Ethics do not seem to matter to National

THE knives are out. Simon Bridges says he won’t work with New Zealand First to form a government, because NZ First can’t be trusted, and a vote for it is a vote for Labour and the Greens. Winston Peters jeers, saying, if the crunch comes and he won’t, another National Party leader will.

Mr Bridges is still sore about Mr Peters’ legal action against some individual National ministers (as well as civil servants who stretched the ‘‘no surprises’’ convention beyond breaking point) for involvement in leaking news of his superannuation mixup, while negotiating with National after the last election. Mr Bridges, like Donald Trump, needs to learn the difference between national (small ‘‘n’’) and individual interests and probably still hasn’t got over the shock of ending up in opposition in 2017 despite National winning more seats than Labour.

His decision’s not surprising. After all, John Key did the same in 2008 and 2011 and there are real questions, as in 2008, about NZ First’s funding sources, although the Serious Fraud Office’s decision to prosecute four National Party individuals suggests National might not be squeaky clean regarding its funding arrangements either.

But ethics don’t seem to matter to National.

A few days before the caucus at which Mr Bridges made his statement regarding NZ First, the Advertising Standards Authority released its rulings on complaints about three social media advertisements by the National Party, upholding none of them.

In two of the ads, misleading, nottoscale, bar graphs were shown.

Advertising standards principle 2 rule 2 (b), cited in complaints, requires that ‘‘Advertisements must not mislead or be likely to mislead, deceive or confuse . This includes by ambiguity, exaggeration, or otherwise’’. That seems, pretty clearly, to justify the complaints.

But rule 2 (b) has a letout. ‘‘Obvious hyperbole identifiable as such is not considered to be misleading’’.

A majority of ASA members felt that the inclusion of correct written numbers, and the fact that the ads were ‘‘advocacy advertising’’ meant that the ‘‘hyperbolic’’ graphic was ‘‘unlikely to mislead or deceive most consumers viewing the advertisement’’, and, therefore, standards were met.

A minority disagreed, saying it was ‘‘reasonable for an audience to assume the visual element would match the numerical data it represents’’ a much more realistic view than that of the majority, considering the proven superiority of visual images over print in conveying a message.

One of those ads compared petrol prices and taxes under the present coalition and Nationalled governments, but averaged the price under National over the nine years from 2008 to 2017, comparing it to the price on November 29 2019. Clearly that distorted comparison, while numerically accurate, was intended to deceive viewers, but, despite rule 2 (b), the ASA apparently feels all’s fair in ‘‘advocacy’’ advertising.

Two conclusions can be drawn from these disturbing decisions. One is that the ASA isn’t going to demand accuracy in the overall message likely to be taken (as intended by the advertiser) from viewing a political advertisement, so long as the ‘‘small print’’ is correct. That’s a dangerous stance to take, when it’s been shown that deliberately misleading political social media advertising, from within and from beyond countries going through elections or referendums, has been rife. It’s essential (even more than with commercial advertising: the stakes are higher) that the ASA demands accuracy, especially in visual images, in political advertising. If the rules don’t require accuracy they should be tightened. The ASA has failed New Zealand.

The other (reinforced by the fact that, while Labour, the Greens, and Act New Zealand have signed up to The Facebook Ad Library Report, which, to help avoid anonymous ‘‘fake news’’ ads, allows voters to see who’s behind paid advertising online, how much they’re spending and who they’re targeting, National, apparently, hasn’t) is: don’t believe political advertisements favouring the National Party.

Labour is promising a truthful campaign: one hopes the media will ‘‘factcheck’’ all parties, and hold them to account.