departments to decide if their advertising complies with the AG’s guidelines, unless there is a specific complaint or referral.
Requiring the AG to approve any significant campaign in advance seems to me to be a win-win. The Government then has the confidence that any campaign will not be criticised by the AG at a later date, and the public have the confidence that the AG has approved it.
Related posts:
- Analysing the PM’s “assurances” on advertising
- Auditor-general agrees to English investigation
- The doubled edged audit sword
- Taxpayer Funded Advertising
July 6th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Ah, but you forget DPF it’s obvious that the Auditor-General is a Tory tool who has already colluded with the evil ones in a transparent attempt to bring down Saint Helen and ensure the triumph of the Great Old Gods, as they arise from their slumber and unleash death, blood and chaos upon the world.
You really should keep up, chum.
Vote:July 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
This is something that National could introduce when they re-write the electoral laws next year. Of Course Clark would hate it because being broke, this is abour’s only way to promote policy.
Another step should also make Parliamentary Service accountable under the OIA – then that could really fuck Labour.
A third thing National needs to do as part of the electoral reform, but with wider implications is to introduce a Corruption Commission with far reaching powers – and the first job wil be to investigate Labour witha very wide brief.
Vote:July 6th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Well said Monty. I think a Corruption Commission would really require a Ministry all of its own. With Clark gone I expect there wil be many unpleasant skeletons in many many closets…
Vote:July 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Looks like an idea worth closer scrutiny. Of course spending has nothing to do with transparent donations. Whatever happens to the law, secret donations via trusts should not be allowed. It subverts any effort to create transparency around who is paying what to whom.
The current law has some major issues, but one of the best aspects of the EFA is the increased transparency as to who donated money.
The only problem this increased transparency creates is the risk of corruption. In Florida, Jeb Bush’s Republicans were reluctant to award contracts to private sector providers who donated to parties other than the Republican party.
With PPPs on the horizon under a National-lead government, the temptation to use government contracts as incentives for exclusive donations from would-be private sector contractors will be very strong……..
Vote:July 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
No DPF, we need less regulations, not more… Just another layer of complexity and paperwork to work through.
Vote: