Home > Current News > New Decisions: National Party tweet did not mislead intended consumers, Labour Party Facebook post did not breach Code, and more

New Decisions: National Party tweet did not mislead intended consumers, Labour Party Facebook post did not breach Code, and more

The following decisions have been released to the ASA website:

National Party tweet did not mislead intended audience

The National Party Twitter post included a video of the National Party’s Shadow Treasurer Andrew Bayly talking about the Labour Government’s announcement on its new housing policy. Andrew Bayly said: “If you spend five years not living in your family home and end up selling it… you will have to pay the tax on any increase in the capital gain of your property…”.

Two Complainants were concerned the advertisement was misleading because in the example given, the tax would only apply for the five years the person did not live in the house.

In their response, the Advertiser provided evidence the statement was consistent with the language used in the Inland Revenue Department’s official explanation of the proposed changes.

The Complaints Board considered the advertisement and agreed, in the context of political advocacy advertising, it did not reach the threshold to be misleading. The Board acknowledged the detail of the new policy is complex and not easy to summarise in a short video, however the Advertiser had substantiated the likely consumer take-out of the advertisement.

The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.

Labour Party Facebook post did not breach Code

The New Zealand Labour Party Facebook advertisement was captioned “…We’re announcing a package of urgent and long term changes that will increase housing supply, relieve pressure on the market and make it easier for first home buyers…” Below was a series of bullet points under the heading “We’re taking urgent action to tackle the housing crisis by: …” One of the bullet points said: “Closing a long-standing tax loophole that benefits property speculators.”

The Complainant was concerned the advertisement was misleading as they believed the policy was a “tax on tenants” and will not in any way address the housing crisis.

In their response, the Advertiser stated the post was an expression of opinion regarding future outcomes that will result from housing policy announcements.

The Complaints Board considered the complaint and agreed the advertisement fell under the category of political advocacy advertising. The Board agreed the statement “Closing a long-standing tax loophole that benefits property speculators” did not require substantiation as it was presented as an opinion and reflected the Advertiser’s position on their new housing policy.

The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.