Page 5573 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
interpreted. It certainly supports as a definition those examples—and I will give you some examples—that have been forwarded by the Liberal Party and the Greens in this debate over the last year as being at the heart of their concern that something is party political. This is at the heart of what has been said by the proponents of this legislation: that certain campaigns are designed to enhance a political party’s reputation rather than informing the public.
We of course do not accept those examples but that is essentially at the heart of everything that has been said about the rationale for this legislative approach. And that is it. It is summed up:
… something is party political if it is designed to enhance a political party’s reputation rather than informing the public.
We do not believe that you need to complicate the definition beyond that. I do have a concern with the broader definition proposed by Mr Seselja just now of what is party political in this act:
… something is party political if it is designed to promote the polices, past performance, achievements or intentions of a program or the government with a view to advancing or enhancing a political party’s reputation rather than informing the public.
I think that in that definition there is opportunity for a range of interpretations and I think it will create a problem or uncertainty for agencies. I believe that it does and will create real issues for the reviewer. As I have indicated, I have also circulated an amendment in relation to this. I believe the amendment I propose is simpler, clearer, less ambiguous and less likely to create issues, particularly for agencies that are seeking to set up and run a campaign in relation to a particular issue.
I guess at the heart of my concern and the government’s concern is this suggestion in the definition that Mr Seselja proposes about an advertising campaign which refers to a government policy. This is the difficulty we have: if the advertising campaign refers to a government policy or a government program and, by referring to a government policy or a government program, it will in some way be interpreted as enhancing a political party’s reputation, then when there is a political party that is the government—and of course any government campaign is going to refer, by its nature, to a government program or government providing information about a government program, and that is at the heart of this—of course the government of the day, whether it be the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, is a political party.
We have a concern about how those within our agencies, and indeed the reviewer, are going to almost subjectively determine that by even raising the prospect, as the definition does, of running a government campaign, just by the fact of the campaign—it does refer to a government policy—the intention is nevertheless to enhance the political party that at the time and from time to time is the government. I believe that raises a complexity and the prospect of real ambiguity and unnecessary difficulty, as much as anything, in the minds of those of our officers that are charged with seeking to construct a campaign.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video