As is the case in every election, candidates—who seek to become our legislators—willfully refuse to comply with provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1912); here, for example, is Section 328:
Here is Section 328A:Printing and publication of electoral advertisements, notices etc.(1) A person shall not print, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, an electoral advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice unless:(a) the name and address of the person who authorized the advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice appears at the end thereof […](1A) A person must not produce, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorise to be produced, published or distributed an electoral video recording unless the name and address of the person who authorised the video recording appears at the end of it. […]
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1), (1A) or (1AB) is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction:
(a) if the offender is a natural person—by a fine not exceeding $1,000 […]“address” of a person means an address, including a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day. It does not include a post office box.
Publication of electoral advertisements on the internet(1) A person commits an offence if:(a) either:
(i) the person publishes an electoral advertisement on the internet; or
(ii) the person causes, permits or authorises an electoral advertisement to be published on the internet; and
(b) the electoral advertisement is intended to affect voting in an election; and
(c) the electoral advertisement is paid for by the person or another person; and
(d) the name and address of the person who authorised the advertisement do not appear at the end of the advertisement.Penalty: 10 penalty units. [One penalty unit = $170.](2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the matter published on the internet forms part of a general commentary on a website.
Let us examine the authorisation on an advertisement for Jane Austin, the ALP candidate for the seat of Denison in Tasmania:
Somehow, I reckon that “for the ALP, Hobart” inadequately constitutes “a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day”.
Rules, of course, are only for little people.
UPDATE I: here’s an electoral video recording for the ALP, shewn nationally:
For some reason, I doubt that “Australian Labor Party, Canberra” adequately constitutes “a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day”.
UPDATE II: here’s another national advertisement:
UPDATE III: Australian Unions publish electoral advertisements on various websites which are not authorised, and even the picture of a newspaper advertisement constitutes electoral material and ought to be properly authorised:
UPDATE IV: I suspect that Australian Unions, like so many corrupt former unionists—such as Julia Gillard or Craig Thomson—, care not a jot for Australian laws except for those which might impede their own aggrandisement.
UPDATE V: The Greens (I surmise) sponsor electoral advertisements on Facebook which fail to comply with the Act; for example:
UPDATE VI: The Greens, who cannot comply with the simple provisions of electoral law, will apparently find a way to end poverty!
UPDATE VII (5 September): I have been searching for Liberal Party advertisements which fail to comply with the Act, but all those which I’ve seen have, so far, been authorised properly; meanwhile, the ALP’s main video, on its YouTube page, treats “Australian Labor Party, Canberra” as a sufficient description for the place, “including a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day”:
UPDATE VIII (5 September): a website, dontbeafuckingidiot.com, contains rather profane propaganda for the ALP (though pretending to be independent) and disparages the Coalition—which the site, rather ignorantly, designates “LNP”, though LNP properly refers only to the Liberal National Party of Queensland—, but fails to provide any authorisation:
UPDATE IX (6 September): with false figures, feigned friends, phony followers and, now, fraudulent flyers, the fakery never stops with our fabricating, fibbing fabulist of a PM; see “Australian Electoral Commission to look into claims Kevin Rudd election campaign material is fake after voters deny giving quotes”, by Des Houghton and Anthony Gough:
Kevin Rudd has been accused of using phony endorsements in the campaign material designed to help him save his own seat.A glossy flyer handed out in his electorate features endorsements from constituents declaring “that’s why we’re voting for him”.But some of those featured say they never said such a thing.
Perhaps it’s all just a matter of forgetfulness. Tim Blair noted a month ago:
Rudd’s wife Thérèse Rein told an interviewer in 2009 how she coped with negative media attention.“All that stuff goes straight to the forgettery,” Rein said, explaining that the “forgettery” is a tradition in the Rein family.
These days, Rudd is claiming his wife’s family history as his own:
UPDATE X (8 September): the LDP also failed:Asked how he dealt with [slights and offences], Mr Rudd said: “So for me, I just stick it into what Mum used to call her ‘forgettery’ – boof! Remember the old computer programs it [sic] had the little rubbish bin at the top? Boof. Gonski.”