Compulsory voting is the Australian way, and it is wise to have our rights and responsibilities more clear.

Income Tax and all Government revenue including traffic infringements, council rates, fees, levies and charges are compulsory. It is compulsory to complete your census, attend school, having our bodies disposed of with hygene after our deaths.

Yet very little promotion was spent on the census this year in comparison to unessential propaganda on other matters. Many thought it was just a choice to fill it in. It is essential for the government to have the statistics for accurate planning. Many forgot to do it. Why wasn't more money spent on the census responsibility promotion rather than rambling on about how we should force the disabled to work.

A lower quota on Government electoral spending and Government propaganda has to be regulated. We chose Governments as our democratic responsibilities. The government, therefore, should not tell us who or what to vote for as our national responsibility, at our own tax payer's expense.

There is a big difference between the two in ethics.

I’m finding it a bit hard to understand just what you are getting at Saintfletcher.

So I’ll offer this:

I think that whenever the government uses public funds to promote anything, it must allow the opposition the opportunity to have an equal input. And it must allow minor parties and independents to have a proportional input.

Funding for election campaigns needs to be drawn entirely from the public purse, so that donations are eliminated, and any perception of favours for donors eliminated along with it.

I agree, Ludwig, that sufficient funding from the Australian Electoral Commission to the parties or the independents avoids sleazy private funding. I don't question that.

The question I raised, though admittedly: on the run, my grammar was ordinary, pointed to promotional commercials that were not funded directly from the Australian Electoral Commission. The tax payer's money could have been seen as misappropriated from the departments themselves. The Government allocates "special promotional grants" and the department usually use them before election time.

The funding is not directly through the AEC, but it does promote propaganda for the incumbent government which is in fact an election marketing strategy. This could be seen as misappropriation at taxpayer's expense.

My apologies for the grammar. I really did rush this one without proofing.

The Party in power doesn't need to waste a cent of taxpayers money on election advertising, as it has its previous record to stand on. From that record, anybody can form their own opinion on the general direction it is heading. A good product,i.e. Rolls Royce, doesn't need to advertise. Political parties can also upload their policies on the net where all Australians can access them, for little cost. Unless some unexpected event happens, I believe most people already know how they will vote in the next election and no amount of advertising will change that.

Public funding sounds OK except it only favours the encumbent or the Big Two monopolist parties.
It is a wonderful thing for the media sellers.
Give the two major parties all the taxpayers money so that they can manipulate the monoplist Australian media.
As an independent free thinker who finds solutions outside the square,I will never win an election with the two giants dominating the Australian political scene. Australians are trapped in a net of media ownership that only supports the rich.The poor will never be told the truth,the real truth and nothing but the truth.
Thank God for the internet.
The poormans media!

“Public funding sounds OK except it only favours the encumbent or the Big Two monopolist parties.”

But Brock if it favours one party, it isn’t ok. It’s antidemocratic.

Every issue that the government, or the opposition or minor parties, feel they need to publicise, needs to have equal opportunity, or perhaps opportunity proportional to the numbers of elected reps.

Most of time this happens, sort of, more or less, in the media. But of course it doesn’t happen with ‘commercials’ on television and in newspapers.

Issues need to be judged on their merits, not on the willingness for the incumbent party to dip into the public purse thus presenting a totally one-sided picture.

I agree that where this sort of ‘advertising’ is one-sided, it does amount to a misappropriation of public funds.