Taxpayers foot bill for perk paid Tasmanian poll blitz

Federal taxpayers are paying for political advertising targeting voters at the Tasmanian election, with a federal minister among those using parliamentary perks for the purpose.

A newspaper advertisement clearly targeting state election voters but funded by federal taxpayers and authorised by federal minister Richard Colbeck.

Federal taxpayers are paying for political advertising targeting voters at the Tasmanian election, with a federal minister among those using parliamentary perks for the purpose.

The Australian has confirmed federal entitlements are being used by senators from both sides of politics to fund newspaper advertisements targeting voters for Saturday’s state election.

Among the most blatant are newspaper ads placed by federal Aged Care Services Minister Richard Colbeck, who confirmed using federal funds for ads warning voters not to repeat the 2010-14 state Labor-Green ­alliance.

Labor whip senator Anne Urquhart also has federal taxpayer-funded allowances to pay for a newspaper ad urging voters to “call by & say hello & meet our state Labor Braddon team”.

The use of federal taxpayer funds to pay for blatant state election campaigning has outraged some taxpayers, but federal MPs insist it is within the rules for ­allowance expenditure.

“The expenditure for the advertising is in line with Department of Finance rules and was pre-approved prior to production and distribution,” Senator Colbeck said. “Senators are entitled to communicate with their constituents about matters relevant to them, including where an issue may affect more than one level of government.”

Senator Urquhart said her advertisements were justified because they related to her own “mobile offices”. “This advertisement is part of (my) regular mobile offices, where neighbouring state, federal and local representatives are regularly present,” she said. “All printing and communications is pre-approved by the Department of Finance, and completely within requirements.”

The funding of political advertising has been an issue at the state election, with Labor calling in Tasmania Police to consider whether the use of state parliamentary funds for pamphlets amounts to criminal theft of public money.

Vast numbers of glossy and multi-page material has been distributed by both major parties, with the latest Liberal ads targeting independent candidates, following concern independent Sue Hickey could cost the party majority government.

With very few donations disclosed by major parties, this has led to questions about how the advertising blitzes are being funded, aside from those exposed by The Australian has having been funded by parliamentary allowances.

So far, both major parties have declared just one donation each this election campaign: Labor $10,000 from freight company Sea Road Holdings and the Liberals $50,000 from a mysterious Richard Smith.

In the absence of long-promised donation reform in a state with some of the nation’s laxest requirements, both major parties are voluntarily declaring donations above $5000.

The Greens on Thursday defended their receipt of a $10,000 donation from high-end gambler Duncan Turpie, after the Liberals accused the party of hypocrisy, given its attacks on donations by pokies interests.

“We don’t take money from pokies barons, who leech hundreds of millions from Tasmanians who can afford it least,” said Greens leader Cassy O’Connor. “Mr Turpie is a mathematician who gambles; that’s very different to Labor and the Liberals’ donors.”

Liberal campaign spokesman Michael Ferguson said Ms O’Connor’s acceptance of the ­donation from Mr Turpie was double standards.