Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Election advertising up for review

Skidbladnir 31 August 2009 8

With an eye on ACT Labor’s 2008 Election spending, where their advertising campaign spent more money than the rest of the field combined, an Assembly Committee composed of the three parties has given its final recommendations on the proposed Government Agencies (Campaign Advertising) Bill 2008.

The full report of the Select Committee on Campaign Advertising is online.

For mine, considering how active ACTEW were in supporting their voting shareholders, the standout recommendation is Lucky Thirteen:

…Territory-owned Corporations should be covered by the proposed legislative framework for the regulation of campaign advertising.

Naturally, Labor are against it.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
8 Responses to
Election advertising up for review
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
housebound 10:11 am 01 Sep 09

Thanks Skid – I never had a good memory for numbers.

Skidbladnir 9:54 am 01 Sep 09

Housebound, Stanhope’s actual answer about the community Noticeboard part of the Questions on Notice.
March 09 – August 09 = $175,876 ($35,175/month).

And contrary to what your question may be implying, I have a productive work schedule. 😛

If you’re really keen they do an RSS feed of their own media releases, or you can just periodiclaly have a look at

(I just occasionally check the Assembly pages when I know something is due to return a report. These people are meant to be acting in our interests, so periodically check up on them to make sure)

housebound 9:30 am 01 Sep 09

The editorial in the CT shows the rag’s powers are not amused, accusing Zed S. of trying to remove a long-held freedom – that of throwing money to the CT I assume. It’s not online, you’ll have to go out and buy the paper it seems.

Thumper 9:20 am 01 Sep 09

Solly is well and truly ensconced in the ALP camp. At least as much so as Alex Sloan one would suspect.

Elections in this territory are hilarious, we should have one every year for entertainment value.

Skidbladnir 9:20 am 01 Sep 09

Before you sing about how wonderful the proposal is, its worth reading the Auditor-General and JaCS submissions.

JaCS asks for for ‘significant amendment’ before they’d consider it an effective Bill.
Auditor-General’s Office has ‘significant reservations’ about the Bill, and raised all kinds of legitimate questions about “Why is this falling to the Auditor-General, it could undermine our impartiality”.

James-T-Kirk 8:58 am 01 Sep 09

Oh no – Does this mean they will be using different materials for the election posters you see along the highways

I wonder if the new materials will burn in a more eco-friendly manner?

astrojax 8:12 pm 31 Aug 09

i heard a bit of this discussion on triple six this morning and the dj – ross solly, i think – was trying to bait brendan smyth; but the upshot for mine was that our democracy is founded on equal representation, not wealth.

if rich folk came out to support a particular party’s policies, according to solly, this would be ‘the market determining the result’ which would be against everything about our democracy – you vote freely, not with money. what solly’s argument neglected, for mine, was that in the first instance the money used to procure support was not ‘democratically earned’…

housebound 4:22 pm 31 Aug 09

Thanks for the links on this – where do you get the time?

The committee report makes for good reading. I can actually see that an Inquiry has achieved something here.(What was interesting was the amount spent on the community notices page in Saturday’s CT – about $117,000 for three months (about $39,000 per month) from memory.)

Let’s look forwards to a less undemocratic election next time around.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site