Page 1210 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that is not what they argue. Under this proposal it is still possible for vast sums of money to be spent in election campaigns, but in different areas - areas where there are not controls, such as direct mail advertising. That, of course, is what the Australian Labor Party wants to do. They have discovered this new toy. They want to exploit it as best they can. They do not want to have interference from people who might advertise on TV, whether they be political parties or other people.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this affects not just political parties but all people or organisations who may care to express their view across a television screen or a radio speaker. It does not mean just big spenders; it does not mean people who have lots of money. There are all sorts of people who can and will, I am sure, continue to exercise rights while they are allowed to advertise on television and radio. A ban on advertising like that assists incumbent governments. It helps them to hold onto power. It plays down the importance of the election campaign. It prevents the spirit and the mood of change reaching the electorate. It will directly enhance the chances, feeble though they may be, of this Federal Labor Government retaining power.
It will also mean that incumbent governments, Federal or otherwise, can exploit government advertising. Obviously, we can see a great deal in the way of exploitation by governments of government advertising. Mr Kaine has already referred to the enormous amount - $233m - spent last year on self-promotion by the Federal Labor Government. We also saw at the ACT level heavy self-promotion going on by the previous Follett Government. Who can forget those large advertisements appearing in several newspapers and featuring pictures of the Minister for Housing and Urban Services, Mrs Grassby? Enormous self-promotion went on under the Follett Government, which, I am pleased to say, we have in large part eschewed. This is a last-ditch effort by the Federal Labor Government to hold onto power.
Mr Stevenson failed to mention an important piece of evidence in his case. Perhaps he does not care to quote documents that are produced by the United Nations. It is interesting to note that article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is quite explicit about the rights of citizens of nations to express opinions. I quote from that covenant:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .