Page 5574 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I know definitions are always difficult. I accept that. But we believe that the longer definition does create some ambiguities. I do have a concern that it will create genuine difficulties for people trying to construct advertising campaigns.
I guess at the end of the day, if the genuine aim of this bill is to avoid the misuse of taxpayers’ funds for inappropriate advertising, we do need to ensure that we do get this definition right, and that is the concern the government has about the definition. There are two, both seeking to achieve the outcome that is at the heart of the legislation. But we believe the definition we propose is simpler, tighter, and a better expression of what it is that the legislation is seeking to achieve.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.14): Clearly we have two possible approaches, and I think it would be fair to say that the two definitions put forward by the Liberal Party and the government do not really contradict each other. It is more in their thoroughness and the way they express themselves, as the Chief Minister has just spoken about at some length. I think, that said, the committee in its recommendations did indicate that the more guidance the better. Having looked closely at the two definitions, I believe that the definition put forward by Mr Seselja does offer that greater level of guidance.
I hear what the Chief Minister is saying about the ability of members of the ACT public service to interpret this legislation but I think the application of common sense, which I think prevails in our public service, will be applied and we will see a body of practice develop over time where I think fairly quickly these matters will be sorted and an approach will evolve quite quickly that I think officers will find relatively straightforward to apply. So we will be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment.
Proposed new clause 9A agreed to.
Proposed new part 2A.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.15): I move amendment No 7 circulated in my name, which inserts a new part 2A, including new clauses 9B and 9C [see schedule 3 at page 5626].
In our original draft we promoted the Auditor-General as the reviewer under the legislation. This was based on the commonwealth model and had proven effective. During the committee hearings, the committee heard evidence from the Auditor-General, including that it is important that there be clear policy and guidelines on government advertisements. I think those guidelines are quite clear about what is perceived as informing the community, which is different from marketing the government in terms of benefit for a political party.
However, the Auditor-General also informed the committee that she was concerned that, to be independent and to be seen as independent, the office should not be directly involved in the decision-making process of the government agency and that the role is very different from a performance audit. Lastly, she made comments about resourcing issues. The committee found that an expert panel would be preferable—they are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video