HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONSTITUTION (GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 June 2010.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:39): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Constitution (Government Advertising) Amendment Bill. On a previous occasion—I cannot recall exactly when—I, together with some other members of the upper house select committee on this issue, spoke about and addressed our various views on government advertising. I refer those avid readers of Hansard to my contribution to indicate the position I adopted both personally and on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Subsequent to that, the Liberal Party took a policy to the last state election, which I think was in the broad ambit of our public sector management policy, and I stand to be corrected on the precise title of that policy.

That sort of summarises our general position, but it indicates why the Liberal Party does not and will not support the second reading of this bill. In that report we highlighted the sorts of changes we were prepared to support. We certainly supported greater controls and restrictions on government advertising. We certainly supported the introduction of a model of those restrictions, based on what then existed in the commonwealth arena.

I note that those of us who congratulated the federal government on those restrictions were left exposed when the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the federal government caved in to craven political self-interest in the period leading up to the federal election and removed those controls and restrictions in a desperate endeavour to hang on to office and allow them to undertake some taxpayer-funded government advertising. I note that that did not assist former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his endeavours but, as we well know, Prime Minister Gillard continues in office after the most recent federal election.

The view that Liberal members on that committee expressed was that we supported the changes being made generally through administrative change and action. We therefore had the view that we did not support going down the legislative change option. One of the reasons for that is that it is so extraordinarily difficult to cater, in a legislative sense, for all the restrictions one would want to contemplate and would be prepared to support in a piece of legislation that governs the actions of all governments and all circumstances in the future. I acknowledge that the Hon. Mr Parnell has used his best endeavours to try to cater for those other circumstances that one cannot actually contemplate, and he has a catch-all provision towards the end which seeks to do that. That is his own tacit way of acknowledging that it is hard to legislatively provide for all possibilities that might arise in future, and he acknowledged that therefore there needed to be at least some let-out or catch-all clause.

There are some specific issues we would have if we were to get into a detailed debate in committee about the particular provisions. I do not intend to waste the time of the committee because I expect that government members will not support the second reading either, and we therefore will not need to waste too much of the committee's time going through the detail. However, if the government surprises me we will happily engage in that lengthy committee process and tease out some of the issues with the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. Mr Parnell, in his second reading contribution, says that he is being true to the views he put both before and during the select committee. We came to a happy landing on the general principle that there ought to be restrictions, and we had some impact. Time will tell how long, because the government, in the throes of, 'We are listening and we have heard the message', announced that it had reduced the level of government advertising, but I sometimes wonder whether that will last the four years of this parliamentary term, and I am sure that is what is driving the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. Mr Parnell knows that what we are doing here is largely symbolic because the government of the day in the House of Assembly will not support legislative change anyway. Nevertheless, that does not prevent us on this or indeed any other issue symbolically passing legislation and trying to put pressure on the government of the day in relation to any particular issue, so I do not criticise the Hon. Mr Parnell for that. He has been true to what he said. In not supporting this, we are being true to the views that I have expressed and for some of the reasons that I have given, but I am not going to bore the council at this stage with all of the detailed reasons.

Without going into the detail, there are some interesting questions about the broad definition of advertising. The definitions of what we have broadly contemplated to be what I would call expensive, mass-produced advertising—in particular, television and radio advertising—are included in this legislation. They are very broad and would include a whole variety of things, some expensive and some inexpensive, and potentially relatively inexpensive explanatory leaflets that the departments and agencies might produce which certainly would still come within the definition of advertising in the legislation, in my humble view.

As I said, I do not intend to pursue all of the detailed issues in relation to the amendment for the reasons that I have outlined now. I refer the interested readers of Hansard to the select committee report and also to our parliamentary speech on the issue to the reasons why we support a restriction on the unlimited government advertising which has existed in the past, but at this stage we do not support going down a legislative path. I remind again the readers of Hansard that this will be a largely symbolic issue should the legislation pass because this government certainly will not be supporting any legislative change along these lines.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (17:47): I did not realise the Hon. Mr Lucas had taken upon himself the responsibility for speaking for the government, but he is right on this occasion that the government will be opposing the bill. This bill was proposed subsequent to the report of the select committee of this council regarding taxpayer funded government advertising established in 2009. I draw honourable members' attention to the dissenting statement to that report by the Hons Mrs Zollo and Mr Hunter. Their dissenting statement did not endorse a legislative approach as provided for in this bill.

The bill seeks to insert a new section into the Constitution Act which would work to restrict taxpayer funded advertising by public authorities. The bill is designed so that advertising is not permitted, except for certain exemptions which the bill sets out. It is worth noting that some of these refer to a reasonable level of advertising, but that is not defined and so would be the subject of a subjective test. That could lead to applications for judicial review of a decision made pursuant to this clause.

The government does not agree that a legislative approach is necessary for the regulation of publicly funded government advertising. The current approach is consistent with all other Australian jurisdictions, none of which have legislation to regulate this area. The advertising guidelines and policies that exist contain general principles to set out the objectives for government advertising and contain details of when public funds should not be used. For example, public funds are not to be used when the image or voice of a politician is used in advertising and when the party in government is mentioned by name. Therefore, the use of public funds for advertising is already constricted by the guidelines in place so that it is used for genuine purposes and not for partisan political benefit.

It is incongruous, as the Hon. Mr Lucas noted, that this bill tries to amend the Constitution Act for the purpose of restricting government advertising. The placing of the proposed provisions in that bill is not appropriate as the Constitution Act deals with the foundations of government, the parliament and the judiciary and is not the place to generally regulate day-to-day functions of government.

As the Hon. Mr Lucas noted, there has been some further change in this area since the formation of this government following the election. In relation to that I draw honourable members' attention to an answer given by the Premier in the other place on 22 July this year in response to a question from the member for Bright. In that answer the Premier outlined the new guidelines that had been developed and indicated that it had already led to a reduction in the cost of government advertising.

While the government agrees it is important that taxpayer funded government advertising is used only for appropriate purposes and that public funds are not misused, we do not see this bill as the appropriate way to achieve that aim. The current approach, including the guidelines, which were strengthened in 2009 and 2010, has been successful in ensuring that the advertising is used only for legitimate purposes. For these reasons, the government opposes the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:50): I place on the record Dignity for Disability's support for this bill. There should be rules around publicly-funded advertising campaigns to ensure that any publicly-funded advertising campaigns are for the benefit of the public, not simply for the benefit of the government. Let's face it, the government does have a tendency to be somewhat mean with its money, as my fellow members all know, so why should it be allowed to sing its own praises when there is no real perceived benefit to the community?

That is not to say that the government should be banned from spending money on advertising—it just should be subjected to rules, and that is what this bill does. It provides boundaries and limits to the circumstances in which the government can use our money. This bill allows government to spend money on advertising in a number of circumstances, which the Hon. Mr Parnell has already stated, so I will not waste the time of this place repeating them. I will say only that the categories are fair and well thought out.

For those of us here who think these categories are too limited, I note that the parliament still may approve advertising. So, it appears that this bill still allows the government to state its case to the parliament, which can then scrutinise such requests. I thank the Hon. Mr Parnell for introducing this bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:51): I rise today to speak to the second reading of the Constitution (Government Advertising) Amendment Bill. Advertising is certainly a very important part of government procedure but, as suggested by the Hon. Mark Parnell in his amendment bill, it is very easily abused. However, there are very important campaigns that should be run by government, the most important one being advertising to reduce the risk to life or serious injury. There are others, such as the obvious ones, which would include information and which would cover the likes of the campaign for the closure of the Gawler rail line, for example. Then there are advisory campaigns which, as an example, would be the anti-gambling campaign.

These are just two categories (and, of course, there are many more), but it shows that they are important messages for the general public and the purpose of the campaign is obvious. It should certainly not be a blatant advertising push for the government of the day. As has been suggested, the recent campaign run by the federal government in the battle with the mining sector is a prime example. That was an advertising campaign which, of course, should never have been funded by the Australian taxpayers. It was a battle of wits, if you like, between the government of the day and the mining industry and was a precursor to the federal election—a little like the advertising campaign for our big new hospital before our state election.

As most of us would know, advertising campaigns these days are extremely expensive. In cases where taxpayer money is used by the government, it should first be subject to scrutiny before it is allowed to proceed. If these partisan campaigns are allowed to continue, they will become a huge drain on the public purse—and probably have.

I think overwhelmingly the voting public is more politically savvy in this day and age and, for the most part, we are aware of when and where taxpayer money is being used. Governments are expected, of course, to use public funds for the benefit of the people and not to promote themselves. It would appear that enough time has been given to governments to self-regulate their advertising expenditure, but at this stage it seems to no avail. So, now it is perhaps time to try something different.

Legislation, it would seem, is the only course of action available. However, that said, I have concerns about the model being proposed by the honourable member. While I support enshrining the permissible parameters of government advertising in legislation, I would also like to see a mechanism developed that allows an advertising campaign to be approved prior to it commencing, perhaps even done by the Auditor-General—a mechanism that prevents the abuse of public funds, rather than simply reacting to abuse once the money has been spent.

The bill before us would channel all disputes about a particular advertising campaign to the courts and, as the bill amends the constitution, specifically to the Supreme Court. This is by no means within reach of the ordinary citizen, and I would suggest would be available only to the parliamentary opposition of the day. Complex and lengthy legal arguments would ensue, with the court asked to determine the scope of each category in new section 10B(2) and whether the particular campaign complies.

The only way to curb this waste of public funds, as pointed out by the Hon. Mark Parnell, is to make sure that any advertising campaign put forward by the government is in accordance with a form of statutory public benefits test. However, as I said, in my opinion the legislation must be preventative and not simply channel disputes to the courts.

We see more and more legislation being drawn up in here where all roads lead to the courts, and very rarely is there a reasonable outcome. While I commend the honourable member and offer my support to the idea of legislative action restricting government advertising, I will not support the model proposed in this particular bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:55): In summing up, I would like to thank the honourable members who have contributed to the debate: the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Ann Bressington. I would like to make some brief remarks about some of the things those honourable members have said.

In relation to the Liberal contribution, I am not surprised that they will not support this bill. I was not able to convince Liberal members on the select committee on this topic that legislation was the way to go; nevertheless, and as the Hon. Rob Lucas said, I have been true to the model that I preferred and put it up as a legislative reform. The Liberals are sticking with their position that administrative arrangements are the way to fix this problem. I should say that no-one disagrees that we have a problem: there has been abuse and waste of public funds for useless advertising campaigns that serve no purpose other than to promote the government of the day.

In relation to the contribution of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan on behalf of the government, he pointed out the changes that were made to the advertising guidelines in 2009 and 2010: for example, we have seen the faces of ministers removed from advertising, and a few other minor changes. I think it is to the credit of the Legislative Council that it has forced the government to make changes to those guidelines, because it was in this chamber that some of the worst excesses of government advertising were exposed. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan says that the guidelines are successful in ensuring that advertising campaigns are appropriate. We are going to have an almighty test of that proposition in the next couple of days, and I will come back to that shortly.

I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for her support. She clearly understands the pressures on the state budget and the need to not waste a cent of taxpayer funds. We have heard from her today about the unmet needs in the disability sector, and at the same time we know we are on the eve of a massive advertising splurge in relation to the state budget with no benefit whatsoever for the South Australian community. So the Hon. Kelly Vincent understands what governments are on about and how they waste our money; the Dignity for Disability Party understands the importance of this as well.

I thank the Hon. Ann Bressington for her contribution. She too understands how easy it is and how much abuse has occurred in relation to spending taxpayers' money on advertising. The honourable member has concerns about the statutory model I have proposed, and I accept that there are other ways this could have been done, but to a certain extent this bill is born out of a sense of desperation. We know that the voluntary guidelines do not work; this is the next step to take.

Tomorrow we will have a state budget delivered, and in the aftermath of that state budget we will see an advertising blitz in print, on television, and electronically that will tell us how good it is for us as a community to suffer massive cuts to public services, how it will put spine in us and how this reduction in services will make us better people. It will be spin upon spin upon spin. It is the government equivalent of the old line in environmental circles, 'Toxic sludge is good for you', and you use an advertising campaign to get that message across.

My message to the Liberal Party, in particular, is when in the next week it is minded to complain about the waste of public funds in government advertising, complain about how advertising certain budget initiatives performs no useful role, does not help South Australians to better engage with their government and with public services, and does not help us to be better citizens but simply promotes the government's economic credentials, and when the Liberals are minded to come out and say what a waste of money that is, they should remember that they have voted against a mechanism that the Greens put forward that would have put some serious checks on this abuse of government use of taxpayers' money.

I have heard enough from the chamber to understand the will of the council is that this bill will not pass the second reading. I will not be dividing on that, but I do say that, in the aftermath of tomorrow's budget and the advertising blitz that is sure to follow, I think we will be seeing more moves in this chamber to put some brakes on government excesses.

Second reading negatived.

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