Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Preventing the Misuse of Government Advertising Bill 2010 having precedence over all government business until determined.

This legislation is to bring into place a process adopted and given lip service by senior members of both the government and the opposition in recent years, about the potential for governments to misuse public funds—in particular, on the way to elections—the most controversial case in recent times being the current $38 million allocated by the government to its defence and advocacy of the mining boom tax. While we are very well aware that the mining industry itself is being financed to the level of 30 per cent of its own advertising campaign—and we intend to deal with that in separate legislation—the matter does require attention now. The question to the government is: why have we not seen legislation on this matter? The Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, committed to it in 2007, and effectively nothing has happened since in terms of legislation through the parliament. The question to the opposition is: is there a better time for us to be legislating on this matter than now, when the feedback we have had—and I am sure the feedback you have had is the same—is that the public is feeling very distressed about the tens of millions of dollars that governments can so readily put into the advocacy of a point of view they have in the run to an election? It is undemocratic, it is illogical and it needs, by agreement, to be vetted.

The legislation that I have introduced to this parliament on behalf of the Australian Greens involves the vetting of such advertising, first by heads of department. If there is a campaign of more than $250,000 to be engaged in by the government, the head of department needs to sign off that the prudent guidelines which are outlined in this legislation have been adhered to. To summarise the guidelines, they are that the advertising must be in the public interest and that it must not be for party political promotion. Then the advertising campaign goes to be seen by the Auditor-General, who is at arm’s length and who does not make the decision as to whether it should go ahead or not but, again, determines whether what the head of department has signed off on is correct. The Auditor-General reports to both houses of parliament, and that report then can be taken up or ignored by the minister of the day, but woe betide the minister of the day who says, ‘The Auditor-General believes this is a political advertising campaign and we’re going to proceed with it.’ That will not happen.

I am aware that the government feels that such legislation as this should not be on the agenda, but I would point out to the Senate that we are dealing with many pieces of legislation at the moment in a much more peremptory way than with this bill, which at least has been to a quick committee opportunity. There were not oral hearings, but there were submissions on a matter that has been debated over many periods of parliament in the past. The government wants bills that have been introduced quickly to this place debated this week, and that means today and tomorrow: the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010, introduced to the Senate yesterday and listed for debate today; the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010, which is up for debate this week; and the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2010. There were also 20 other bills passed by the Senate over the last week which went through as non-controversial and not requiring great debate.

If there is genuine support from the big parties for an independent vetting of advertising campaigns, let us have this debate. We can make it very fast, we can make it to the point and we can have in law by tomorrow legislation which will ensure that the parliament properly keeps watch over the public interest and the use of taxpayers’ money.