Page 1643 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
put to a select committee so that we can consider this carefully and make sure that the model that has been put forward gets it right, or that we seek expert advice to ensure that we do not make unintended errors, that we do not pass a bill that has unintended consequences, that lays booby traps for government down the line. We need to avoid that and that is the intention of Mr Seselja as the sponsor of this legislation as well. I appreciate the discussions we have had in agreeing a sensible and practical way forward here, to put this to a committee to have a look at it and to make sure we get this absolutely right. It will be valuable to have some external contribution to this debate from those in the media. Media academics will also be able to offer further thoughts and help us make sure that we do not create those unintended consequences.
It is quite clear that the government should be able to share information with the community. I do not think anybody in this place disputes that. But it is also clear, and we have seen this in the last 12 months, that the government cannot be left unchecked in going about this. We need to put in place the safeguards to prevent what essentially amounts to an abuse of power and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
I have already referred to the object of the act. It is also of value to reflect on clause 6, the general principles on the use of public funds for government campaigns. Paragraph (a) states:
members of the public have a right to access comprehensive information about government policies, programs and services which affect their entitlements, rights and obligations.
The Greens concur with that; I think there is no problem with that. I think, from the comments he has just made, Mr Stanhope agrees with that as well, although he put it rather more colourfully than I have in reading it out of the bill. Paragraph (b) states:
governments may use public funds for information programs and education campaigns to explain government policies, programs or services and to tell members of the public about their entitlements, rights and obligations.
Similarly, that makes perfect and clear sense. Paragraph (c) states:
information programs and education campaigns must not be conducted for party political purposes.
That is obviously where the point of dispute is here. I think it is worth noting that there are examples of good government advertising. The government has now moved—and I am sure most members in this place have noticed—to place the community noticeboard in the Saturday Canberra Times, to move away from relying on public notices, and I think that is a good initiative. I congratulate the government on that, because something we have seen over the last couple of years from talking with members of the public is that they do not see things in the public notices; most people do not get to that bit of the paper any more. So it is appropriate for the government to say at the front of the paper: “These are the things we are doing. Here is a committee you can submit to at the moment. Here are some road closures that are coming up.” That is a welcome government initiative and one on which it is valid for government to spend money on advertising.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .