There is something deeply wrong when a minister can be found in breach of the Code of Ethics for using the Government's Department of Information to issue a partisan statement, yet the wider question of the use of public money for political promotion remains trapped in a legal and procedural grey area.
The case involving Chris Bonett should therefore be viewed as more than another political dispute between the government and Opposition. It should serve as a warning to every minister and parliamentary secretary about the standards expected of people entrusted with public office.
The principle is simple: public funds belong to the public.
They are not the personal resources of ministers. They are not party funds. And they certainly should not be used to enhance the political profile of those who happen to occupy government positions.
Government has every right - and indeed an obligation - to communicate with citizens. Ministers need to explain policies, announce initiatives and provide information about services. But there is a clear difference between informing the public and promoting a politician.
That distinction should not be difficult to understand.
The Commissioner for Standards has already issued guidelines on how the Code of Ethics should be interpreted when it comes to government advertising and promotional material. The fact that these guidelines have not been given legal force is increasingly being used as an excuse for avoiding accountability.
That is precisely what needs to change.
It is particularly troubling that reports in which the Commissioner found ethical breaches relating to government advertising have repeatedly failed to secure the necessary backing in Parliament's Standards Committee. The argument that the guidelines do not have the force of law may be technically valid, but it misses the wider point.
Ethical standards should not depend solely on whether a particular rule can be enforced in court.
A minister should not need the threat of legal punishment before understanding that public money should not be used for personal political advantage.
The ethical test should be much simpler: would this expenditure still have been made if the minister's name, face or political interests were removed from it?
If the answer is no, then serious questions should be asked.
There is also a democratic dimension to this issue. When ministers use the machinery of government - including public funds, government advertising and official communication channels - to promote themselves or attack political opponents, they enjoy an advantage that opposition parties simply cannot match.
That creates an imbalance between government and Opposition and, ultimately, between the incumbent and the challenger at election time.
The machinery of the State belongs to the State. It does not belong to whichever party happens to be in government.
This is why the government should stop dragging its feet and formally incorporate the Commissioner's advertising guidelines into the Code of Ethics or otherwise give them the necessary legal force. Doing so would remove ambiguity and establish clear rules for everyone.
But legislation alone will not solve the problem.
Ministers themselves must accept that holding public office carries responsibilities that go beyond doing what is technically permissible. It requires restraint, judgement and an understanding that taxpayers' money must be treated with particular care.
The Bonett case should therefore be used as a lesson, not simply another weapon in the political battle.
Every minister should ask whether their actions serve the public interest or their own political interests. Every euro spent on advertising should be capable of being justified as a genuine public-information exercise rather than political promotion.
Public funds are what public funds are: the people's money.
Ministers are temporary custodians of that money and of the institutions that administer it. They should never confuse that responsibility with ownership.