Government Publicity Control Bill 2007 
|
| Thursday, 18 October 2007 | ||||||
|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.11 a.m.]: This bill strikes at the heart of integrity in this House. In my inaugural speech I spoke strongly about the way the community no longer trusts this institution and the people who constitute it. One key factor I spoke about was government advertising. Clearly, there is a trend of this Government using advertising purely and solely for the promotion of itself and its services. ACNielsen media research shows that last year the Premier and his merry men and women were the seventh largest advertisers in Australia—up from tenth in 2005. Indeed, it spent a lot more than companies such as Proctor and Gamble, which is one of the biggest spenders on advertising in the world, Coca-Cola even more so, McDonald's, the Commonwealth Bank, Toyota, Myer, Kellogg's, David Jones, Ford, Cadbury, Qantas and Westpac. We could be here for a long time debating how much this Government has spent. The member for Wallsend provided a flimsy defence, referring to the Federal Government. Yes, the Federal Government has spent money on advertising, but it has spent less than $30 million on average across the States and Territories. The Premier and his merry men and women have spent more than $110 million in the past financial year. This is not just us saying that, and it is not the Leader of the Opposition simply calling for some integrity to be returned to the process. The bill has many supporters. Indeed, I refer back to the Auditor-General, who said that the existing process is fine. The process is not fine. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 August 2007 stated: The NSW Auditor-General has criticised the State Government for having insufficient control over government advertising, saying some of it may have been party-political in nature.
That $110 million only applies to the media space that has been booked. Production costs could take that figure to 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent higher. We could be talking about $150 million, $160 million or, indeed, almost the entire amount the Federal Government has spent over the past year. The costs must be clear, and we should put a framework in place. However, before we get to that we must return some integrity to the process. For those who can remember, Kevin Rudd made a big point about the need for reform. I refer to Bob Carr who, in 1995, sought to introduce a publicity control bill. On 18 February 1995 he told the Labor caucus that he would introduce a publicity control bill to regulate government advertising to prevent the use of taxpayers' money for party promotional purposes. What are we doing? Members opposite should come to the party and change. Ms Carmel Tebbutt: How can you say that, considering what the Federal Government is doing? Mr MIKE BAIRD: Members opposite have nothing to be ashamed about. Clearly, they need to embrace their Labor Government heroes, including Bob Carr, who was one of the key architects. He wanted to introduce a publicity control bill, but over the past 12 years the Labor Government has not had the courage to bring it on. The Leader of the Opposition has integrity and is prepared to tackle the issue. He will reform the political process. I encourage members opposite to come forward. The Government has spent $110 million plus all the hidden costs, which cannot be identified by the Department of Commerce. What is $30 million or $40 million? It is just costs and other stuff. That $110 million spent on the media, plus costs which could increase that figure to $150 million or $160 million, should be spent on our schools and hospitals. Could the Royal North Shore Hospital use $110 million or $160 million at this time? Of course it could! This Government has spent more than $1 billion for these purposes. It needs to admit that it has got it wrong and needs to reform, and it needs to support the Leader of the Opposition in his push to return some integrity to the governance of this State. It is time the Government came on board, endorsed the Leader of the Opposition and used the available funds not for promoting itself but for providing infrastructure and services to support the community it is supposed to serve. Add to:          Write Comment
|
||||||
