Page 3894 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
us look at the 2007-08 budget. What did we do to publicise that budget? We had a wide-ranging public information campaign, using both print and electronic media.
Let us go to last year’s budget. At a considerable cost saving, the government opted for a low-key letterbox drop approach—the brochure that Mr Rattenbury still holds in his hot little hands, I am sure, or did at the last committee hearing. Let me repeat: last year, the government opted for a low-key letterbox drop on a budget rather than, as it did the year before, a wide-ranging print and electronic media campaign. In an election year, this government spent around 40 per cent less on advertising its budget compared to the year before. I use those words with a level of caution, because I hope it does not lead to a committee inquiry around the lack of budget information provided to the public last year.
But I cannot blame Mr Rattenbury for holding on to that brochure and looking with interest at the many great initiatives that this government is continuing to deliver in his electorate of Molonglo. It was an excellent brochure, and something worth while to hang on to. The fact is that Canberrans have a right to know what the government’s priorities are through the budget process. The community has a right to know, and expects to be told. Advertising is just one way governments everywhere share the information with the community.
I will conclude and allow others to comment on the report. I support, quite clearly and without hesitation, the development and implementation of an administrative framework involving guidelines, but I do not support a legislative approach. Until such time as I am presented with even a scrap of evidence that any politically motivated advertising has ever taken place under this government, that will remain my position. The other thing I note on “a better fella for Brindabella” is the use of a government asset. I wonder if that too could be considered as inappropriate use.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (6.10): It is a pleasure to speak to this report Inquiry into the Government Agencies (Campaign Advertising) Bill 2008 by the Select Committee on Campaign Advertising. Firstly, I would like to add to the thanks given by Ms Burch to Erin Anderson and Sandra Lilburn. They were very diligent and very professional in their approach throughout the short life span of this committee and they did a fantastic job.
I will talk very briefly to the recommendations. The point of sending to a committee a bill such as the one proposed by Mr Seselja was to get recommendations, to further consult and to get further expert opinion so that we can get a better result for Canberrans. That is exactly what has happened. What I thought was a good bill was put forward to the committee, and it got even better by our going through that process. Going through that scrutiny and hearing more from expert witnesses added to the value of it.
It is important to note that the underlying sentiment that governments should be very careful about how they spend taxpayers’ money on advertising and in what format they do it was endorsed by this committee. It is very important that the government—indeed, the opposition or the crossbench—actually take on these recommendations and propose something to this chamber that reflects them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .