Government Advertising Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 August 2024.)

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:12): I rise to support the honourable member's Government Advertising Bill. I will always oppose the misuse of taxpayer money, and this bill introduces legitimate measures to prevent the government of the day from using taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns that promote a political agenda.

I also welcome the inclusion of money spent on social media advertising as there has been a marked increase in the use of these platforms to influence public opinion. The coordination between social media platforms and political parties to advance a political agenda continues to raise concerns within the community, and I support the use of legislation to enhance government accountability in this significant and constantly changing space.

I note that the honourable member has included a provision that will prevent government advertising related to legislation before the parliament, and I quote:

Under our bill it would not be possible for the government to start advertising a budget that had not even passed the parliament.

Whilst I fully support such measures and commend the member for calling for government accountability, I would hope that these stringent calls to prohibit government advertising will extend equally across all political agendas, including those that the honourable member might support.

Serious concerns were raised by several Independents and minority parties about the excessive government funding of the yes campaign, as opposed to the limited government funds given to the no campaign, and I report that the honourable member was silent on that significant disparity in government funding for the different campaigns. So while I welcome additional measures to scrutinise and restrict government advertising, I also acknowledge the need to be vigilant to ensure that these measures are applied equally and fairly across political spectrums.

I do note that similar measures exist in New South Wales and Victoria, and while there has been an increasing scrutiny of government spending on advertising, the accountability and enforcement of these measures has not always been effective. It is a concern that, while the intent of such measures may be to improve government accountability in advertising, ultimately it may only provide us with another layer of toothless bureaucracy.

It is also important to note that both major parties have previously breached section 113 of the South Australian Electoral Act for publishing misleading content and, more importantly, under the act the Court of Disputed Returns can invalidate the results of an election on the grounds of misleading advertising if that advertising affected the election result. We already have significant legislation in South Australia to address truth in political advertising. Much like the honourable member's proposal here today, these laws need to be applied and enforced.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (16:15): I rise to speak on the Hon. Mr Simms' bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. I thank him for bringing this bill to the chamber as it builds upon previous reforms proposed by the Hon. Vickie Chapman in 2019, before parliament was prorogued. The Liberal opposition is willing to support this bill, although I will flag a couple of questions, which I will outline shortly.

This bill is timely in South Australia, which is in the midst of an electoral and political reform discussion. The Hon. Mr Simms' bill is a fine attempt at improving transparency, accountability and creating clear guidelines for government advertising. I understand this bill incorporates elements from the Hon. Vickie Chapman's government bill in 2019 and the Hon. Stephen Mullighan's 2021 bill when Labor was in opposition.

It is worth reflecting on the latest iteration of this bill, as proposed by the member for Lee just three years ago. When introducing the Public Finance and Audit (Government Advertising) Amendment Bill, the Hon. Mr Mullighan described it as the most important and urgent piece of legislation. This naturally leaves us then to wonder why, 2½ years since they won the election, Labor still has not got around to introducing these most important and urgent reforms. I will explore this anomaly in short time.

It is remarkable to observe that the spending has nearly doubled under this government when compared with the 2019-20 financial year. In his second reading explanation the Hon. Mr Simms notes that $47.6 million was spent on advertising by the Malinauskas government in 2022-23—a record amount and up $6 million on the previous year, which follows a trend of record-setting spending on government advertising since the election. Let's go through just a few examples of this government's splurge on advertising:

almost $2.4 million was spent on promoting the government's technical college election commitment, at least half of which came from Gonski education funding, a decision described by the education department's chief executive as 'unusual';

almost $7.5 million to promote the Adelaide 500 over three years;

more than $1.6 million spent spruiking the government's experimental hydrogen plant at the centre of the state's Prosperity Project;

$1.15 million to advertise the government's housing road map, which outlines actions that will supposedly deliver more homes faster, rather than actually speeding up their delivery;

over $1.1 million on the 2024 AFL Gather Round, excluding commercial-in-confidence arrangements;

almost $200,000 promoting the special Sunday sitting of parliament to pass the state's First Nations Voice; and

a raft of other unknown commercial-in-confidence arrangements for the likes of promoting the Santos Tour Down Under, LIV Golf and the Bush Summit partnership.

This is just a snapshot of what the Malinauskas government has proactively disclosed and, given the Labor Party's well-known disdain for transparency, and of the Auditor-General, one can only speculate what else they might be hiding.

It is worth reflecting on the member for Lee's views on these matters. I lost count of the number of times the Hon. Mr Mullighan accused the Liberal Party of blatantly using taxpayer funds to bolster our political stocks, and it is galling in its hypocrisy when you consider the list of recent government advertising campaigns that the Labor government he is now a part of has undertaken.

As the Hon. Mr Simms has observed, almost $750,000 was spent to promote just one of their state budgets in a display of self-congratulation, at the expense of the South Australian taxpayer. In response, the bill before us today has a range of elements, including:

the requirement that the minister publish guidelines around government advertising and communications;

barring ministers and members of parliament from appearing in government advertising;

excluding bills and legislative proposals within bills from being communicated at taxpayers' expense;

enabling the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of government advertising, and for members of parliament to request that one be undertaken;

the Auditor-General could also determine breaches of the proposed act and must prepare reports; and

requiring approval from the Auditor-General for advertising expenditure over $10,000 during an election period or, alternatively, by resolution of both houses.

The bill does prompt some questions as I outlined, however, of some practical elements and how some of those parts are to be interpreted. While the Hon. Vickie Chapman's proposed ban on ministers and MPs is retained in part 3, section 5, section 6 is a new and welcome addition that prohibits advertising on bills and amendments that are before the house.

I think I can speak for everyone in this place, Labor members included, when I say that we do not want a repeat of the Transforming Health campaign that saw politicians' faces plastered all over government advertising promoting that awful policy. We view the extension of the ban to include legislative proposals contained within the bill as a sensible solution. We did, however, have a couple of questions with regard to the section that permits the advertising of government ministers and MPs, so long as a recording of their voice and image was taken while they were not a minister or an MP.

In discussion with the Hon. Mr Simms, I understand that if he was in a video about regional public transport before he was an MP and there was then an amazing bill to promote regional public transport and Mr Simms appeared in it before he was an MP, he could not get into trouble. So we certainly appreciate the intent there that Mr Simms was bringing in this amendment.

We are supportive of this bill. I would just like to end by echoing the words of the member for Lee from way back when the Labor Party were once supportive of this kind of political reform in the following direct quote from the now Treasurer as he concluded his speech just three short years ago, aside from one small detail that I am sure you will be able to pick up on. He said:

We bring this bill to this place with the intention of refocusing this government and future governments on spending taxpayers' money on advertising where it should be, and that is in promoting the proper functions of government in the public interest, not promoting the flagging political fortunes of the South Australian Labor Party…I commend the bill to all those in the house.

Well said, Mr Mullighan, member for Lee. I certainly hope the government on the other side of this house supports this bill—I am not sure they will.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:22): I rise today to speak on behalf of the government, which will not be supporting this bill.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ngo has the floor.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: My explanation will be brief because we do not need to support a bill that outlines much of what is already in place and is, in fact, standard practice. Reasons for this include impartiality in advertising and prohibiting ministers and members of parliament appearing in advertising—that already exists. The Hon. Robert Simms has mentioned that the Malinauskas Labor government has already published guidelines, and that a government advisory committee reviews all expenditure over $50,000 for any government advertising. This government already publishes advertising costs and contractors, which are included in annual reports and other methods.

Labor already balances the need for transparency and accountability in the use of taxpayer funding for advertising. Obviously, the government of the day needs to communicate to South Australians about new incentives and programs that will have some sort of impact on their lives. Often, media reports focus on what is not being done rather than the solutions governments may implement to alleviate difficulties and reduce negative impacts.

This is a government that has already established guidelines for the purchase and purpose of government advertising that is published on the DPC website. Consequently, once again, we will not be supporting a bill that seeks to legislate practice that is already in practice.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:24): I thank the honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I thank the opposition and the Hon. Ms Game for their support of this bill. I do want to express my empathy with the position that the Hon. Tung Ngo is in. He is often wheeled out to sell the unsellable, and I feel sorry for him because, really, no amount of government advertising can make that position look good. It is pretty shameless. They really have more front than John Martin's to undertake this Olympic-style backflip.

Let us not forget that when the Labor Party were in opposition they were very happy to impose these rules on the then Marshall government. Indeed, in the upper house, I moved a private member's bill, or an amendment to a government bill at the time, which the Labor Party was enthusiastically supportive of. In the other place, they advanced a private member's bill. Now they are in government, they have an opportunity to actually put their money where their mouth is, and what do they do? They squib at the opportunity.

I cannot understand why that would be. What would lead to that about-face? When they were in opposition, they were very vocal on this. Why would they change their position now, I ask you? It is really an embarrassing about-face and very disappointing because this bill actually draws on ideas that have been proposed by both sides of politics, as the Hon. Ben Hood noted in his remarks. The bill draws on a proposal from the then minister, the Hon. Vickie Chapman. It also draws on the very sensible ideas of the Hon. Stephen Mullighan. It puts them all together, and it also introduces a few new elements that had been proposed by the Grattan Institute. So I am very disappointed that the Labor Party have adopted such an inconsistent approach on this.

The Hon. Ben Hood raised a question of clarification. To save time in the committee stage, assuming that this bill passes this stage, I might respond to a few of those points now. The honourable member raised a question about what would happen for a member of parliament who was inadvertently captured in advertising. There is a provision in the bill that makes it clear that it is not a breach if the photo or the use of their image occurred while they were not an MP or if they could not reasonably have known that they were going to be in the advertising.

For instance, if you had a scenario where a member of parliament was a community advocate or whatever, they were featured in some government advertising or stock photos and they did not know that they were going to be used in an upcoming campaign, then there would not be consequences that would flow to that member. I think the other question that was asked was around the $10,000 limit. Under the proposal, any proposal from a government department to expend more than $10,000 in the lead-up to an election would need to be approved by the Auditor-General.

I understand the opposition was interested in how the $10,000 figure was arrived at. It was the figure that was in the Labor Party's original proposal and, indeed, the one that I advanced back in 2021, I believe it was. The reason that quantum was arrived at, from my perspective, and why I continue to use that quantum, is that there was consistency with the proposal previously advanced by the then Labor opposition, but also it does set a very low threshold, which I think is appropriate, only in the lead-up to the election when we want to ensure that, if lines between government advertising and political party advertising are potentially blurred, there is a high level of scrutiny. That is what the bill proposes, but only in that lead-up period.

If this bill passes the upper house it would send a very clear message to the Malinauskas government that they need to lift their game in this regard. I think it puts them on notice that this chamber is watching what they are doing with government advertising and watching what they are doing in terms of spending government money on promoting themselves and on backslapping exercises, and that it really urges them to adopt a better standard.

The Hon. Mr Ngo says that the government is already doing it. Well, if they are already doing it, why would they not support enshrining these principles in legislation? The reality is that they know they are not meeting the expectations of the people of South Australia in this regard. I commend the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:34): I move:

The bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.