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

My question is to the . By way of preamble, I note that the High Court in 1999 ruled that freedom of communication in a representative democ­racy on political matters was 'essential', 'necessary' and 'indispensable'. I ask the minister: is he aware that commercial TV has banned an ad by GetUp! relating to Harvey Norman's import of furniture made out of Australian wild forests? Will the government look at this matter and uphold freedom of speech, whether it is on commercial or public communications?

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

I thank Senator Bob Brown for his question. I am aware that GetUp! have launched a campaign targeting Harvey Norman and the use of products made from Australia's native forests. I understand that Commercials Advice Pty Ltd, CAD, have refused classification for the advertisement.

Commercial television advertisements are regulated under the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. Under the code, an advertisement must be given a television classification appropriate to its content and it must be broadcast at a time that its classification allows. I have not been advised of the reasons for the decision. If requested by CAD's director, the advertiser may need to provide further substantiation of claims made in the commercial and/or evidence of legal clearance. Getup! Australia can seek a review of CAD's decision. During this process, they would have to show that the commercial complies with the classification criteria and does not defame companies such as Harvey Norman.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it within the ambit of CAD to be able to make legal adjudication on advertisements? Is it not its job to determine classification? Is it not the job of commercial stations themselves to determine what may be actionable and what may not? There has been no public or extant ruling against this advertisement by GetUp! by reason of legality.

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

I thank Senator Bob Brown for his question. As I said in my earlier answer, I understand that the CAD's director can seek further substantiation of claims made in the commercial and/or evidence of legal clearance. So there is a process that does involve legal clearance. I believe that you are right in that individual stations can exercise their own judgments as well. I acknowledge the point you made that at this stage there is no finding whatsoever of any legal basis that anybody has suggested. As I mentioned, I am sure that many would encourage GetUp! to seek a review of CAD's decision to ensure that they exercise all of the rights that they are entitled to.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I note that Harvey Norman has not been accepting the will of the people in electoral matters, so I ask: does this particular multimillionaire have any special right to overrule the ability of all Australians—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

They don't like it.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on my left, I need to hear the question.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you don't; it's not worth listening to.

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

On a point of order, Mr President: you will have heard Senator Macdonald say 'No, you don't need to hear the question', and I ask you if you could make a ruling on that.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown, I did not hear that.

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

No, you didn't!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking you to repeat the question because I did not hear it due to the interruption from my left which was completely disorderly.

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

It is a disorderly coalition. My further supplementary question was: does Harvey Norman or any other billionaire have a special right to override the freedom of speech, which is central to the democracy which 22 million Australians want to see flourish?

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

As I think you mentioned in your earlier question, Senator Bob Brown, the High Court has actually opined on this. I am sure that everyone in this chamber would agree that no individual Australian has the right to override the freedom of speech of individuals.