Parliamentary Electorates and Election Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 
|
| Thursday, 06 March 2008 | ||||||
|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.17 a.m.]: I have spoken previously on the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007, and I will continue in the same vein. The member for Ballina has raised a very valid point with this bill, but events that have taken place since it was last debated suggest that it is almost ludicrous that we are debating the principle of truth in political advertising. To illustrate the growing public distrust in politics I point to Roy Morgan's survey, Image of Professions, which this year found that only 16 per cent of people over 14 years believe members of Parliament have high standards of ethics and honesty. Soon after last year's State election a Labor member was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying that the New South Wales Government's strategy was to "bombard the other guy and distract everyone from your own abysmal record." The people of New South Wales deserve better than this. The Opposition has been accused of not having a plan, but we are picking up an idea that is working. That idea, as identified by the member for Ballina, is working in South Australia. Section 113 of the South Australian Electoral Act 1985 makes it an offence to authorise, cause or permit inaccurate or misleading political advertising. If the advertiser is found guilty, he is fined and the Electoral Commissioner can request the advertisement to be withdrawn from publication or retracted. The South Australian legislation works. It has been tested in the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of South Australia, where it was found not to impede the implied right of freedom of speech and was therefore constitutionally valid. Last year the South Australian Liberal Party was instructed by the Electoral Commissioner to change a television advertisement. It took out a reference to South Australia having the worst hospital waiting list and changed it to the worst emergency times. This is not a political issue. It should be above politics; it should be bipartisan. I am happy to point out that in this instance a Liberal Party advertisement needed to be changed. Under the system proposed by the member for Ballina, the commissioner can do two things: he or she can request a withdrawal and/or a retraction and if the retraction is refused can impose a fine. It is quite a simple legislative concept. False advertising in business is clearly unacceptable. In 2001 funds manager AXA ran an advertisement that featured financial commentator Ross Greenwood, whom I know—he is a very good guy but has a very average golf swing. He spoke in the advertisement about "Heading upwards in an elevator", which implied that AXA's past returns were a predictor of future returns. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigated the company and found that the advertisement was misleading. So the advertisement was withdrawn and money was returned to people who had invested on the basis of the advertisement. The process is transparent. The aim of advertising is to inform the public of product, policy and process. In this context AXA acknowledged that and withdrew the advertisement in line with its responsibilities. In 2004 Optus agreed to withdraw its advertisements that offered broadband deals for $39.95 after Telstra claimed they were inaccurate and misleading. The Federal Court informed Optus that future advertisements for the deal must state clearly that the rate is available only to customers who switch their home phone service to Optus. That is constructive input to correct information that could be construed as misleading. Food advertising to children is another area of concern and, as the shadow Minister for Youth Affairs, it is very important to me. Each year advocacy group the Parents Jury shames companies for deceptive food advertising. Last year thousands of parents criticised an advertisement for Karicare Gold Toddler Formula as being the most misleading because it promoted the idea that its product was better than cow's milk, despite the fact that it is derived from cow's milk and has added sugar. If we have a corporate principle of truth in advertising and a principle of providing truthful information to the public about political policies why are we debating the concept of false advertising? During last year's State election campaign a $1.4 million advertisement was run that featured Jack Thompson promoting the Government's $1 billion desalination project. Members may remember that advertisement and the image of Jack Thompson with his boots on. He claimed that the desalination plant would be fully powered by green energy and would not create any extra greenhouse gases. The Leader of The Nationals complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission because the Government's own project report states, "The desalination plant and infrastructure will be powered by electricity sourced from the grid". What is wrong with an advertisement being put to an independent regulator to ascertain whether or not it is truthful? One cannot argue against that proposition. Members of the public should not have to rely on the spin of political parties. I do not point to any particular party. Members who do not support the principle of truthfulness should be ashamed. I refer also to the advertisements with respect to the member for Vaucluse. There was an intense campaign attacking his business career and the fact that he represented a wealthy area. He was also accused of plotting to sack nurses. In truth, the Coalition had no plan to sack nurses. If that had been the case, clear and concise advertisements could have been run to that effect. But if it was not the case, to do so was deceptive and misleading. We certainly had no plan to do that. Our plan at that point was to return services to the front line—more nurses, police and teachers. I cannot understand why any member would not support this bill and wish every advertisement to be truthful. The member for Ballina should be commended for introducing this bill. We need to restore people's faith in the political process. Over the past few weeks many people have begun to lose faith in all members of Parliament. This is a chance for all members to stand for something, and for the Iemma Government to do what is right. Just because a good idea comes from one's opponent does not mean it should be dismissed. This is a chance for the Iemma Government to head in the right direction. If the Government does not support the bill, it will almost have to redefine the meaning of "winning". I had the opportunity to do this recently when my daughter Kate competed in a cross-country race, which she had a chance of winning. Like any parent, I was pumped up and excited. In training she had come very close to the girl who had won the race for the past three years. She headed off, full of hope, and ran past a group of parents, including me. She was in the leading pack when her good friend fell and tumbled off to the side of the track. At that point Kate stopped, went back and helped her friend, while the pack continued on. Kate did not win the race—but did she? As a father and parent, I have never been prouder than I was of Kate that day. The issue for members to decide is how they want to win. If members win on the basis of promoting misleading or deceptive advertising, they are letting down themselves, their communities and the Parliament. They are shamefully dishonouring the faith of the people who elect them to this place. I commend the bill to the House. If members do not support the bill they will be showing complete and utter contempt for those who elected them to this place.
Add to:          Write Comment
|
||||||
