HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:32): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on taxpayer-funded government advertising campaigns with specific reference to:

(a) the establishment of guidelines dealing with the appropriate use of South Australian government advertising;

(b) the cost of government advertising;

(c) a process for dealing with complaints about government advertising from the general public; and

(d) any other matters that the committee considers relevant.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

This motion calls for a select committee to be established into government advertising. The recent taxpayer-funded television advertisements about the proposed Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital—which, as of today, we need to call something else; the son of the Royal Adelaide Hospital perhaps—clearly crossed the line between legitimate government advertising and blatant party political advertising. It is not the first time this has happened, but I want to put in place measures to ensure that it will be the last time.

In my view the government has lost its moral compass when it comes to the appropriate use of public funds for advertising. This view was reinforced in recent times by a number of comments from government ministers. In fact, as recently as yesterday in question time in the House of Assembly the Premier seemed to be somewhat surprised that The Advertiser newspaper would be critical of government advertising, given how much The Advertiser stood to gain from one of its biggest clients—the government. That says to me that the government has lost the plot, because there are some principles that are bigger than just making a buck.

Similarly, in response to growing public criticism of the hospital ads, health minister John Hill said, 'I think it's odd that, if I say something, it's political, but if somebody else says something it's not.' Well, with respect to the health minister, I do not think he gets it. It is not about whether or not ministers or politicians say something, whether political or not; it is about the appropriateness of using taxpayers' money on a debate that is purely party political. Minister Hill does not feature in the Marj ads, but the purpose of the ads was to get across the message to the public that a new hospital was a better idea than trying to renovate the existing hospital.

We all know that the real message behind those ads was to attack the position that the opposition has taken on the issue. The ads followed very closely on the observations of a number of political commentators that the next election would be a referendum on the Marj. There was no possible public interest in these ads other than the government debunking the position of its primary opponents. The Marj ad would have been quite appropriate as a Labor Party-funded ad, whether now or later during the election campaign, but it is not an appropriate taxpayer-funded ad at any time.

That raises the question as to where the boundaries lie between appropriate and inappropriate government advertising, and the purpose of my proposed select committee is to help draw those lines. However, to give members an idea of the thinking behind this motion let us think about some appropriate forms of advertising. I refer, for example, to an advertisement that tells people about a new service that is relevant to them; maybe there is a rebate on offer or a service that people can access; or perhaps there is a new program that people need to know about. Of course, that message needs to get out to the community, and government-funded ads are the way to do it.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My colleague mentions a range of other factors, including changes to transport rules. He has read my notes, because that is my second point. If the law is changed, people need to know what the law is—for example, changes to traffic laws would be an appropriate use of government-funded advertising. A third appropriate use would be ads that encourage behaviour change—for example, there were advertisements on television, and I think on radio as well, encouraging young mothers to continue breast-feeding for as long as they can. There is strong public interest and health benefits behind that sort of behaviour change, so that is an appropriate use of government-funded advertising. A fourth example is that we often need constant reminding of our obligations, so advertisements that remind us not to bring fruit across from other states into fruit fly-free South Australia are, I believe, an appropriate use of government ads as well.

Let us look at what might be an inappropriate advertisement. Any ad that is blatantly political or any ad whose sole purpose is to make us feel good about our government is an inappropriate use of taxpayers' funds and, similarly, any ad designed to distinguish the government's position from that of their opponent. For example, ads that simply promote the government's vision or promote the budget are inappropriate. Mind you, if they are promoting a service the budget establishes, that is okay, but simply promoting the budget, saying, 'We've just handed down a great budget,' I do not think is appropriate. Examples such as the Marj hospital are inappropriate. A number of approaches can be adopted to try to redress this problem.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: There are suggestions that a legislative approach is appropriate and there are other jurisdictions where an administrative approach is more appropriate. I will use a couple of examples from different jurisdictions. The federal government has gone down the administrative path. The Rudd government has unveiled what the media described as 'tough new advertising guidelines to stop it wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars boasting about its achievements'. That was the description that was applied in the media. In New South Wales the government has an advertising guidelines standard that is set administratively. It is prepared by the Department of Commerce in the New South Wales government. It is a publicly available document and it is on their website. Other states have gone down the same path, as well.

In South Australia, whatever standards do apply are hidden or simply ignored. The issue has been raised in this state in the past over many years. The Auditor-General raised it in the 1996-97 annual report. There is an entire section of that report on public expenditure by government under the subheading, 'Advertising: general principles'. The Auditor-General sets out what he thinks might be an appropriate test for different government advertising campaigns.

The member for Mitchell in another place introduced a bill about a year ago—the Government Advertising (Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability) Bill 2008. That bill set out, as a schedule, the principles and guidelines that were to be followed in government advertising. Whether we go down the legislative path or the administrative path, the product at the end of the day needs to be a set of guidelines which are binding, either legally or morally, and which make it difficult or embarrassing for the government to misuse public funds.

That is why I have gone down the path of proposing a select committee of this council. It seems clear to me that naming and shaming does not work and that we need to go to the next level. I want to achieve a positive outcome, not just make a statement. A legislative approach may pass this chamber but it is unlikely to pass in the other house, whereas a multi-party committee of this council has an excellent chance of coming up with some guidelines that are generally accepted on all sides of politics.

Effectively, what we are doing as an upper house, if we establish this committee, is to play the watchdog role we were elected to do. We are providing guidance to the executive as to an appropriate way in which to behave. I do not think that without that guidance we can trust them not to continue to misuse government funds, particularly in the lead-up to the next election.

What I am proposing is what I am calling a short, sharp and shiny select committee. I do not want a select committee that will go on forever. In fact, I am proposing a committee that will complete its work by the end of the winter break. I do not expect it will need to meet many times. Of course, the attitude of the government will play a key role in keeping the select committee moving so that it can complete its work in a short time.

I say that it should be short, sharp and shiny for three main reasons. First, it is not that hard. Other jurisdictions have thought about it and put in place measures. There is no shortage of guidelines and lists of appropriate uses of government funding for advertising; and I went through some of the criteria earlier. Secondly, because work has been done elsewhere, we do not necessarily need to replicate it: we just need to collect it, analyse it and decide which model we want to adopt. Thirdly, it is important that we resolve this issue before all political parties start to crank up their election advertising. It seems to me that if the government is getting away—as it is at present—with the sorts of ads we saw around the last budget—ads such as that for the Marj—then imagine what sorts of ads we will be seeing in September, October, November and December—later this year—when the election is looming.

I have discussed this matter briefly with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Ms Vickie Chapman) in the other place. I got the impression that she is generally supportive, and she has said so in the media. I now want to talk to the Liberal Party about the terms of reference.

I do not think it is appropriate for us to expand the terms of reference that I have set out in such a way that we lose sight of the actual objective of this inquiry. I do not want this select committee to be an inquiry into the merits or otherwise of building a new hospital. If members want to have that debate, then they should bring a proposal specifically around that, but I would not want to see this inquiry go down that path.

Finally, in urging members to support this motion, consistent with my wanting it to be short, sharp and shiny, I want to bring this matter to a head soon. I give notice that I would like us to vote on this motion on 25 March—not the next Wednesday of sitting but, rather, the Wednesday after that. It gives us a month to think about it and I believe that, if we are serious about doing it quickly, we need to vote on the motion and decide it quickly. I commend the motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT