Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The consumer has a choice about whether to view television, print, radio or internet advertising but no choice about whether to view outdoor advertising. Sexually exploitative, provocative, violent and discriminatory images can be shown in outdoor advertising, but the consumer cannot turn them off. Whether these images are on billboards, buses, bus shelters, taxis, toilets or transit centres, they are in your face. The community is justified in feeling concerned, if not angry, at the outdoor advertising we have seen. In my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, on the Ipswich motorway, there have been a number of issues raised about billboard advertising, including evidence that came up during the inquiry of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs about advertising for Sexpo. This matter was raised in letters to the editor in the Queensland Timesit wasraised in media locally—and there was consumer concern about it, because if you were driving towards Brisbane and had your children in the car, you had no alternative but to look at that billboard that was right there in your face. Self-regulation in its current form is not working; regulation needs to be strengthened.

I am pleased that the advertising industry, who—I must say—at first seemed reluctant, hesitant, self-defensive, have moved. During the course of the committee's inquiry, when there were seven public hearings—in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne—and 51 public submissions offered, we saw movement from the advertising industry. They have to accept that the community is concerned with sexually exploitative, provocative, violent or sexually discriminatory images that are shown clearly on places such as those adjacent to schools or churches, out the front of airports or on major highways, particularly in South-East Queensland, where I come from. At first the advertising industry were saying that statistics about this issue backed up their story, but in fact, when you delved deeper into this particular issue, you discovered that just over 2,000 complaints were forwarded to the Advertising Standards Bureau, of which just over 10 per cent were found to be in breach of the advertising codes of practice. It looked all right but, of those 2,000 complaints, 437 were for outdoor advertising and 35.7 per cent related to advertising that breached the codes of practice. Of the 90 outdoor advertisements that the Advertising Standards Board considered, 16.67 percent were found to be in breach, compared to less than 10 per cent for all other categories. So outdoor advertising breaches the codes of practice more frequently. Four of the top 10 most-complained-about issues about advertisements were for outdoor advertising.

The inquiry investigated whether self-regulation was effective for outdoor advertising and we found that, in relation to specific categories of advertising which required their specific codes of practice, those codes needed to be strengthened, particularly the need for a separate code where public space is occupied—that is for sure. Unrestricted, untargeted audiences can be seen, and this can have a cumulative effect, as the previous speaker said. There is concern in the committee and in the community about the complaints-based aspects and all the burden of complaint resting on the public. The public is not necessarily aware of how to make the complaint. Often the public, consumers, are time poor and not necessarily, as I said, aware of how to do it. We recommended that the Advertising Standards Bureau actually advertise the complaint process more and increase its accessibility.

The advertising standards boards make decisions on advertising contents relating to prevailing community standards, and I am not always convinced they get it right. The committee found that it is not clear how these standards are established and recommended that research be conducted to determine the prevailing community standards in relation to outdoor advertising; the use of sex, sexuality and nudity; health and safety; advertising food and beverages; advertising alcohol; and advertising to children. A wide variety of people and organisations lodged submissions: everyone from the Alcohol Policy Coalition to the Australian Christian Lobby, the Salvation Army, 2020women Inc., the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and Collective Shout. Everyone from the whole spectrum, from the civil liberties groups to the more conservative Christian groups, lodged submissions in relation to this. They were not all saying the same thing, but it was interesting that many sang from the same hymn sheet, really, in relation to this issue. It was quite clear.

The outdoor advertising industry, if I can put it like that, is on its final notice. It must clean up its act. It may shape up and get its house in order or, by 2013, this report recommends the government intervene. This is a really big warning to that industry. It really needs to look at itself. The lack of enforcement powers and sanctions for noncompliance with the voluntary codes was a consistent criticism of the advertising self-regulatory system. The committee is of the view that, to instil public confidence in this system, you need to have muscle. For example, we need to have more public exposure and disclosure. The information, in relation to complaints decisions, should not be buried in websites or tucked away but should be transparent and obvious—listed by their parent company's name rather than the product name, for example, so everyone knows which company has offended against codes of practice. We think there should be a prominent webpage, dedicated to naming the products and the advertisers which breach, circulating the names of non-compliant advertisers to third-party media organisations such as the Outdoor Media Association, providing the names of non-compliant advertisers and getting this out into the public's domain—getting public scrutiny. Pre-vetting or copy advice is something which is world's best practice but it is not always done. Providing independent, non-binding copy advice to advertisers prior to running a campaign is recommended. Given the unavoidable impact of outdoor advertising, this can be done, but that advertisement can be displayed for a month or more before action is taken. So we think that it is necessary that copy advice or pre-vetting be provided for all outdoor advertising and we think there needs to be monitoring in this regard. The idea of world's best practice is simply to random-monitor outdoor advertising, so we think it should be complied with. We think compliance surveys should be conducted at locations such as near schools or sports grounds or for specific industries such as alcohol. The Australian Association of National Advertisers is currently reviewing its code, and it is not before time; it is the first time in over a decade. It plans to review other codes in the new year. The committee recommended that voluntary advertising codes be reviewed on an annual basis, or a regular basis certainly.

The committee is concerned about the proliferation of outdoor advertising of alcohol in areas such as public transport where young people could be exposed to it. We recommended that the alcohol beverages advertising code system be monitored by an intergovernmental committee. We were also concerned about the proximity and the juxtapositioning of alcohol with sports. The Australian Association of National Advertisers' food and beverage code restricts the advertising of unhealthy food products to children. The committee was disappointed that sports sponsorship was not included in the code and recommended that sports sponsorship be recognised as a form of advertising and therefore subject to advertising codes of practice relating to food and to children.

This was a bipartisan report, a unanimous report. The member for Indi is simply wrong to criticise her Liberal colleagues in the way she did. I want to commend the member for Moreton for his leadership as chair of this particular committee. To make the kind of surreptitious slurs that she did in relation to him was unseemly, unnecessary and beneath her. The member for Moreton did a fantastic job. I also want to commend the deputy chair, the member for Pearce, for the spirit in which she participated in this inquiry. This was a difficult inquiry and the coalition members contributed in an exemplary way. To cast aspersions on her own colleagues in the way the member for Indi did tonight is really quite shameful. They must have interesting party meetings. I would be very interested in how they might vote in any internal Liberal Party ballot in the future. It was a derogatory diatribe about the integrity of the committee, including her three Liberal colleagues. As I said, it was a unanimous bipartisan report. I congratulate the secretariat, who make us all look very good in this place.

The outdoor advertising industry and the advertising industry is on its last legs with respect to self-regulation. They must get this right. If they do not, a future of government intervention and co-regulation beckons for them. They must respond to community standards in a way that is relevant to what the community feels. They should not have the notion that they are above or beyond what the community has to say. It came through pretty clearly to me that at the beginning of this inquiry the industry was out of touch and by this inquiry was dragged kicking and screaming into a new world. Those media releases that the member for Indi read are making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It really is the case that the industry needs to have a good look at itself, not just in Western Sydney, not just in South-East Queensland but across the whole country.

I commend the members of the committee, the secretariat, the chair and deputy chair, and I urge the industry to have a look at itself and respond to the committee's recommendations, and the government as well.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context