But before I do, I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. This complaint was never anything spiteful against the PPTA. I support their message and their effort to achieve smaller class numbers. Unfortunately I cannot easily communicate this except via my blog. This was never about their message, rather it was about the Electoral Finance Act.

I first saw the billboard across the road from work the day it went up in early July. It is quite ironic to see the PPTA press release regarding the Electoral Commission’s decisions – PPTA billboard breaches EFA – Yeah Right – because this billboard in Riccarton has been a Tui advertisement for such a long time over the past few years.

My initial question was a simple and naive one, given that it is an election year, and the board was promoting education, an election year issue – shouldn’t it have had an approval address on it? So, I decided to bring a camera to work the next day and send it to the Commission for clarification.

I sent the following to the Electoral Commission via email on the 2nd of July.

Hi,

I saw an advert today, and I am interested as to whether it meets the requirements under the Electoral Finance Act.

The billboard advertisement on one of Christchurch’s busiest roads and has the Post-Primary Teachers Association logo on it and text like the following (I can get a photo tomorrow if required for clarification).

“How dense do you want them? Smaller classrooms are a no brainer”

It also has the PPTA logo on the board.

Does this count as third party advertising under the new act? It doesn’t directly indicate voting for a party, but I feel it does suggest voting for parties with a policy of smaller classroom numbers (whether right or wrong). Does the advertising need to have an authorised name on it, as I assume that it wouldn’t take many of these billboards around the country to cross a $12k threshold?

Thanks in advance for your help.

In less than 40 minutes I received a very prompt reply back.

Whether or no[t] the billboard is deemed to be an election advertisement will depend upon whether it ‘can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading a vote for or against a party or parties’.  Such interpretation is made on a case by case basis at a commission meeting.

We would need a photo of the bill board in order to consider it at the next meeting.

It is the commission’s policy to publicise decisions made at its meetings.  For context, the Commission’s decisions generally include an overview of the issues raised and the name of the person(s) who raised the issues.

It is also common for the party concerned to request a copy of the query and for the Commission to release that document.

Please let me know whether you have any objection to the release of your query, including your name.

So, like it or not, I had to submit it for a formal decision to be made at the next meeting of the Commission. As I wasn’t doing it for any spiteful or malicious reasons, I had no problems with providing my name and details. I sent the images in with the following email.

I have no objection to the release of my name and query, however I just want to make it clear that this isn’t a formal complaint – rather I am interested in the ambiguity around this advertisement, and just want to bring it to the Commission’s attention. I am actually supportive of the message the advertisement is sending.

The interesting aspect I feel is that it is raising a special interest concern, and this is in advance of any of the political parties having even published their complete education policies for the 2008 election (at the brief look at Labour and National party websites esterday – most have 2005 policies still listed). At this point then, it may not be seen to be suggesting to vote for a parties that support a particular stance on education. What happens then if a party does come out with a policy that supports lowering class sizes whilst the advertisement is running – would this mean that the status of the advertisement changes?

My key questions are probably:

1. Does the cost of this advertisement count towards the $12k threshold for PPTA as it is raising a special interest issue?

2. Does the advertisement require an authorised name and address even though it is a special interest issue?

3. Is the status of the advert likely to change if a political party announces an education policy supporting lower class sizes whilst the advert is running – at which point in time the advert would then be persuading a vote for a party or parties?

I have attached two photos, and a KML file that can be opened in Google Earth to identify the position of the billboard. It was only placed at the start of this month.

I was sure when the next meeting of the Commission was go to be, so I then forgot about it, well, other than every time I saw the billboard, including the one in Wellington when I was up there last week. I assume there is another one in Auckland as well.

At one point whilst I was waiting, I found an interesting page on the Elections website that outlines the Guidance on the Value of Advertising Space. Now, assuming each billboard is say, 15 sq m, and there are three billboards, then according to the Guidance, this is costing the PPTA $270/day for three similarly sized billboards. For 31 days of advertising, this amounts to ~$8,370. We’re now 6 days into August, so I am assuming that this campaign is now at the ~$10k mark. The relevance of this is how close it is to approaching the magic $12k figure for registering as a third party – but if you’ve read the decision, you’ll know that this isn’t an issue, maybe not yet. Assuming there are 3 billboards of similar size, the $12k threshold will be hit around the middle of August.

On the first of August I received an email from the Commission advising me of the decision in advance of the release of a pile of decisions. I was happy with the decision as it stands and in light of what I have learned, agree with it. There is however the hint of a warning contained within that I find interesting.

But first, the Electoral Commission’s decision.

Subject
PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?”.

Issues raised
Gavin Treadgold noted that as most parties have not issued their education policy that it may not be seen to be suggesting to vote for parties that support a particular stance on education.  He asks what would happen if a party came out with a policy that supports lowering class sizes whilst the advertisement is running and would the status of the advertisement change?

Statutory provisions
Section 5 of the Act defines an election advertisement to be, in summary, any form of words and/or graphics that could reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote in a particular fashion.

Comments from PPTA
In a letter of 21 July 2008, Bronwyn Cross of the PPTA said, with supporting material in substantiation, that this campaign is “business as usual” for the PPTA and ‘would have continued regardless of whether 2008 was an election year or not’.

Electoral Commission’s Determination
The Electoral Commission has considered the requirements of the Act along with the items listed as exhibits (below). In the view of the Electoral Commission the billboard states a policy position and is not presently directed at the election and therefore is not presently an election advertisement within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.
For the above reasons it is the view of the Electoral Commission that the PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?” does not contravene the Electoral Finance Act 2007 at present.

As previously mentioned, an entirely reasonable and understandable decision. But, there is a significant but.

There is what I think is a not-so-subtle hint from the commission in the wording of the determination.

The Electoral Commission has considered the requirements of the Act along with the items listed as exhibits (below). In the view of the Electoral Commission the billboard states a policy position and is not presently directed at the election and therefore is not presently an election advertisement within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.

For the above reasons it is the view of the Electoral Commission that the PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?” does not contravene the Electoral Finance Act 2007 at present.

The couching of the wording of the determination should be ringing a few warning bells now. The Commission appears to have been very careful in their wording of determination to cover future and as yet unforeseen circumstances. What happens if a political party, between now and the election releases an education policy that includes reducing class sizes, or increasing the teacher:student ratio? Well, I believe at that point this billboard would then need to be reviewed by the Commission to determine if the PPTA billboard is now seen as the PPTA ‘supporting’  voting for parties with such a policy. I can’t presume anything at this point, and it may be that even if a policy is announced by a party or three that the advert is not seen as promoting voting for a particular party. I certainly can’t make that call.

But I disagree with PPTA President Robin Duff claiming that the complaint was “ludicrous”. No, not the complaint, just the Electoral Finance Act. I do agree with Robin that messages such as this “shouldn’t grind to a halt because it is election year”, however, things may get a little sticky when party policies around education are released.

Other linkies:

• Discussion on Kiwiblog
• NZ Herald
• NoRightTurn

One particular comment I’d like to raise and highlight as a point of difference that National could make. In Cullen’s Budget speech he stated that the structure of the income tax system would be simplified.

This programme consists of a combination of a cut in the bottom rate of income tax, threshold changes, a simplification of the structure of the income tax system, a bringing forward of indexation of Working for Families and a forecast second round of such indexation.

In theory the current personal tax system has three rates: 19.5 per cent up to $38,000, 33 per cent from $38,001 to $60,000, and 39 per cent above $60,000 a year.

In practice, the operation of the Low Income Rebate for earned income creates an effective four-step scale with the bottom step split into two: 15 per cent up to $9500 a year and 21 per cent from $9501 to $38,000.

At the completion of the Budget 2008 tax-cut programme the rates will be 12.5 per cent on the first $20,000 of income, 21 per cent from $20,001 to $42,500, 33 per cent from $42,501 to $80,000, and 39 per cent above $80,000.

Call me blind, but aren’t we starting with a four-tier system and ending with a four-tier system? What is simple about that? If Cullen was serious about simplifying the income tax system he would look at removing one, and ideally two of the tiers. This would create a far simpler two-tier structure. Why not have a lower tax bracket for all income up to say $20k-$30k, and a higher rate for everything over that bracket?

For a while I was keen on a single income tax rate, but I have come to recognise that there does need to be some break given to lower income earners to recognise that tax can be more significant.

A simple two-tier income tax system would achieve true simplification. One has to wonder if Cullen only wants to keep complexity in the tax system to make juggling the numbers easier.