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

Hidden_Proceeding:Bills

REGULATING GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:14): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to regulate government publicity; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The history of the use of government advertising for political gains is an interesting one and I will retrace it for members shortly, as it brings forth some fascinating and, frankly, embarrassing backflips by our political leaders. I will summarise the history in a simple way by referring to my maiden speech in this place last September. The reason oppositions of either colour say one thing about reining in taxpayer funding of party-political advertising before an election, but oppose it if they win government, mainly involves power and control.

Parties wish to gain power and control and, when they get into government, they conveniently forget their promises, especially when it comes to political advertising. From the outset I am not making that accusation against the present state opposition because on my understanding it has not gone so far as to make promises to regulate government advertising. The opposition, like Family First and other members, has been critical of ads featuring in particular the Premier promoting various things, but it has stopped short of proposing reform. So here I propose this reform to my colleagues and to the opposition.

I am aware that the Hon. Mark Parnell has proposed some reform with his motion today, which I know has some merit, but, with respect to him, I believe that the bill I introduce today is far more comprehensive and represents what is now several years of research preceding my time in this place. Since I have been in this chamber I have been keen to pursue this matter. It represents several years of Family First Party deliberation and research on this important issue for the protection of taxpayer funds.

A key figure in regulating government advertising must be the auditor-general. The Hon. Mark Parnell's proposed select committee, I understand, does not involve the Auditor-General, at least on the face of it. Yet research papers Family First has collected on this issue show that frequently it has been auditors-general throughout Australia who have been critical of taxpayer-funded advertisements used for political purposes and who have called for regulation of government advertising. Auditors-general have also observed a spike in government advertising approaching elections, which again suggests there is more to this advertising than simply informing the public about important matters of public health and safety.

For some examples, I indicate that the New South Wales and Victorian Auditors-General in the 1990s issued reports on this trend, and it is important to put this on the public record. It is fair to say, looking at our own research and that of academics and others, that the phenomenon of what I will now refer to in shorthand as political advertising is relatively recent. I add that Family First does not consider that government job advertisements, tenders or public notices can be classed as political advertising: they are important pieces of public information. I have used the example of three fruit and five veg, and I commend the government and the health department for promoting that type of advertising. There is a raft of advertising, such as full page advertisements in newspapers, that are not about jobs or tenders, however, but are about a political party and its desire for re-election.

Family First research shows that since the 1970s governments have used advertising campaigns for social marketing to improve citizen health and safety, and examples of this include anti-smoking and AIDS awareness campaigns through to modern-day examples like the former federal government's campaigns against domestic violence and amphetamine use. These were, in the 1970s and 1980s, generally accepted with bipartisan support as a legitimate and important use of taxpayers' money. That is why I am not singling out this particular government.

Starting in the late 1980s, and from the 1990s onwards, governments of either persuasion began increasingly to get a taste for using government advertising for political ends. I will begin with a sobering starting point: the 1987-89 period in Queensland where the Fitzgerald inquiry occurred, in a state without a Legislative Council. Whilst that report was about police corruption, the inquiry revealed widespread corruption and abuse of power on the part of the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland. The inquiry recommended, among other things, that guidelines be developed for government media units and press secretaries. So, too, the WA Inc. royal commission included recommendations that government publicity be placed under greater scrutiny. There have, since back in the 1980s, been big question marks about the appropriate use of taxpayers' money in the field of government advertising.

In 1993, to put it on the public record, the Keating government's $3 million advertising campaign on Medicare hospital entitlements was spent largely in the last month of the 1993 election campaign. The Keating government's Working Nation advertisements of 1995, promoting his government's employment policies during high unemployment, were criticised at the time as political advertising. They also went on as a government to spend $9 million in three months prior to the 1996 election campaign, which was a bulge in government advertising in those days.

It accelerated from there and in the midst of that, in 1995, the then opposition leader, one John Winston Howard, complained that there was a lack of regulation of government advertising and that the guidelines for Australian government information activities were too weak. I could go on here about what the Auditor-General said about that with respect to the federal Liberal opposition in terms of what it promised if elected and what it would want the Auditor-General to do, but I will try to be as quick as possible with what I think is important legislation and explain what happened. In 1998, the Howard government wanted to let the electorate know that a Howard government would introduce a goods and services tax, and that is when it all started to accelerate, which is always the case, irrespective of the colour of the government. What did the Howard government do? It embarked upon a $14 million advertising campaign, even though no legislation was before the parliament. So, there was no legislation at all before the parliament, but the Howard government decided just before it was re-elected that it would spend $14 million pumping up the proposition.

I am told that advertising consultants reported weekly to relevant ministers on the outcomes of focus groups. Allegedly, when the acceptance rate in these groups reached 50 per cent, the prime minister called a general election. So, in that instance, I am advised that prime minister Howard spent $14 million of taxpayers' money to basically test his proposition, even though there was no relevant legislation before the parliament. He put more and more money into the campaign and, when his research showed that the advertising was working and that more than 50 per cent of the focus groups accepted the proposition of a GST, he called a general election, which he went on to win.

My suggestion is that, if a government wants to conduct such a campaign, it should pay for it from Liberal or Labor fundraising; it should not be funded by the taxpayers. One expert claims that the federal auditor-general approved the campaign, but all state auditor-generals saw it as a retrograde step in the use of public moneys. Although it is anecdotal at best, I have referred to the Howard GST campaign for the sake of completeness.

Another trend that illustrates the politicisation of government advertising is the shifting of media units from the administrative department of governments into the Premier and Cabinet or Prime Minister and Cabinet parts of the executive. Also, to illustrate my earlier point about the increase in advertising before an election, the best example of this comes from Audit Report No. 12 of the Australian National Audit Office, which was released after the audit of the Howard GST campaign. It was a report requested by the then leader of the Labor opposition in the Senate. The audit stated:

There are no commonwealth guidelines or protocols on information and advertising campaign...covering matters such as distinguishing between government and non-party political advertisements, the distribution of unsolicited material and conduct of campaigns in the lead up of an election...It is not a matter that officials can duly decide themselves. History shows that it is not uncommon for government advertising to increase in the period immediately preceding an election.

The last time the federal government was not the top advertising purchaser in Australia was 1999. So, for the past nine years, the top advertising purchaser has been the Australian government. Apparently, for almost every year since 1999 the Australian government has been the top advertising purchaser nationwide.

In 2000, a former Democrat senator, Andrew Murray, introduced a Charter of Political Honesty Bill, which dealt with government advertising campaigns, amongst other things. My bill, at least in respect of the oversight committee, includes the same three member structure as senator Murray proposed in his bill. I believe his bill was similar in its aims in relation to government advertising. I welcome the Hon. David Winderlich to the parliament. I wish him the best, and I will thank him for his kind words in relation to this bill.

I will now take members back to North Terrace when, on the cold day of 3 June 2001, the former Independent No Pokies MLC, Nick Xenophon (now Senator Nick Xenophon), stood shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with one Mr Mike Rann, the then leader of the opposition. I will read a lot of the media release into Hansard because it is important to put it on the public record for my colleagues to consider during the debate and before they vote on this bill. To use a phrase of Senator Xenophon's, 'I am going to try to help our leaders to do what they said they would do.' The press release, which is entitled 'Mike Rann backs advertising controls move', states:

Labor will back a bill by independent no pokies MP Nick Xenophon to protect South Australian taxpayers from paying for blatantly political government advertising.

Labor Leader, Mike Rann, said today that the Auditor-General, Ken MacPherson, reported serious concerns about the use of public money for party political advertising in a report to Parliament before the last State election—but the...[Liberal] Government failed to act.

Mr Rann said that Labor caucus last week voted to give in principle support to Mr Xenophon's Bill, which the No Pokies MP plans to introduce in the Upper House on Wednesday. And he pledged an immediate review of all State Government Advertising and promotional spending if Labor wins the next election.

Mr Rann then said:

The Olsen Liberal Government has been spending millions of dollars a year on glossy brochures, television productions, commercials, newspaper inserts and other promotions—and many of the campaigns appear to overstep the line.

The Xenophon Bill is based largely on Federal legislation proposed by national Labor Leader Kim Beazley and seeks to make it an offence for a Government minister to authorise the use of taxpayers' money to fund advertising and promotional campaigns where the effect is to give an advantage to a political party, rather than to inform the public about government services or initiatives.

The now Premier said at the end of the release:

Labor believes in different priorities—I'm quite happy to take a knife to the spin doctors if it frees up more money for real doctors to cut the hospital waiting lists.

Hansard also shows that, on 19 June 2001, the Premier said:

When we see a politician on a taxpayer funded ad, it is just a cheap way of doing the party ads.

When the now Premier's statements of June 2001 were put in front of me, I had to pinch myself and work out whether I was in a twilight zone. Everything seemed topsy-turvy. Here was the leader of the Labor Party taking a 'knife to the spin doctors'. Was the Premier under the influence of a bizarre winter equinox, a lack of sunshine perhaps? I am more than happy to help the Premier deliver on his long promised reforms to political advertising.

Early in 2001, the Premier, who we know likes to appear in advertisements saying that the government is fixing the Murray, criticised the then Liberal government when he said:

....need to get on with the job of rehabilitation and it should begin by diverting the advertising budget directly to the River Murray cleanup.

In his media release the Premier referred to some reforms by the now former Labor leader Kim Beazley. Mr Beazley moved his government advertising bill in 2000. Of course, this bill was not supported by the then government, and history now tells us—and this is an incredible figure—that in the four months before the 2001 election the Howard government spent approximately $78 million on government advertising.

On 27 June 2004, joining our conga line (if I may use the pun) was one Mark Latham, who on that date made an election policy announcement that his party, if elected, would legislate to require that government advertising be scrutinised by the Auditor-General to ensure its content was non-partisan. In 2005 the Howard government embarked on a new advertising campaign, this time concerning its industrial relations policies, again—and for the second time—before any legislation had even been put to parliament. At this time advertisements were also running that were funded by other groups critical of those policies.

The Labor opposition and the ACTU felt so aggrieved by this advertising that they took the case to the High Court, the case of Combet v The Commonwealth, arguing that this was unauthorised use of taxpayers' money. Perhaps against that background, during 2005 another ALP member, now a minister but then Mr Kelvin Thompson, moved a bill called the Government Advertising (Prohibiting Use of Taxpayers' Money on Party Political Advertising) Bill.

Just concluding on the Howard government (because my remaining comments are largely state-based), the information I have is that up until 2005—over a period of nine years under the Howard government—$1 billion was spent on government advertising, including an overall total of $200 million on GST advertising. During that government's time the ANAO in 1998 was ignored, as were three parliamentary reports, including the Political Honesty Report of 2002 and the Government Advertising and Accountability Report of 2005.

As I seek to conclude my remarks, I would like to go to the state issues that are specifically relevant to this bill. On 19 September 2005 the former member for Bright, the Hon. Wayne Matthew, asked the Premier, in question time, why the Labor government had not introduced its promised legislation to eliminate taxpayer funded party political advertisements. I invite honourable members to read the response made on behalf of the Premier by Treasurer Foley. At first glance it looks as if he is saying that his party was wrong to commit to political advertising reform, but I thought perhaps it was an admission of wrongdoing similar to the Treasurer's backflip last year on his past 'rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em' stance on prisons. I looked at the Treasurer's answer again and realised that perhaps he was just being cynical in saying that his party was wrong to criticise the former government, but then, and tellingly, the Treasurer (Hon. Kevin Foley) went on to say:

For ultimate guidance on this issue, the Premier and I look to John Howard, who has felt it important that he promote the federal government's policy initiatives.

If I may be so bold as to paraphrase the Treasurer from September 2005: 'They're doing it, so we'll do it too.' Two wrongs will not make a right. On 26 September 2006 in this place the Leader of the Government made a similar argument in response to a question from the former Hon. Nick Xenophon MLC on the subject. I believe that this attitude of the government demonstrates why this reform needs to be driven from the crossbenches of the chamber, from a watchdog Legislative Council that has had enough of the politicising of this issue, which is close to the hearts of hard-working South Australian taxpayers.

I turn now, in my chronology, to a fine media release on this issue made in October 2005 by the Hon. Rob Lucas, who helps remind me of some of the political advertising we have seen under this government. It states:

the government's report to taxpayers on its 'stunning' progress on its State Strategic Plan—citing for instance the new Adelaide Airport terminal—which had started before the Strategic Plan was released;

the Premier telling all South Australians he had personally succeeded in winning the air warfare destroyer contract;

the Premier telling South Australians how he was personally keeping South Australians safe with his law and order changes;

the Premier telling South Australians there was a free bus to the airport to visit the new airport terminal opening.

I turn then, proudly, to the announcement of Family First Party policy made by my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood in February 2006, stating that Family First would also rein in political advertising using taxpayer money, also citing the State Strategic Plan. I add that when the Hon. Dennis Hood came to office he began a research project on the best measures to regulate government advertising and, whilst I am moving this bill today, it is in large part a result of the work that he and the Hon. Andrew Evans carried out on this important issue.

Also in 2006 (continuing my chronology), a former Liberal opposition leader in New South Wales, Peter Debnam, moved his Banning Political Advertising Bill two weeks prior to the state election. In moving the bill, Mr Debnam claimed that the New South Wales government had spent almost $1 billion in advertising in its 12 years (at that point) in office. Mr Debnam's bill, like so many others before it proposed by opposition members of red or blue variety, had the same aims as the Family First bill. I add that, as an independent watchdog party, Family First is unlike oppositions which have moved these bills in the past, because we want these laws to apply to whoever is in government—for the sake of saving valuable taxpayer money for schools, hospitals, education and police, etc. Just to highlight that it still goes on, the Rudd government has committed more than $1.5 million to media monitoring services in its first five months of office, despite castigating its predecessor for doing the same. The Australian recalls:

Finance minister Lindsay Tanner in particular has in the past signalled media monitoring services were set for the axe as part of broader cuts aimed at saving taxpayers $209 million over four years. 'Under our Cleaning Up Government package, we'll reverse the trend that's become entrenched under John Howard,' he told the National Press Club late last year.

Mr Tanner was then not available for comment. So, did we or did we not get the cleaning up of government? Former shadow special minister of state Michael Ronaldson reported in July last year that all that occurred were guidelines requiring, essentially, that cabinet sign off on the campaigns. It seems that the former opposition leader cleaned up at the election and forgot to clean up government.

In order to illustrate why we need this bill I will give some examples of recent state government advertisements that demonstrate that we are likely to see more, not less, party political advertising funded by taxpayers before the election in March 2010: ads featuring the Premier encouraging people to get involved in bushfire prevention; full-page advertisements in regional newspapers trying to promote the ailing Country Health Care Plan; ads featuring the Premier, saying how he was saving the Murray River by using a desalination plant; ads featuring the Premier with Lance Armstrong, encouraging people to take part in the Tour Down Under; and, finally, advertisements earlier this month where the government sought to convince taxpayers that it was right about building the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital.

In conclusion, reform is possible. Since 1989, New Zealand's auditor-general has had a list of acceptable practices in government advertising. The United Kingdom also has stringent political advertising guidelines. The Canadian government not long ago also moved reforms on political advertising. However, in Australia malaise continues because, as I said at the beginning of my explanation, the major parties, thus far—and I trust it might change with this bill—are in it for power and control and, once they get their hands on the ministerial cars and the state admin centre, they soon forget the altruistic statements they made in support of democracy and free and fair elections.

Family First has researched this matter extensively, and I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues in respect of this long second reading explanation, but it is something on which we are strong. This bill is based on opinions on the public record of some most eminent Australians, including the Prime Minister, the Premier and a former prime minister, to name a few, and also several former opposition leaders.

Of course, we are seeking only to put into law what both the Liberal and Labor parties have said from the opposition benches of parliamentary chambers. Family First's bill requires that a government publicity committee be established, comprising the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and an advertising expert appointed by the Auditor-General. The committee will produce guidelines based on directions given in schedule 1, and government publicity must comply with the guidelines. If members of the public believe that it does not, they will have the right to make a complaint to the committee to investigate it.

If the committee sees fit, it can seek an injunction against the government if it remains in breach of the guidelines, and any single advertising campaign exceeding $50,000 in value must secure prior authorisation from the government publicity committee. Finally, no appropriation for government publicity may be included in the budget until it has been pre-approved by the committee.

I conclude with this thought: it was said in relation to the recent $42 billion economic stimulus package by the Rudd government that one should never stand between taxpayers and a handout. I might add that Senator Xenophon defied that logic, though he felt the heat of taxpayers' wrath for 12 hours or so. Just as the Senate defied that logic, I believe that we as a parliament can defy the trend of mealy-mouthed words about taxpayer-funded political advertising and pass this bill in order to prevent vital and increasingly scarce taxpayers' funds being used to promote the government of the day for re-election purposes. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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