Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Democrats amendment (1) on sheet 5249 in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2007:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 31), after item 52, insert:

52A  After subsection 122(2)

Insert:

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

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

             (b)    that 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)    that 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)    that 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.

      (2B)    A standard made in accordance with subsection (2A) may permit the making of community service announcements regarding food and beverages.

Note 1:  For the purposes of subsection 122(2B), an example is where a public health or education organisation makes a community service announcement in relation to food or beverages.

Note 2:  C and P Programs and C and P periods are defined in the Children’s Television Standards (made under subsection 122(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992).

Note 3:  children is defined in the Children’s Television Standards (made under subsection 122(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992).

Note 4:  A code of practice is registered by section 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

This bill provides an opportunity to address, through the Broadcasting Services Act, one of the most serious health problems facing the country. Obesity has doubled in Australia over the last 20 years. More than seven million adults are overweight or obese, and our rate of childhood obesity is one of the worst in the world. Recent research published by the Menzies Research Institute showed that overweight children are highly likely to experience the same problem in adulthood, but even children who are a healthy weight are going on to become obese adults.

Cardiovascular disease remains Australia’s biggest killer, with 50,000 deaths a year. That death rate has tapered in the last 20 years because of remarkable advances in surgery and drugs, but we will see increases again as the obese generations grow older. Type 2 diabetes has doubled in Australia over the past 20 years. There are more than one million sufferers, and another one million have a prediabetic condition that will almost certainly develop into full-blown diabetes.

The death, injury and financial burden of these conditions is overwhelming. Obesity alone has been estimated by Access Economics to cost the country $21 billion a year in health costs and in lost productivity, amongst other things. If this epidemic spread of obesity and related disease continues, life expectancy in this country will actually start to drop. We recognise that there is no magic fix to these problems, but there are some solutions. Unfortunately the government’s response has been very slow and uncoordinated, and it has failed to tackle some pretty obvious responses to improving diet and lifestyle.

Marketing of food to children is one of the most glaring examples of this government’s failure to respond. TV advertising is the most effective method for reaching young children, and it does reach young children right across the country at an earlier age than any other form of advertising. As we all know, it works and it works extremely well. Advertising for food that is high in fat, salt and sugar accounts for almost all of the food advertising on television.

The World Health Organisation has judged that TV food-advertising to children is a probable cause of childhood obesity. It is not the only cause, but the evidence is that it has an undesirable effect on children’s diets. Just this week we saw accounts of sweet and acidic beverages identified as responsible for tooth decay. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister suggested that fluoride should be introduced into drinks in cans and bottles, particularly water and substances like Gatorade.

I think children need to receive very strong messages about the importance of healthy diets and physical activity. The government has put money—many would argue nowhere near enough—into physical activity measures, but it is still ignoring the other side of the equation, and that is healthy eating habits. We need restrictions on advertising of unhealthy foods, and that includes bans on advertisements for food during children’s TV viewing times at a minimum.

Our amendment does not try to define junk food. That would make it altogether too easy for action to be delayed while debates rage about what is and what is not okay to be advertised and too easy for the marketing companies to come up with ways to get around such restrictions. McDonald’s use of the Heart Foundation’s tick system shows just how such things can be manipulated. That is why we are suggesting a system that stops all advertising of food unless it is a community service announcement.

We already protect children from the advertising of alcohol and tobacco and high levels of violence during TV programs. The Democrats say that we should be doing the same with unhealthy food. It is true that individuals have to make the changes—governments cannot make them for them. But governments do have a responsibility to make it as easy as possible for people, particularly parents, to make healthy choices and change their habits.

Australia has led the world in tackling other public health epidemics. Our action on smoking has been second to none, meaning that we now have one of the lowest rates in the world. Our response was very good on HIV-AIDS too, and the same is true of that disease. We could do the same for obesity. What we need, though, is political leadership and the courage to do it. Madam Acting Chair, I suggest to you and other members of the Senate that our amendment would go a very long way towards solving this problem and it ought to be supported.

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, whilst Labor has much sympathy with many of the aims and objectives that Senator Allison has outlined, we are currently involved in a process. There is an ACMA report due soon, I think—and I am sure that the minister will inform us about when it is due—that addresses many of these issues. While this bill is part of the broadcasting act, the substance of the amendments that the Senate committee dealt with did not cover any of the arguments that Senator Allison has made today. It perhaps would have been helpful if some of these issues had been raised during a committee process rather than turning up here—

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no committee process.

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

although I do confess that that might have been hard because there was not a committee process. We did not have any hearings. There was no opportunity for these issues to be raised in a serious sense. I think that is a very fair interjection which I will happily take.

There are a number of issues that I think the ACMA report will help us with in the consideration of this important matter. I think there is some recent evidence. A blanket ban in Norway and Sweden tends to suggest that this is not the entire answer. These are issues that I think we should debate and discuss. In Norway and Sweden I understand that the childhood obesity issue has continued to grow despite the fact that there has been a ban in place for some time. So the correlation is not necessarily as strong as is suggested in these jurisdictions. These are the issues that I think we need to have out there fully. I would welcome a Senate inquiry if we could convince the government that it was worth while to look into these matters. I would hope that we could perhaps convince the government between us that it is worth while going down that path.

I also have concerns that, while the growing evidence of childhood obesity shows that there is a growing problem, the number of eyeballs watching TV is actually decreasing substantially. So, again, issues around whether or not there is a direct correlation come into play. If fewer and fewer children are watching television and are going to the net, for instance, then you have an issue of whether this is the best way to address this. Should the net be included? These are the sorts of issues that I think need to be teased out as part of a more open process than just standing up today and moving this amendment.

I do have some concerns about an approach that says, ‘Look, it’s too hard to define, therefore the easiest way is to say no to everything.’ I think that a little bit more work, developed through this committee process that we could perhaps encourage the government to join us in, would be a wiser way to go than just to simply take the approach that you have.

Whilst Labor is very sympathetic to many of the issues and objectives that you have raised, I think it is a little premature to move this amendment at this point. I am particularly interested in the ACMA report. I am hoping that we will be hearing the exact date of arrival and release of that report from the minister. On that basis, Labor will not be supporting the amendment, but perhaps we could work together to convince the government to allow a Senate committee to do a proper examination of this in conjunction with the ACMA report. I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendment.

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

The government opposes this amendment, and I will say why. I must say that I think the issue is certainly worthy of debate and discussion, but it is not clear why the Australian Democrats want to include this amendment right at this stage, in a bill which deals with the introduction of digital radio. The focus of this amendment is really on television. I think that Senator Conroy has pointed out, and I agree with him, that it is becoming a less influential medium. If this is a pernicious influence, there are a lot of other platforms over which it is spread more widely.

Let me say for the record that the Australian government does take very seriously the health of all Australians, especially the health of children. I think that everyone here does. I think it is fair to acknowledge that. The government considers that the issues surrounding advertising and childhood obesity are complex. The Healthy Living Ministerial Taskforce that I am actually on was launched in July last year to coordinate an antiobesity campaign involving collaborations between government, industry and the community.

The Children’s Television Standards already impose obligations on broadcasters regarding advertising during children’s viewing times. I think it is worth noting them. No advertising is allowed in preschool programs and limitations are placed on the broadcast of commercials in children’s viewing periods. More specifically, an advertisement for a food product must not contain any misleading or incorrect information about the nutritional value of the product and advertisements must not be designed to put undue pressure on children to ask their parents or other people to purchase an advertised product.

The Children’s Television Standards are currently being reviewed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, and the role of advertising in childhood obesity will be considered as part of the review. It is to be completed in late 2007. I would encourage all of those with an interest in this matter to take the opportunity to raise their proposals in that context because it is already set up to receive them.

All commercial television broadcasters are also governed by the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. The code covers, amongst other things, obligations regarding advertising to children. It is designed to reflect prevailing community standards. The advertising should not encourage unhealthy eating or drinking habits and must not contain any misleading or incorrect nutritional information. A review of the code is expected to commence in July 2007. This will also present an opportunity for those concerned about these matters to raise their proposals.

I also note, for the sake of comprehensively addressing where reviews are up to, that the Australian Association of National Advertisers, AANA, code for advertising to children also includes provisions relating to food and beverages. Television advertisers are expected to ensure their commercials comply with this code, which provides that advertising should not encourage or promote an inactive lifestyle combined with unhealthy eating or drinking habits, and advertising must not contain any misleading or incorrect information about the nutritional value of that product. I understand that the AANA code is also currently being reviewed, although it does not come immediately under my portfolio responsibilities, and the AANA has called for public submissions by 1 June 2007. These various reviews will each provide for public consultation and give all interested parties an immediate means of raising issues of concern about the current regulations governing food advertising to children. With those reviews on board we will not be supporting the amendment.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to a couple of the comments made. I do know that ACMA has a process underway right now but the great concern here is the growth in consumption of the kinds of foods and beverages which are being advertised. That is why we are raising this amendment. That growth has taken place at a time when we have codes of practice that say pressure should not be exerted on children through the advertising of food and beverages. The fact of the matter is that those codes are very weak and they are ignored daily. Quite frankly, the industry has not shown a responsible position on this issue, which is at least part of the reason we have the problem that we have. I hope that process comes up with a much more comprehensive code, but I somehow doubt it.

You have to ask yourselves why it is that advertisers want to advertise food and beverages in children’s television times. They are not doing it out of the generosity of their hearts; they are not doing it because they are amusing children with their various ads. I am sure they are amusing. Why are they doing it? Because it works, because children do put pressure on their parents in order to buy whatever it is, whether it is soft drinks, McDonald’s or something else. They work, and not because the parents see the ads; they work because children are convinced that is what they ought to have. Children are not discriminating. Children are not able to say, ‘This is just an ad.’ Children do not understand that; children look at television and think that what is being said to them on television is the truth. They understand that they should be doing what they are being shown. That is the whole reason we have restrictions on children’s advertising. I wish that process well, Minister, but my guess is that it is not going to deliver much more by way of dissuading advertisers of food which is not healthy for children from advertising it on television. That is the fact of the matter.

Sadly, codes of practice in the advertising industry are broken the whole time. The authority has a wet rag to wave at advertisers by way of stopping them doing this and penalising them for it. It is a code of practice and it is time, frankly, that our laws reflected a much stronger position. As I say, I would not be moving this amendment were it not for the fact we have a growing problem. We have had that code of practice for a long time and it has not worked. We have a growing problem and we need to do whatever we can to turn it around. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Question negatived.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.