Page 2810 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Whitlam Government put up in 1975, I think it was, to support the ban that they proposed or suggested on the publishing of opinion polls; namely, that such things were deleterious to their own interests above all else and therefore were subject to a suggestion that they should be banned.
It seems to me that there is a very good case for continuing to provide avenues for public comment to be made. It is not just political parties, or their lackeys, that have the opportunity of making political comments in the course of a debate; many other organisations can and do use the opportunities presented by our media to make statements about issues of the day. Some that spring to mind include issues such as forestry industries and the debate about resources. Opportunities are taken by both sides in that debate to bring a particular point of view across.
Also the pharmacy community, the national pharmacy organisations, made many points in the course of their dispute with the Federal Government last year. They were entitled to make those points, and they ought to have had an opportunity of doing so. Frankly, to close off the avenues of public advertising would be a gross distortion of the public debate in those circumstances. It is outrageous to think that there should be a suggestion that those things not happen.
I think the statements on this question from Labor have been very largely self-serving. They have been based around their own desire to avoid raising an expectation of change and unrest within their Government. At the Federal level I can well understand why that would be the case, and even at State and territorial levels there is a good argument for that.
The point, Mr Speaker, is that there are many opportunities for governments to advertise in their own right as governments on an upper level. Who can forget the many advertisements that appeared in newspapers during the life of the first Follett Government, with Mrs Grassby's face smiling out at us from advertisements for the Department of Urban Services? I think it has to be asked whether governments are immune from the kind of opportunities that advertising presents, even when there is a ban on other organisations and individuals doing that same kind of thing.
I think, Mr Speaker, there is no good case for the ban. Indeed, that is why we have seen a significant backdown on the part of the Federal Government in the last few days on that question. There is perhaps a good case for looking at the way in which advertising occurs and is regulated, but there is certainly no good case for banning it outright.
Mr Stevenson: Perhaps self-regulation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .