Page 1203 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
across to the Australian public. The ban will, in effect, mean that no-one will be able to run a TV or radio campaign, even outside election time, on matters of political concern to them.
Despite the Prime Minister's arguments, small parties will still continue to find a path to put across their message. An absolute legal prohibition will replace the present more equitable financial rules, and this simply will not level the political playing field; it will destroy it. Further, it will give more power to news and current affairs programs on the electronic media, which will extend their influence in elections - an issue which I am sure will initiate a full debate, even if this one does not.
It is interesting to note that the Government will still be able to undertake information advertising between elections. In the past, in the lead-up to elections departments have screened advertisements which have been government propaganda. No-one else will be able to put the message to the electorate, but the Federal government of the day will. Just to give an example, in 1989 and 1990 the Federal Government spent $233m on self-promotion. How can any group compete with this?
The thinly veiled excuse that this will reduce the cost of our political process is easily seen through. The reality is quite different. No argument has been put yet that there will be any savings or any cost reductions. If anything, we will see funds being diverted into the print media and direct mail campaigns, and I will expand on that in a few minutes.
The argument Senator Bolkus put forward - that the reasons for the ban rest mainly on the rising costs of advertising, particularly on television - is a sheer furphy. It is surely up to political parties to exercise that management discipline and spend no more than they can raise. This is simply a matter of effective budgeting, in which our ALP colleagues, not only in the States but also at the Federal level, seem quite incompetent.
The secondary argument that there is a risk of political favours being brought down through donations should be adequately covered by the law and by the fund-raising rules of the major political parties. If not, they live with the results. The Australian Financial Review quite rightly pointed this out in their editorial yesterday, and it is interesting to note:
Australia maintained until the last election a black-out rule which banned electronic advertising in the three days before an election. Ironically, Labor abandoned that position but has now taken a major somersault.
... ... ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .