Page 1199 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Federal Labor Party would suggest that freedom of expression is defined in monetary terms. It is perfectly okay, supposedly, to advertise in the newspaper, but it is not okay to advertise on radio and television. The examples that are given of costly advertising are not on radio but on television. The reason for this is that television is vastly more expensive to advertise on than radio, particularly regional radio where people do have an opportunity to afford electronic advertising.
One of the holes in the suggestion that electronic media political comment should be banned is the suggestion that it should be banned for all time, for ever and a day. It is not just at campaign time when the supposed idea of political corruption could come into vogue. The suggestion is that it should be for all time.
Will such a ban cause a lessening of expenditure on political advertising? The fairly logical suggestion would be no. It would be spent elsewhere. If we are to say that low cost political comment is acceptable but high cost political comment is not acceptable, do we suggest that there would be a ban on newspaper ads over a particular size? Are direct mail campaigns perfectly acceptable except when we go over a certain number?
Are billboards okay to be used for political comment unless they are too large? Are badges or buttons that you wear perfectly acceptable unless you distribute too many? In other words, is it to depend on cost? It is an absurdity. Australians have rights of freedom. If there is one thing in this country we need to protect, it is the right to let other people know what politicians are up to.
There was an advertising campaign by the advertising industry a few years ago in Australia which pointed out that in the USSR you would not see this ad and you would not see that ad. Perhaps the advertising industry, the radio and television industry, will take out advertising against this current proposal by the Federal Labor Government. They had better get in quickly because if they wait too long they will not have the right to do that any more.
The Labor proposal, I believe, is not prompted by wealth but rather by poverty - the poverty of a lack of concern for the rights of Australians and the poverty brought about by a grab at power at all costs, disregarding how much money is borrowed in political campaigns. It is said - I certainly have not had a look at the books - that the Labor Party, federally, is broke. The suggestion by Nick Bolkus is that they have always had the money and they will always get the money, but they should not run their political campaigns the same way as they run the country - by borrowing more and more money and placing their party in further debt the same way as they have placed the country in debt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .