Page 3891 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Assistant Speaker, I do support the development and implementation of accountable mechanisms to ensure appropriate use of public funds in government advertising. While submissions and witnesses were supportive of the intent of the bill, they also identified a range of problems with the bill and noted the need for a number of amendments. Submissions could be divided into two camps with respect to the best mechanism for implementing an appropriate framework—that is, whether this could be best achieved through a legislative framework or through an administrative framework.
This report contains 14 recommendations. I will not speak to them. Rather, I suggest that members read through the report. I also suggest that members refer to Hansard for a fuller description of issues raised, because there were multiple issues raised by witnesses and through submissions. The report recommends the development and implementation of a framework for government advertising, as does the ACT government, as is evidenced in its submission and through the public hearings.
With the indulgence of other committee members and members here, I would like to use the time I have to focus on my additional comments. This report identifies a series of concerns in a number of areas. However, even though the majority, if not all, of submissions and witnesses raised a number of concerns with the bill, only a few have been included in this report. Some of the other concerns raised included amendments to the principles and objects of the bill; authorisation requirements; exclusions, such as opinions; and a lack of clarity regarding statutory authorities and TOCs.
Firstly, I do not support recommendation 2—that a legislative framework for the regulation of government campaign advertising be adopted by the ACT. The ACT government provided a submission which outlined an alternative administrative framework and noted their guidelines provide the basic principles that would be observed by ACT government departments and agencies.
At 6.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MS BURCH: As noted by the ACT Auditor-General, the commonwealth guidelines are still being revised, indicating the value in a planned implementation and review process. I quote the ACT Auditor-General:
Based on our discussions with the Australian National Audit Office, they are improving the guidelines. Also, the process was reviewed throughout the last 12 months or so.
I suggest that the ACT government adopt an administrative approach, including guidelines that could be reviewed after two reporting periods. This would allow for the guidelines and reporting framework to be adjusted as necessary, hence leading to a framework that is tailored for best results for the ACT.
I do not support recommendation 6—that $40,000 be the cost threshold for review and reporting of government advertising. As the committee noted that production and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .