Electoral (Government Advertising) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 November 2017.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:11): I rise to support this bill brought to this chamber by the member for Bragg, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I congratulate her on the bill. This is a bill that will bring this government to account. There must be an unwritten slogan that all members of the executive of the Labor government adhere to, which must be something along the lines of, 'Too much taxpayers' money is never enough,' when it comes to trying to hang on to their jobs.

It is extraordinary what we have seen from this government in the way of taxpayer-funded advertising, particularly since the budget this year. They have spent an extraordinary amount of money. It is obvious what the aim of this program is: it is about creating an illusion of action here in South Australia by this government after 16 years. Rather than going back to the people of South Australia on 17 March next year and saying, 'Look at our record,' they are trying to create an illusion that things have been done that have not been done, that things are better than what they are, that 'you are lucky to be here; look at what we have done for you'. People cannot see any of this on their own because it is simply non-existent.

The government is using this advertising, even going to the extent of using the Premier's face and voice, in clear breaches of the guidelines on government advertising in South Australia. These guidelines were set up by this very government. It is interesting, isn't it? You see this time and time again, and particularly with the Treasurer, where the Treasurer is always quick to hold others to higher standards than he is prepared to adhere to himself. I think it goes back to him accepting the job as the road safety minister with 60-odd traffic offences that he was aware of, many of the fines having not even been paid, but there he was telling South Australians how important it was to obey the road rules and consider road safety.

That mantra or that style of the Treasurer has infected the entire government, and we see that in their government advertising and in their response to being caught out in the One Community grant. This is an extraordinary situation by this government, and the Premier said he would do it again. It is an extraordinary situation. It was so clear cut that it broke every single convention and every single rule in the book. It was purely a $757,500 grant to supporters of the Labor Party here in South Australia that wanted to win more Labor seats for Bill Shorten. That is what it was all about.

It was dressed up as some community outrage campaign about policy issues but, when you have a situation where people are paid out of this money to hand out how-to-vote cards, you can come to no other conclusion that the whole intention of this grant to One Community was to get a political benefit for the South Australian branch of the ALP. It was very effective in the seat of Hindmarsh, for example, where they took that seat from the Liberal Party. It just so happened that, in a so-called bipartisan group of people they got together for this cause, Steve Georganas was invited to be a member but not the Liberal member of parliament.

It is an extraordinary situation. It is amazing how so many of those who were involved in One Community are or have been Labor political staffers. It is an extraordinary situation that this would get approval within 24 hours, not meeting any of the guidelines. Today's bill, put forward by the member for Bragg, will send a very strong message to this government that enough is enough. South Australians want their taxes used for the benefit of South Australians, not for the benefit of the South Australian Labor Party.

This bill will amend the definition of 'advertising' to include any government political advertising paid for using taxpayers' money. The definition would include an express use of the name, image or voice of a person who is a member of parliament or a candidate in an election as per the government's 2015 Marketing Communications Guidelines. It will provide the Electoral Commissioner with the power to determine whether political advertising material is such that spending thereon would fall under the electoral spending cap.

In other words, from 1 November, the money the government has been spending on government advertising that is determined by the Electoral Commissioner to be nothing more than political advertising will come off the cap that both political parties are allocated for state funding. This is the first state election where there is state funding. There are very tight rules with that. There is a penalty of 20 times, so if you spend $1 more than your cap, you will lose $20 in the funding. This will have the same effect for government advertising that is deemed to be political advertising by the Electoral Commissioner.

It is not another political party or somebody with a vested interest who determines whether it is political advertising: it is an independent body, the Electoral Commissioner, who will determine whether it is political advertising. The government has been warned; the Labor Party has been warned. This bill was introduced into the parliament before 1 November, so this is not retrospective if this bill is passed today. The government was well aware that this was going to be on the agenda and be voted on in this parliament.

If we look at a quick snapshot of the $10 million of advertising that has happened over the last few months of this government, we have seen $840,000 for JOBEX. It just happens to be a few months before an election, and this is the first time ever that we have seen any interest in the government being involved in job exhibitions or expos in South Australia.

As a matter of fact, in recent years every government department that has participated in the two job expos that have been run by private operators have cut their budgets, cut their sponsorship, cut the space they have taken in those job exhibitions. The reason for that is that it does not suit their agenda, and that is to create the illusion that this government is creating jobs within South Australia. Of course, we all know that governments do not create jobs, governments create the environment that creates jobs, and I can tell members that the environment here in South Australia is a long way away from encouraging small business, in particular, to create jobs.

There has been $2.6 million spent on advertising an electricity plan, $1.8 million on a recent addition to the illusion of action here in South Australia by this government spent on the education plan. You cannot even look at Instagram without getting a government ad, that is, an ad for the Labor Party paid for by taxpayers here in South Australia. There has been $1.5 million spent on advertising for the Job Accelerator grants—the largest billboard in Adelaide at Gepps Cross has that ad displayed on it—as well as the multiple media ads.

There has been $1.3 million for the Future Jobs Fund, $523,000 for advertising the state budget, $450,000 spent on advertising the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. It goes on and on. So this bill sends a very strong message to any government, current and future, that taxpayers' money is not for the benefit of political parties.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:21): I thank members of the parliament—

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:21): Ma'am—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. S.W. Key): I saw the member for Bragg—

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: If she speaks she closes the debate.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank those who have made a contribution on this debate, and appreciate—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. S.W. Key): Order! I am getting some clarification here. Member for Newland?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I seek to adjourn the debate. I was standing. You have to give the warning that if she speaks she closes the debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. S.W. Key): If the member for Bragg speaks she closes the debate. I did see her first, so—

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: You say that, ma'am, to give other members the opportunity to speak.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. S.W. Key): Would other members like to speak?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Yes, ma'am. I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 22

Noes 18

Majority 4

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.