Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to comment on the committee's report, Reclaiming public space: inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising. I have a particular interest in this area as a mother of two young girls. My interest in the external influences of the wallpaper of our society on my two girls has sparked a particular interest generally in this issue. I made some public comments recently about the importance of having appropriate images out there in the public domain. Like many others in the community and some organisations specifically established to comment on the inappropriateness of images in the public domain and the premature sexualisation of young children, I was waiting to see what the committee report would come up with. I have to say that I am bitterly disappointed. It is telling the advertising industry, 'It is okay, you can keep doing what you have been doing.' It is as effective as a slap with a wet lettuce. It is a total cop out. It is almost a waste of time for the committee to have sat and listened to evidence and then gone through the draft report and corrected it.

The committee has essentially recommended that the outdoor advertising industry be given one last chance. It has rejected calls for G-ratings on advertising billboards and it has called for advertisers to be named and shamed online if they put up inappropriate images. But I would argue that this would be as effective as Fuelwatch and Grocery Watch.

Outdoor advertising is in a different category to other sorts of advertising. It occupies public space. It is privileged space. It is open to all, whether it is on billboards, bus shelters or park benches. This unique character of outdoor advertising was accepted by the committee and that is what has brought it to the attention of so many Australians who are concerned about the issue.

On the one hand the report acknowledges the significant problems associated with self-regulation but then actually stops short of recommending a system of regulation or even co-regulation. They say this for two apparent reasons. One is that the industry does not want it—surprise, surprise. The other is that comparable countries have not done so yet. I think that is a total and utter cop out. The test should be: what does the public think is acceptable for our children to view and be affected by? What does medical evidence say about the images that continually bombard our children? The medical evidence is saying that all of these images are death by a thousand cuts; they are affecting our children's emotional development and they are affecting them later on in life. This is the sort of evidence that should be looked at. I am astounded that this did not weigh more heavily on the minds of the committee members. The committee stated:

Even though the Committee does not consider that government regulation of outdoor advertising content is warranted, the Committee expresses its strong view that the current self-regulatory system needs to be more rigorous and transparent in order to address the serious issues raised in the inquiry.

That is not going to happen. If you want evidence, just look at some of the reports in the print media of late on comments by the advertising industry. One of these reports states:

Advertising and media groups were putting a positive spin on the committee's findings yesterday, insisting they were a vote of confidence in the advertising self-regulatory system.

Of course they would, because that is what the report effectively is.

I also refer you to the following quote from Alina Bain:

We note the Committee has not recommended government regulation of outdoor advertising. This shows that they have taken into account the low levels of complaints and breaches under the AANA Codes, which indicates that our system is working well.

No, it does not indicate that the system is working well, because there would not be so much concern out there in the community if the system was working well. I wonder if Ms Bain has actually looked at the medical evidence, both in Australia and overseas, on the impact that inappropriate advertising—highly sexualised and suggestive advertising—is having on young children. Colleagues on both sides of the House, this is not about the rights of an advertiser against the rights of a so-called wowser who does not want to watch; this is about whether the advertising dollar is more important than the welfare of our children, whether the advertising dollar speaks louder than the collective public conscience about the sort of environment in which we want our children to grow up.

In comments from the industry, Outdoor Media Association Chief Executive Charmaine Moldrich said that the committee's recommendations that related to the outdoor ad industry 'have already been put in place or are in the process of occurring'. In other words: 'Thank you, little committee members; you've done your little work and, guess what, we're not going to take much notice of it because we're so good that we're already doing the things you want us to do.' Well, they are not acting appropriately, and this committee has let go of an ideal opportunity to actually do something real about this problem.

The report notes that the self-regulatory system has been 'largely reactive in nature, whether to public criticism or other threats to the status quo'. It goes on to say that 'the regulation of outdoor advertising should not be more lax than that of advertising in other media.' Yet we know that other forms of media are far more highly regulated, so this seems to be a contradiction in the report.

Self-regulation has failed. It is not the answer in so many other areas. We have the ACCC to look after the interests of small businesses and consumers. We have regulation in other parts of our life. One wonders why the committee were so hostile to actually having some form of real regulation in this area. I would not say that the personal views of members of the committee influenced their opinion about regulation about highly sexualised images; I would not say that the chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, who is known to be an author of highly racy novels, was influenced in the recommendations of the report by his personal opinions and the literature he has written—but others may.

The impact of outdoor media is significant. It is not like the television, which you can just switch off. This has been recognised by the Outdoor Media Association. They acknowledge the impact and the reach that their advertising has. They say that it can achieve direct communication with consumers wherever they go—'where they live, work, play, where they drive and shop, where they commute, and where they congregate'. Billboard and outdoor advertising is probably the most in-your-face, unavoidable form of public advertising, and there have been some pretty shocking and highly sexualised images in it over the last few years.

The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau has failed to protect our children from the content on these billboards. As I said before, it is about not just one image but an accumulation of images that have such an extraordinary impact. We as adults may be totally numb and immune to much of this imagery, but anyone who has had small children knows that they are sponges and absorb so much more in their environment than we do, which is why the failure of self-regulation is having such a disproportionately damaging impact on our young children.

We need regulation. I have said before—and I will repeat it in this chamber—that we need to have a statutory body with some real powers, including the power to issue serious fines to offenders. Why can't it be the time to codify community standards and put weight on medical opinion about the impacts on children? We err on the side of caution so often in public policy. We have heard of the precautionary principle when it comes to environmental policy, but where is the precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children and providing a safe environment in which they will grow and develop?

None of the evidence in the committee's report regarding these sexualised images and their impact on young children has been disputed, yet a parent cannot take a child to a park, to school or out to the shops without being subjected to outdoor advertising. So what is the answer? What does the committee say to parents who are concerned about this imagery, who have seen self-regulation fail, who have seen reports where the media mock the committee's recommendations, claiming the recommendations support their current position and what they are doing? What do you say to parents who say that you have failed as a committee?

See this speech in context