Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government’s opposition to item 3 in schedule 1 of this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 28 February 2006. The government opposes item 3 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 28 to 32), to be opposed.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will support the government’s opposition to item 3 in schedule 1 of the bill. If enacted, item 3 would require licensees in remote areas to apply to ACMA to provide digital services within 12 months of 1 January 2006. The government’s opposition to this item will mean it is effectively left up to ACMA’s discretion to determine when applications need to be made. Labor accepts that it would be advisable to allow broadcasters and the regulator some more flexibility in deciding when digital broadcasts will commence. Given, however, that the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that item 3 was intended to encourage an early start to digital transmission, I invite the minister to indicate whether she has any advice on when services are likely to commence in remote licence areas, particularly in Western Australia.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that it will be in the second half of 2007.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that item 3 in schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 12), after item 6, insert:

6A  Paragraph 5A(d) of Schedule 4

Repeal the paragraph.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 12), after item 6, insert:

6B  Subclauses 5A(2) and (3) of Schedule 4

Repeal the subclauses.

As I outlined in the second reading debate, these amendments sweep away the absurd genre restrictions which limit what the ABC and SBS can show on their digital channels. These restrictions are contained in clause 5A of schedule 4 of the BSA, which defines a multichannelled national television broadcasting service. Clause 5A lists 22 categories of programs that the ABC and SBS are permitted to show. It includes categories such as a culture related program, a financial market or business information bulletin, a science program, a religious program, a health program, a public policy program, a foreign language news bulletin, a program about community based multicultural or Indigenous activities, and a children’s program. And the list goes on.

Needless to say, Labor has no objection to these types of programs. There is, however, no public policy justification for limiting the ABC and SBS to these narrow genres. If these amendments are passed, the ABC and SBS will be able to broadcast the full range of programs that are typically broadcast on free-to-air television. The national broadcasters will be free to set a schedule of programs that will appeal to their audiences. They will be free to dig into their archives and rebroadcast some of Australia’s best-loved drama, sport and comedy.

As I indicated during the second reading debate, the minister has announced that the government will remove the genre restrictions in digital television legislation which will be debated later this year. Labor believes that these genre restrictions have been in place for far too long. There is no need to wait until the minister gets around to introducing her media legislation. The Senate can and should act today.

There is one key point of difference between the approach set out by the minister and the amendment that Labor is arguing for today. The government intends to continue to restrict the national broadcasters from showing sporting events on their digital channels. The minister has said the ABC and SBS will not be able to show sport that is on the antisiphoning list on a digital multichannel unless the event has already been shown or is simultaneously shown on the main channel. Labor does not support this restriction on the ABC and SBS. The objective of the antisiphoning list is to maximise the likelihood that events of national significance are available on free-to-air television. The condition that the minister has proposed will reduce this possibility. Last year’s Ashes cricket provides one example of a situation where the minister’s policy is clearly contrary to the public interest. The ABC wanted to acquire the rights but were concerned about moving the news and The 7.30 Report, which would have clashed with the first session of play. The ABC asked the parliament for the ability to show the first session on ABC2. In the end, of course, SBS secured the rights and provided fantastic coverage, but people should not forget this was a close-run thing and that we were only just able to see that fantastic Ashes series on free-to-air television—and not because of the government or the minister’s competence.

Allowing the ABC and SBS to show antisiphoning list sport on their digital channels would maximise the chance of important events like the cricket being available on free-to-air television. The ability to show sport on ABC2, for example, allows the ABC to cater for sports and to keep faith with its loyal audiences for longstanding programs. I cannot understand why the minister is proposing a restriction that would deprive the public of the ability to get the maximum value out of their investment in the ABC and SBS. There is no doubt the genre restrictions are retarding the take-up of digital television, and I urge the Senate to take action today to lift these restrictions and allow taxpayers to get additional value from their $1 billion investment in digital television. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats, as the Senate knows, are supporters of this bill. But we have recognised that the bill has a relatively limited remit, and these two amendments from the Labor Party appear to us to make the matter of multichannelling far more free and competitive than it is at present. Our view is that the provisions in the bill which apply only to remote areas of Australia should be enlarged and made national and should be introduced in the major metropolitan areas. It is our broad view that these amendments actually increase the capacity and the nature of the market, and we support these two amendments.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting these amendments; not because we do not agree with their general thrust but because they form part of a much larger package, to which Senator Murray alludes: how to extend better digital take-up right across Australia. It is part of a much broader media package. For those reasons the amendments proposed by Labor on lifting the current genre restrictions on ABC and SBS multichannelling are redundant, since I announced on 13 July that it was the government’s intention to introduce legislation to do precisely that—with the exception of sport on the antisiphoning list, to which Senator Conroy has referred.

This bill concerns only the implementation of the model for the introduction of commercial digital television services in remote licence areas, so the government will not be supporting these amendments, which are the subject of legislation that is in a very advanced stage of development and will be introduced shortly. Sport is a very strong driver of digital television, but the antisiphoning scheme needs to be seen in the context of a much broader debate than can be possible and comprehended with an amendment that simply refers to the ABC and SBS and genre restrictions.

The government has announced that during the simulcast period free-to-air broadcasters would be prohibited from broadcasting sports events on the antisiphoning list on any digital multichannels unless the content has already been shown or is simultaneously shown on their main channel. Quite clearly, there needs to be some balance between the interests of the subscription television sector and pay television, and the operation of the antisiphoning scheme is indeed a matter of balancing. While digital take-up is in transition, the migration of events on the antisiphoning list to multichannels would certainly not be consistent with the objective of the antisiphoning scheme, which is to provide the widest access for viewers to listed events. That remains the policy objective.

The government has announced a review of the operation of the antisiphoning scheme prior to the expiry of the list on 31 December 2010 for all of those reasons, plus the fact that there is a review ongoing, with the list to be made a ‘use it or lose it’ list as of next year. In my view, it would be appropriate to consider at the same time whether there should be a relaxation of the restrictions on the multichannelling of sports on the antisiphoning list—that is, in the broader review in 2010, not in the review of the antisiphoning list, which may result in some revision of the list next year.

The antisiphoning list is set years in advance. There is no immediate hurry to deal with antisiphoning on second or other channels of the ABC and SBS. The genre restrictions that we have in mind will substantially allow the ABC and SBS to develop their models along the lines of accessing their archives and developing a much better viewer experience for both of our national broadcasters. But to simply pluck sport out of the antisiphoning scheme and stick it on the national channels would be to circumvent the list and to circumvent the policy intent that we must review this with fairness in mind and balancing all the relevant interests.

Question negatived.

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

I ask that the Greens’ support for the Labor amendment be recorded. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) and (2) together.

Leave granted.

I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4813:

(1)    Clause 3, page 1 (line 9) to page 2 (line 2), omit the clause, substitute:

3  Schedule(s)

Schedule 2—Amendment of Children’s Television Standards

Children’s Television Standards 2005

These very important amendments are to begin, in a real way, tackling the problem of obesity in our Australian community. It is a coincidence that there is an international conference on the global problem of obesity taking place as we sit here, with 2,000 delegates and 300 experts in the field contributing to that debate. It is now apparent that, in this age of extraordinary plenty, populations around the world have been led to an eating and obesity epidemic which is going to have massive impacts on those populations and the individuals who are caught up by obesity.

It is estimated that in Australia the impact of the current obesity problem, if converted to dollars, is about $11 billion per year. That figure comes from the Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment. That breaks down to some $2.5 billion in treatment of obesity and $9 billion in indirect costs, including lost productivity, absenteeism and unemployment. What is not costed is the psychological impact of obesity on the individuals who are overweight, and who have great trouble tackling that in our consumer society, and also the impact on the families and others who are left behind when people die because of obesity.

The news is getting worse. More than half of Australian adults and a quarter of Australian children are overweight already. The projections are that, as far as children are concerned, more than half of them will be overweight by 2025. The consequences of that are enormous, because a pattern of obesity allowed to unfold in childhood makes the probability of obesity, with all the health problems that come from that, very difficult to handle in adulthood. The impact on the future economy of this country would be extraordinarily expensive if that were to be the one measure that was used—and it is not for me.

The minister has already said that prohibiting the pushing of junk food to children on Australian television is not going to make any difference. But her own comment on a British reference to Sweden and Quebec having gone down this path was that the information is inconclusive at the moment. What is as obvious as the noses on our faces is that the pushing of junk food at children, who are unable to discriminate between fact and advertising, is a terrible thing to do in an obesity epidemic. Yet in Australia, in the last year for which we have figures—that is, 2004—over $400 million was spent in that year alone by junk food sellers pushing their products onto Australian children during children’s TV hours.

This involves not just sweets and chocolates, but sugar-concentrated aerated drinks—the Coca-Cola phenomenon, which has seen the Coke brand become the most lauded and the most widely distributed in the world. But when one stops and thinks about it, one has to ask: what benefit have Coca-Cola and that particular product brought to the world? The answer to that question is: whatever else, it is part of this now global epidemic of obesity. It is partly Coca-Cola. Like McDonald’s, breakfast cereal producers, sweets producers and a whole range of junk food producers, they are using children’s television hours to increase their sales. One does not have to know much about advertising to know that if advertising of $400 million a year were not more than rewarded by an expansion of their profits of more than $400 million a year, they would not be doing it. So we can see that the reward for the advertising—the pushing of junk food on television—is billions of dollars in extra sales of those food items. Over 90 per cent of the advertising is for junk food. It is for foods which cause obesity.

The Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, has said that he is not interested in this ‘soft option’. In fact, he opposes it. The question I put to Minister Abbott is: where is your hard option? It seems to me that the minister for health, who is letting down Australia’s children and who is more interested in defending the big advertising budgets of the big junk food corporations than he is in the health of our children, is failing in his job. Mr Abbott is challenged to come out with the hard options. We do not have any. We have had a couple of government senators in the debate this morning point to TV advertising for fruit and vegetables and some advertising about exercise, even though studies in New South Wales show that exercise is not the problem. In fact, kids have been getting more exercise in the last decade, but they have been getting fatter. The problem is the taking in of calories, the taking in of food—although it must be said that the more exercise we can encourage everybody in our society to take, the better.

The Prime Minister has announced that $116 million over four years is to be spent on what I would call a ‘blancmange campaign’. Mr Abbott calls the amendments to the legislation that the Greens have before the Senate at the moment ‘soft’. If that is the case, his program is blancmange. There is also $6 million dollars per annum for advertising. That is $35 million per annum, a proportion of which will go into television advertising. That is less than one-tenth of the amount that the food cartels and companies are using to push junk food at kids. The government is being outspent by more than 10 to one. One does not have to be very good at maths, let alone at logic, to see not only that the government is simply throwing good money up against bad money from the corporations—and it is ultimately the taxpayers who are losing out there—but also that the government dollar is being overwhelmed by the private sector. And the private sector is winning, because it is selling the foods which it keeps advertising. It is our children who are losing.

The government ought to be right behind these amendments, and the Greens do not intend to allow the matter to stop here. I agree that we need a multifaceted approach to tackling this huge problem of obesity. Professor Philip James, the head of the International Obesity Task Force, said on the AM program this morning that obesity is, according to the World Health Organisation:

... the biggest unrecognised public health problem in the world.

It is the biggest unrecognised health problem in the world, and if it is going to be tackled then our nation is in the box seat to tackle it. But the government cannot even get itself to first base and to say, ‘We have to stop pushing junk food at kids during kids’ television programs.’ It is outrageous. It is a dereliction of duty by the minister for health that he is not only not supporting this legislation but also has no alternative that will have the traction that these amendments would have in tackling this problem.

Other countries do have a multifaceted approach. Other countries prohibit junk foods—either in schools altogether or in school tuckshops. Other countries are moving to take particularly dangerous ingredients out of foods. This morning the AM program also heard from a Danish expert how the Danes have removed from their food chain particular fatty acids which are inimical to the health. Nobody has stopped eating over there and nobody is the worse off for it, but everybody is better for it. But McDonald’s, for example, can keep putting into Australian food those particular ingredients which are not permitted in Danish food. We are seeing the Australian community suffering from an ideological impasse. The ideology of this government is that it will not stand up to corporations which are in the business of advertising and pushing junk food. It would rather leave the health of our children to those corporations. That is just inexcusable.

The Minister for Health and Ageing says, ‘Leave it to parents and individuals.’ What an extraordinary statement that is: that the most vulnerable kids in our community, I submit—that is, the kids who, for no reason of their own, might have the least parental supervision—can be left with no support because the minister says that he is not going to act to ensure that they at least do not have junk food pushed at them by corporations who have the profit bottom line driving their motivation in children’s television viewing hours. Where would we be if that same ideology—that it is up to the individual and parents to ensure the wellbeing of children; that we simply do not legislate for the protection of children; that it is a matter for parents—had been kept by governments all the way down the line? That went out some time in the 16th century and it is time that Tony Abbott caught up with that. There is a community responsibility for the health of our younger generation and there is a government responsibility. It ought not to be that the Greens, in bringing in amendments like these when this hidden epidemic is becoming a very public epidemic, are getting not only rebuff from the government but also no satisfactory response from the government and no alternative from the government.

Mr Abbott stands indicted. The Prime Minister has echoed his sentiments. They are both wrong. Australian kids deserve a better deal. Australian kids deserve to be protected from junk food advertisers pushing their wares at them in children’s television viewing hours. The Prime Minister ought to be more responsible. He talks about families and sends bundles of money in the pre-election period to families but abandons them when it comes to kids watching TV and having harmful products pushed at them, as junk foods are. It is an abrogation of prime ministerial and ministerial responsibility by Mr Howard and Mr Abbott. I challenge them: where is your hard option if you do not like this Greens soft option? They have no option. The government stands indicted. (Time expired)

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats support the intent of these amendments but have problems with the design. Ever since the Black Death, communities and those responsible for public health have taken measures to attend to and push back major diseases which affect the community as a whole. The question is whether the government is doing enough on public health grounds with respect to this particular issue. We believe that a more holistic approach needs to be taken than is offered by these Greens amendments. In fact, the health spokesperson for the Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison, will put forward a private senator’s bill which attempts to cover off the issue in a far fuller manner than is being done here. But we are glad that Senator Brown on behalf of the Greens has raised this issue, because it is of acute concern not just to our society but internationally. Quite properly, a large number of health ministers and governments have become extremely concerned about obesity and its effect on modern society.

Turning to the Greens amendments specifically, their amendments would require the minister to personally approve every food or beverage advertisement broadcast in about 390 hours of annual programming on each television station in the country. The minister would also be required to make an essentially subjective—and, of course, there is the danger of it being essentially partisan—judgement about which advertisements are beneficial to the health of children. The amendments would not prevent the broadcasting of junk food advertisements in those parts of the C band that have not been designated C periods by broadcasters.

We Democrats are consistently wary of ministers having excessive discretionary powers. I sometimes deliberately lay claim to small ‘l’ liberal views, and I do not like the idea of ministers telling me what I can read, being censors over what I can read or deciding what drugs should be available to the community—that is why we have the Therapeutic Goods Administration—and I certainly do not want them being the censors or arbiters of advertisements. Nevertheless, that does not mean that advertisements themselves should not be subject to regulation and oversight. But we would be alarmed at giving the health minister—of any government, I might say, not just this particular health minister—excessive discretionary power.

The banning of junk food advertising to children is quite a popular concept, as I understand it, with many parents and many members of the community. It is certainly supported by public health groups of some considerable standing. It is noteworthy that some health and education groups are actually supportive of a total ban on advertising to children on the grounds that children are not developmentally able to understand and resist advertising, so it is unethical to advertise to them. That is a system, as I understand it, that exists in countries such as Sweden. I recall—20 years ago or maybe longer—seeing a statistic that one penny in every 10p spent in Great Britain on food was actually spent on chocolates, lollies and what we would broadly describe as junk food, so it is a problem that has been around for a long time.

The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children wrote to senators in a general letter on 3 February 2006. That coalition includes the Australasian Society for the Study of Obesity; the Australian Confederation of Paediatric and Child Health Nurses; the Australian Consumers Association; the Australian Dental Association; the Australian Medical Association; Dr Rosemary Stanton; the Public Health Association of Australia; the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Paediatric Branch; the Cancer Council of Australia; the University of Adelaide, Department of Public Health; the Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide; and Young Media Australia. It is not a minor organisation. I am not sure if all of those constituent organisations supported or ticked off on this particular letter, but we take note of the weight of support for action in this area. That letter had an attachment. The letter states:

On 7 February, Greens Leader Bob Brown will table an amendment to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1). The Greens’ amendment will prohibit all food advertising during children’s viewing hours and make exceptions to the ban subject to approval by the Health Minister.

The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children asks you consider the health of Australian children and support the Greens’ amendment.

The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children, which includes among its members the AMA, the Australasian College of Physicians, Cancer Council Australia and the Australian College of General Practitioners, has been consistently calling for such a ban. CFAC draws on research evidence that TV food advertising promotes mostly junk food to children and this plays a role in the epidemic of childhood obesity which currently affects one in four children in Australia.

Research shows that parents support changes in this area. Research in South Australia found that 88 % of parents were concerned about TV food advertising to children and want to see much stronger enforcement of regulations.

The Australian government has an opportunity to turn around childhood obesity by helping parents in their task of educating children to make healthy food choices. Lessening the incidence of obesity is a health priority and the Government’s National Obesity Taskforce has detailed comprehensive strategies to do so, in its Reported Healthy Weight 2008. Among these are ‘better protection for young people against the promotion of high-energy, poor nutritional value foods and drinks’.

Please put the interests of our children above big business profit. Support the Greens’ amendment.

I do not necessarily agree that this is the only way in which you can tackle the matter. I note the attachment says:

Advertising to children is prohibited in Sweden (since 1991), Norway (since 1992) and Quebec Canada (since 1980).

I did not see in the attachment what effects that has had; whether children from Sweden, Quebec or Norway are thinner than children elsewhere. Certainly when I visited Denmark I saw that people there were indeed a lot thinner than Australians. I put it down to their penchant for riding bicycles. In fact, you have to take care crossing the road there because bicycles whip along at a great rate of knots. That is a reminder, of course, that part of the way in which you defeat obesity is to get much more exercise. In the part of the world where I come from sport and exercise were a major requirement for all children, regardless of ability. I was pretty concerned when I came to Australia to discover that it was not in fashion in many schools at that time. Hopefully, it will come back into fashion. Without doubt, exercise is a vital part of it all.

We are here therefore in furious agreement with Senator Brown in terms of intent but not in terms of the design of these amendments. I am hopeful that the government will recognise some of the concerns which have been expressed here and elsewhere and in fact will pick up their game even more in this area—I know they have been attending to that.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will not be supporting the Greens amendment. This amendment effectively requires the Minister for Health and Ageing to vet every food or beverage ad shown during children’s viewing hours. Now, I am not a great fan of Tony Abbott.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am sorry, I am not a great fan, but even I would not require that of Tony Abbott. Labor does not believe that this is a workable or sensible proposal. Childhood obesity is a serious national problem. Seventeen per cent of children and adolescents are overweight and six per cent are obese. Over the last 10 years, the number of obese children has trebled and the number of overweight children has doubled. As Kim Beazley made clear in Labor’s children’s health blueprint, which was released earlier this year, tackling obesity is an urgent priority. Addressing the problem requires a comprehensive plan to promote good nutrition, regular exercise and healthy lifestyles.

State health ministers recently sought to have the issue of children’s obesity discussed at a health ministers’ meeting. The Prime Minister said that the issue should not be discussed by either health ministers or COAG. The opposition rejects that arrogant approach. Labor will work with the task force of state ministers on all aspects of the childhood obesity issue, including the question of what, if any, additional regulation is required on food advertising during children’s viewing hours. Labor will consult with all stakeholders and will consider any evidence that emerges from the current review of Children’s Television Standards being conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Australian parents want real solutions, not the populist gimmicks. The Greens amendment before the Senate today does not represent a workable solution to the problem of childhood obesity and Labor will not be supporting it.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank senators for their contribution in relation to these amendments. I remind senators that this bill is actually dealing with a third digital commercial television service for remote and regional Western Australia. However, in relation to junk food—which the government is taking very seriously; it has taken a number of initiatives that I mentioned in my summing up remarks—I do think I need to add a couple of things, although I note the disposition of senators in this regard. The industry is already regulated by the Children’s Television Standards and the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. The Children’s Television Standards, the instrument that this proposal seeks to amend, is administered by ACMA, the regulator, and it already provides that a food advertisement must not contain any misleading or incorrect information about the nutritional value of the product. The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice strengthens the obligations regarding advertising to children and includes requirements that advertising must not encourage or promote an inactive lifestyle or unhealthy eating or drinking habits. As senators may be aware, ACMA is currently undertaking a full review of the Children’s Television Standards. This will ensure that children’s television needs are still being met in an appropriate way.

While the government places certain restrictions on the classification and placement of commercials directed at children, responsibility for media advertising standards—and I think this is often overlooked—rests primarily with the Australian Standards Board, the industry self-regulatory body established by the Australian Association of National Advertisers. The association has already developed a code of advertising to children and is currently in the process of developing an additional voluntary food and beverages advertising and marketing communications code that does include specific provisions in relation to advertising directed at children. This new voluntary code has the support of key food industry bodies including the Australian Food and Grocery Council.

The issues surrounding the current concerns about childhood obesity are, I think we all agree, complex and cannot be attributed to one source nor addressed by a single regulatory response. The draft amendment proposes that the Minister for Health and Ageing determine the benefit of an advertisement to the health of children. Unlike the coregulatory framework for broadcasting services, where the broadcaster is directly accountable for programming decisions, this proposal shifts responsibility from the industry to the bureaucrats who advise the minister for health.

I also should note that the drafting of this amendment suggests that it is the advertisement rather than the product itself that must be deemed beneficial. It would seem to me to be an inappropriate focus on the vehicle for promotion rather than the product itself. So whilst the government is very cognisant of this troubling issue of obesity and has a range of measures to address it, we will not be supporting the amendment put forward.

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

What lot of weak-kneed responses we have just heard to this Greens amendment, which is serious about banning junk food ads being pushed at kids. It might be amusing to other members of this place but it is not amusing to me. It is fatuous for Labor, Democrats and the coalition to be getting up and saying, ‘We have got plans further down the line.’ It began with Senator Murray saying that Senator Allison is preparing a bill. Get that onto the schedule in this place where the government is in control, if you don’t mind. Here we have an amendment to a government piece of legislation which has to be dealt with by the Senate today. It is on schedule; it is required to be dealt with; it cannot be blocked by the government; it is very simple; it is aimed straight at the junk food purveyors—and the Democrats say, ‘No, not us.’

Labor says that it is populist. Surely, it is. People are worried about obesity and about junk food being pushed through the TV sets at our kids. What is Labor doing about it? Nothing. There is no alternative that is going to have real teeth in this place in the foreseeable future. The minister says, ‘Oh well, we have got plans.’ I challenged her with the hard options that Mr Abbott was talking about. What are they? Nothing—zero—simply talk! She points to what she sees as a technical problem and the other members say, ‘We cannot load Tony Abbott with the problem of having to decide what a healthy food product is when it is advertised on television.’ Sure, we can regulate violence and pornography in children’s television viewing hours but we cannot do it with food. Suddenly the government cannot come up with a process which would inform it correctly on what is a healthy food for children. That is arrant nonsense!

Of course the minister is not going to make a subjective judgement about this, as Senator Murray said. The minister will make an objective judgement based on information coming from experts—and they are plentiful. I suggest that he put through a call to Dr Rosemary Stanton, who has been addressing this issue since I was a medical student—and I do not want to impugn her in any way there. There are many experts in our community who have been speaking out about this for decades now and they have not been heard. I for one feel embarrassed that I have not acted on this earlier in this place. But when you do get it to an action point and a very simple and sensible amendment like this which says, ‘Don’t ban healthy foods being given advertising time to Australian children,’ Labor and the Democrats say that it is too difficult. What nonsense! What stupidity that is. Where is the alternative?

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I think that Senator Brown is not aware that on 30 March 2006 the Democrats’ private senator’s bill protecting children from junk food advertising was tabled in this place.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that he is now.

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

The very point I take in addressing the Democrats’ woeful position on this has just been endorsed by Senator Murray. Legislation comes in here in March—and where is it? Nowhere to be seen. Why? Because it is relegated to the vastness of private senator’s time in a government-controlled Senate where it is simply not going to get to a vote. But this amendment must come to a vote. That is the difference, Senator Murray. This is a real amendment which the government has to deal with. They can put yours off until after the next election—no trouble—but they cannot do that with this piece of legislation.

I take back the word ‘stupid’. It is simply too bad, it is simply inexcusable, I think, that the Democrats, Labor and the coalition have all turned down this opportunity to do something about this rampaging epidemic of obesity which is causing so much hurt and harm out there in the community. I reiterate that. I do not think it is funny. Chair, I just do not think it is funny, and senators might take it a bit more seriously.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We take the issue seriously, just not you.

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

I expect better than that of you too, Senator Conroy. It is a serious matter—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a serious matter.

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

and you are dipping out of your responsibilities, Senator, by being unable to come up with a solution—which is what the Greens have brought forward here today. I do not treat this with the mirth that you do.

Let me say this again: we have a government which keeps beating its chest about looking after families and being concerned about children, but it seems to me this government is putting more effort into designing the history that those children will learn at school—important though that is—than into their health and their ability to have long, happy, healthy lives by escaping the trap of obesity.

I reiterate that we have a $35 million a year plan from the government—for spending on advertising—and an $11 billion a year problem. That seems to me to be a $10,965 million a year deficit in terms of the balance that the government should be striking. The government has not acted responsibly in this matter. To turn down these amendments today in the way they have been turned down by the other parties in the Senate—I find that incomprehensible.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In view of that contribution, I must just make this short point: the Democrats’ position is as laid down in our private senator’s bill. We support the intent of the amendments that Senator Bob Brown has moved, but we are extremely concerned about giving this sort of discretion to any minister for health in any government. If senators choose to support these amendments, it will be because they support their intent, not because they are designed in a way that would achieve the effects that Senator Brown is arguing for.

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

What the Democrats are saying is: ‘Don’t give the discretion to the minister for health; leave it with the junk food companies, as it is at the moment.’

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry to prolong the debate, Mr Temporary Chairman. I will accept the apology that Senator Brown made earlier in his contribution, for recently joining the debate. I accept your apology for ignoring it for almost your entire parliamentary career, Senator Brown. Julia Gillard has not. Julia Gillard has been talking about this for a number of years. Julia Gillard, on behalf of the Labor Party, has been talking about it with the state health ministers for a number of years. She is not a Johnny-come-lately who has to come in here and apologise like you have, because you have only just noticed the problem.

So I just want to make it absolutely clear, again, that Labor take this issue very seriously. We do not need to come wandering in here, in the twilight of our political career, and say, ‘I’ve suddenly discovered this issue.’ Julia Gillard and Labor have long held discussions and made thoughtful contributions on this debate and we are involved very seriously with the state health ministers in developing policies around this issue. You have suddenly discovered it and moved amendments which give ridiculous powers to a minister, the sorts of powers that nobody would ever want to give to a minister, as Senator Murray said—deciding whether a Tim Tam or a Milk Arrowroot constitutes a dangerous food to be removed from a tuckshop. We want to see a serious contribution to this debate, Senator Brown, not an apology for the fact that you have not noticed it for most of your political career.

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

That sort of nastiness does not get us very far. Let me just say this again—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Senator Conroy is using the word ‘stupid’, which is what I apologised for—something he will not do. I was not apologising for not having picked up on this issue; I have been talking about it for years. What I was apologising for was not acting on it. But then, when you do walk in here and act on the issue, with very simple, telling, positive, fixing amendments as far as TV advertising is concerned, the best that the opposition, the government and the Democrats can do is say, ‘We shouldn’t have the minister determining what’s a healthy food for children; leave it to the junk food companies.’ What an appalling failure that is. If Senator Conroy knew about this issue, he would not have made that statement. I will put my record up against Ms Gillard’s any time when it comes to health issues in general and this one in particular. What I am saying is that, now that we are able to act on the issue of obesity through this legislation and these amendments, the other parties are letting this opportunity pass. The arguments they have are specious; they simply do not add up. They say: ‘Leave it to the junk food companies. Don’t go with the Greens and put the responsibility onto the minister for health.’ It is an argument that simply does not hold water.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry to extend the debate, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I do have to put on record, unfortunately, that Senator Bob Brown is misrepresenting the Democrats’ position. The Democrats’ private senator’s bill on junk food is a short one. It is a simple one. Schedule 1 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and states:

1 After subsection 122(2)

Insert:

(2A) A standard under paragraph 112(2)(a) must include standards for the control of food or beverage advertising, including:

(a)  advertisements for food or for a beverage must not be broadcast during a C period; and

(b)  no advertisement or sponsorship announcement broadcast during a C period must identify or refer to a company, person or organisation whose principal activity is the manufacture, distribution or sale of food or of a beverage—this requirement is in addition to the requirements of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice; and

(c)  no advertisement for food or for a beverage may be broadcast during a C program or P program that is broadcast outside a C period or P period, or in a break immediately before or after any C program or P program; and

(d)  no advertisement or sponsorship announcement broadcast during a C program or P program that is broadcast outside a C period or P period, or in a break immediately before or after such a C program or P program, must identify or refer to a company, person or organisation whose principal activity is the manufacture, distribution or sale of food or of beverages—this requirement is in addition to the requirements of the commercial Television Industry Code of Practice.

There are other elements of the bill that I will not read out. What I want to make quite clear is that it is entirely wrong of Senator Bob Brown and it does not reflect well on him to claim that the Democrats wish to leave this matter to the companies which manufacture what are known as junk foods. We do not at all; our position is entirely different. Our position is as put in our private senator’s bill.

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

Senator Murray did say he did not agree with the Minister for Health and Ageing taking the responsibility, as the Greens would have it, from the junk food companies. After the Democrats vote against this amendment, it will be left to the junk food companies. The difference between what Senator Murray is saying and what I am saying is this: we will be supporting their measure because it is important we get a breakthrough, but they are not supporting this Greens measure, which is equally sensible.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.