Page 1640 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think the more fundamental issue in relation to government policy decisions being referred to the Auditor-General—an independent statutory officer—for authorisation before the fact, before the action is undertaken is that the Auditor-General becomes part of the decision making process. That is just inappropriate. Who, then, audits the Auditor-General? Who then audits whether or not the Auditor-General’s decision was appropriate? What do we do—appoint a super Auditor-General, the Auditor-General who then adjudicates on decisions that the Auditor-General makes in relation to government actions, activities, projects and programs?
That is absurd. To include the Auditor-General in the decision-making chain in relation to a government program is to fundamentally misconstrue the role of the Auditor-General. Under this bill government advertising would be approved by the Auditor-General. Who then audits the Auditor-General? I believe the Leader of the Opposition, with this bill, fundamentally misunderstands the importance of the role of the Auditor-General as a person who scrutinises decisions and assesses them for their effectiveness and efficiency of government. The Auditor-General is not a part of the government decision-making chain.
The bill is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally misconstrues the role of the Auditor-General in government. To ask the Auditor-General to make decisions on whether or not advertisements that will be lodged should be lodged is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the Auditor-General.
I think one of the greatest concerns the government has about this ill-conceived, nonsense bill is the prohibition in clause 13(3)(c) on the use of slogans or other advertising techniques. That would mean that when the government advertises in City News with its four-page shop locally ads, it is not to use little advertising techniques like “please shop in Canberra”. It is an advertising technique. It is imploring people to do something. It is an advertising technique—a slogan, a jingle. Good jobs come with the territory. Heck, it is a jingle! That is banned. Good jobs come with the territory. We cannot have that. It is a slogan. The government is not to use slogans. The government is not to use advertising techniques in its advertising.
How absolutely absurd! What a farce, what a joke! The government, in its advertising, is not to utilise advertising techniques. The government, in its advertising, is not to employ slogans or jingles. What a joke. Good jobs come with the territory—a slogan—banned by the Liberal Party. We would be an absolute laughing-stock.
Just imagine a directive by the government to those that we rely on to develop our advertising: we want to advertise this great government service or program or project, but please do not use any slogans or jingles. Please do not employ any advertising techniques. Do not employ any advertising techniques in ACT government advertising. I have never seen anything so ridiculous in a piece of legislation—you are not to employ advertising techniques when you prepare an advertisement on behalf of the ACT government.
It is a remarkable suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the ACT government, in its directions to its advertisers, is to instruct them that when they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .