Labour concedes booklet to be an expense

This is very significant. Labour have done a u-turn on the cost of their booklet being an election expense.

The Electoral Commission had declared it an election advertisement (needing authorisation), but that does not mean it is automatically an election expense as there is an exemption for material which is for parliamentary purposes.  Dr Cullen had argued it was exempt.  He may possibly have been correct, but the problem is that no one at all knows what the parliamentary purposes exemption does and does not cover because they didn’t define it (despite the Electoral Commission CEO warning them prior to passing the law it was unclear),

Realising that there was a significant risk of being found after the election to have over-spent (again) if they relied on an undefined exemption, Labour have now said they will include the cost of any booklets distributed this year. This also saves them having to make the political argument that something can be “for parliamentary purposes” but also be “an election advertisement”. Even though it is legally possible, the public would not like such distinctions. Now they are claiming few have been distributed this year, but what is important is the precedent they have set – that anything deemed an advertisement will also be an expense, and the parliamentary purposes exemption will not be relied on (despite them working so very very hard to get it in place).

What this means is that people should watch out for  two things – crests and authorisation statements. If it has a crest on it (indicating taxpayer funded) and no authorisation statement that means the party publishing it does not think it is an election advertisement (something that can persuade or encourage people to support or oppose a party, parties, a candidate or candidates). If you think it does any of the above, then you can complain to the Electoral Commission about it. I would encourage you to only complain if you genuinely think it is can be construed as an election advertisement as defined by the EFA.  I am happy to give advice (as I have done many times already) on various material – but bare in mind I am not a lawyer and the Electoral Commission will make its own mind up. I’m just saying don’t flood them with material unless you genuinely believe it qualifies as an advertisement, so you may wish to check with someone.

If it does have an authorisation statement on it, then please please retain a copy. Because after the election parties and candidates have to account for their expenditure and list all their advertisements. If they do not include something which you received, then that copy you have could be vital evidence in electoral petitions and/or prosecutions. So do not throw away all your junk mail – keep it if it has a crest and/or authorisation statement on it.

Finally I note Labour have complained about policy statements on National’s website which are not authorised (even though the site itself is). The statements are the old 2005 policy statements which are there basically in an archival sense. It raises two interesting issues for the electoral authorities and parties. The first is whether old archived material (but still publicly available) that was authored before the EFA was passed needs to be removed from websites. The second is whether an authorisation statement for a website includes all content on the website, including pdfs which can be downloaded and printed.