CONSTITUTION (GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:50): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Constitution Act 1934. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Members would be aware that in the closing days of the last parliament a select committee of this house into government-funded advertising handed up its report. Included amongst the 22 recommendations in that report was a recommendation that government policies, in particular, the state government's advertising policies and guidelines, should be revised to reflect the recommendations of the committee. The committee then went on to recommend a whole new regime for government advertising to be assessed and approved. Recommendation No. 2 of the committee's final report states:

At this stage the Committee proposes that any changes to these processes should be implemented administratively and not by implementing legislative change. The option of legislative change should be considered again after a period of two years or so has expired to allow a reasonable assessment of the effectiveness of any changes;

It is quite clear that there will not be any changes on the government's initiative; therefore, I think it is appropriate for me to at least introduce legislation to show the type of change that would be needed if we are to move from a system of government advertising that is based around the government of the day using public funds inappropriately to one where the public interest predominates. Recommendation No. 6 of the committee's report states:

Public accountability for government advertising should be improved by introducing new review and approval procedures involving the Auditor-General and based on the new model introduced in 2008 by the Commonwealth Government.

The commonwealth government advertising guidelines seemed a good idea at the time but, as we all know, those guidelines have well and truly been thrown out the window at the federal level and the government has sought to use our taxpayer funds in a campaign going head-to-head with the mining industry. In that process they have sidelined the Auditor-General and what we are seeing is effectively party political ads being paid for through the public purse. They have completely ignored their own system and their own accountability mechanism.

This bill seeks to introduce the basic rules around publicly-funded advertising campaigns. Members might remember that, when the committee handed down its report, as well as the majority report of 22 recommendations, there was, not surprisingly, a dissenting report by the government members of that committee. I also took the opportunity to put in a number of additional recommendations. In my additional statement I said:

Much of the public criticism of government advertising campaigns over recent years has been around the lack of perceived public benefit from many of these campaigns. An increasingly cynical public sees many advertising campaigns as a blatant misuse of taxpayers' funds for purely partisan political benefit. There is no public benefit in generic government advertising campaigns that simply declare that the government has a vision or that its most recent state budget was a good one. Such campaigns can and should be distinguished from those that provide useful information or advice to help South Australians access services, behave more responsibly or understand their rights and obligations as citizens.

The additional recommendation which I sought to introduce as part of that report but which was not accepted by the majority was a recommendation that the advertising policies and guidelines should be amended to ensure that advertising campaigns that do not pass overriding public benefit tests are not publicly funded. I pointed out two of the existing objectives of government advertising that I think were the ones that led to the most abuse, and they were the objectives to raise awareness of a planned or impending initiative and to report on performance in relation to government undertakings.

So this bill seeks to create a default position, which is that public funding should not be used for advertising, and then seeks to set out the circumstances in which advertising is appropriate. The key clause in the bill is clause 3, which inserts new section 10B into the Constitution Act. The operative provision is 10B(1), which states:

A public authority must not undertake or arrange any advertising except as permitted by this section.

New subsection 10B(2) provides:

Subsection (1) does not apply to the following kinds of advertising by a public authority.

The bill then lists 10 or 11 areas of legitimate public interest where public funds are properly spent on advertising.

The first category is advertising designed to reduce the risk to life or serious injury. Into that category fall all of the road safety messages that we are familiar with seeing in print, hearing on radio and seeing on television—advertisements that remind people not to creep over the speed limit or to wear their seatbelts. There is very little doubt that those types of advertising are in the public interest. Clearly, they are.

The second category is advertising relating to the prevention or investigation of crime. Again, I think most people would accept that advertising that encourages people to ring Crime Stoppers, for example, when they become aware of some offence that has been committed, or to report suspicious behaviour, is a valid use of government advertising.

The third category of exemption is a reasonable level of advertising aimed at promoting public health. Within that category would fall campaigns such as campaigns against excessive drinking, campaigns that promote healthy eating, or important campaigns that often fall on deaf ears in this place in relation to smoking.

The next category of exemption would be a reasonable level of advertising for the purposes of consumer protection. Again, most of us would accept that the government has a legitimate role in helping to keep people safe from scams, and we often hear the Minister for Consumer Affairs in this place making a statement about protecting people from a range of dodgy practices. There are also new and emerging consumer protection issues—issues of cyber safety, for example—where government advertising can legitimately be spent helping people keep themselves safe and avoid being ripped off.

The fifth category of exemption is a reasonable level of advertising advising citizens of their legal obligations. Again, that should not be exceptional. There are laws that we expect the community to abide by. We know that ignorance is no excuse. Government advertising reminding people of their obligations is a valid use of public funds, and those advertising campaigns can be as simple as reminding people of their obligations not to litter.

The next category of exemption is a reasonable level of advertising of goods and services that generate economic activity in the state or revenue for services funded by a public authority. Clearly, the government is in the business of providing things like public transport and we should be advertising those services.

The next category is the publication of notices relating to goods, services or places operated or funded by a public authority for community benefit. Again, if public moneys are going into events, whether they be festivals or whatever, then certainly a level of advertising is appropriate so that people know that these goods and services are available.

We then get into categories that really need no discussion. Notices required by law—of course, they must be publicly funded. The advertising of tenders, the advertising for recruitment of staff by public authorities—again, they are not exceptional. I have a catch-all provision in this list of exceptions which is advertising approved by the parliament.

The reason for my introducing this bill is that it seems that the administrative approach—where governments are encouraged to do the right thing to self-control, if you like, so that they do not spend money outside the realm of public interest expenditure—has not worked and it looks unlikely that it will work. It has failed at the federal level and we have no indication that it is even going to be considered at the state level. Therefore, legislation of this type is the alternative method of keeping our governments to account and making sure that public funds are not wasted on unnecessary public advertising. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

[Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 19:45]