Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007

Debate resumed from 28 June 2007.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [10.03 a.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak because the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 is a great initiative. I congratulate the member for Ballina, Don Page, and other Coalition members who have contributed to the debate. The bill is a worthwhile addition to the working of democracy in New South Wales. For the benefit of those who are in the public gallery, I explain the purpose of the bill by stating the object, which is "to make it an offence for a person to authorise, cause or permit the publication of an electoral advertisement containing a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent". The bill also provides for penalties.

The topic has been debated over so many years that I have lost count. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about reform of the process, but that has not happened. This is not a matter that has arisen in the past 12 months since the State or Federal elections but rather has been an issue over the past few decades. For the benefit of those present in the public gallery, I should explain that one of the problems in the working of Western democracies is that, just as the media have turned away from reporting news and have turned more towards commentating, the public has turned away from obtaining information from the media and has turned to other sources.

Even Labor had the hide to say to the media after the most recent State election, "We don't need you because it is now all about political advertising." Political advertising is not confined to television advertisements but includes radio advertisements and direct mail that is addressed and posted, not letterbox-drop mail. Over several years those advertisements have become increasingly important and have led to debate on reform of the donation system, which is all about dollars being invested in television advertisements. The regulation of political advertising has become increasingly important. While we have regulations covering the material circulated on election day, including posters, we have no effective regulation of political advertising in the lead-up to an election.

It is important to acknowledge in the context of this debate that the Labor Party has rejected this bill. Members opposite have not voted on the bill yet but have indicated very clearly that they will not support it, and that is the problem. The bill is not going anywhere in this term of Parliament under the current Government because the Labor Party does not want the legislation. That is the political reality of what is happening in New South Wales. Before the question "What can we do about it?" is asked, let us define the advertisements we are talking about. During the most recent State election, the Labor Party invested an extraordinary amount in attacking me personally by vilification, character assassination, and manipulation of business and naval records. That is a fact of life that will never change.

The Labor Party especially is very good at that and will continue to do it. I doubt very much that regulation will ever be able to prevent that from occurring. Every Leader of the Opposition will suffer that fate in the future. It is the reality, and I do not suggest that anyone should be precious about that at all. But when the people weigh the character of the Leader of the Opposition against the campaign of vilification, the reaction of the vast majority of the population is to reject it. People want someone to stand up to the vilification, which they regard as rubbish, albeit that it has an impact on some. They want leaders who have the ticker to stand the heat. That is not the type of political advertising I wish to discuss.

When I refer to reform, I do so in the context of advertisements that twist policy or are just straight out lies. During the most recent State election, there were advertisements about the Coalition cutting 20,000 nurses, teachers and police positions, and that was a straight out lie. It is a great shame that in a democratic State, Labor could not be called to account for running advertisements that were straight out lies. From my point of view the worst advertisements were from Brett Holmes. I do not refer to them as the Nurses Union advertisements because that does a disservice to nurses across the State. The Brett Holmes advertisements were outrageous but there was nothing the Coalition could do about them because there was no legislation to pull him into line. The third category of advertisements is not covered by the bill, but it needs to be covered and is covered under Coalition policy. I refer to the advertisements on which the Labor Party spent $90 million of your money.

Ms Linda Burney: You just do not like music.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: Music?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. The member for Vaucluse will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The Minister refers to advertisements that vilified me, but I have indicated already that I am not precious about that. Labor raised my political profile dramatically and very quickly. Most of the community was outraged over Labor's tactics, and of course I have no difficulty with that! The advertisements I am referring to are policy advertisements and taxpayer-funded positive-spin advertisements. It was outrageous that at the same time as those advertisements were funded, Labor was not funding nursing or emergency departments. Instead Labor put $90 million of taxpayers' funds into positive-spin advertisements for Morris Iemma and the Labor Party. The advertisements commenced on 9 June 2006 following the worst received State budget in the history of this State or Australia. The budget that was delivered in June 2006 was roundly panned. My reply to the budget had a very good run in the media for 24 hours—until Labor started its advertising campaign.

That advertising continued to the end of February 2007 and it cost $90 million. That was an outrage. The Coalition has suggested that a committee should give prior approval for the advertisements, and the driving force of that committee should be the Auditor-General. The Labor Party will not establish such a committee, but I guarantee that the Coalition will. Not only will it adopt this bill about regulating political advertisements that manipulate policy but it will also establish a committee to ensure that any taxpayer-funded advertisements are in the community interest and not simply political propaganda.

One of the blessings in Australia is that we have a three-day blackout of electronic political campaign advertising. That is covered by schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which refers to a blackout from midnight on the Wednesday before the polling day through to the polling day as a cooling-off period. That is very important. Thank goodness that has been in place for a number of years, and it is very well accepted. The community looks forward to the Thursday, Friday and Saturday before the polling day so that they can get their thoughts together without being bombarded by political advertising.

The problem is that the cooling-off period is too short. We should look at extending it from three to seven days. First, that would extend the period during which the community can think through the real issues, and that is fair enough. Second, it would reduce the pressure on political parties to do extraordinary fundraising in the American style. A lot of money would still be spent on political advertisements if the cooling-off period were extended. However, it would be spent seven days before the election. As all members know, the critical period in terms of engaging the community in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia, prior to an election is the last week of the campaign. It would be very worthwhile if we were to allow the community the time to think through the issues.

Such an extension would also put an obligation on the media to report the issues, rather than conducting an ongoing commentary like a horse race call as has happened in the past. One of the points I made to the media during the election campaign was that the community was starved for information on policy points of differentiation. There was no shortage of those points in the past State election, but they got very little air space. If the blackout were extended, the media would hopefully go back to delivering more information about points of differentiation between the parties, and that would be very worthwhile.

However, all this debate is for nought because the Labor Party has indicated that this legislation will not go anywhere. The Coalition will implement the extended blackout after the next election, but it will come into effect for an election seven years away. There is a way to achieve this sort of reform; that is, the media could take it up as an issue. I started my contribution today by saying that part of the problem is the run-down of the media over the years in that journalists are now commentators rather than reporters. Politicians have revved it up and a symbiotic relationship has developed between the media and political parties in power, which has dumbed down the flow of information in politics.

The media could be part of the solution—not only newspapers but also television stations. I am not suggesting that television stations will get less revenue. I am simply suggesting that if these reforms were implemented and the blackout were extended, advertising revenue would probably increase because spending would be shifted forward a week and the Australian Electoral Commission and the New South Wales Electoral Commission would use the last week to advertise the need to vote. The revenue would still flow for television stations. This would be a worthwhile reform initiative for the media. We have a donations problem, an influence-peddling problem, outright lying in political advertisements and no regulation. We should wrap it up and, in doing so the media can play its part in the short term by supporting changes, most notably by extending the blackout.

As I said, the legislation covering this issue is federal legislation and the Federal Parliament would need to amend it. However, the media could also self-regulate. It is not beyond the power of the media in this country to self-regulate on this issue. In the past year the media has indicated that it is on a crusade to improve transparency and information sharing with the Australian democracy. It could go beyond that and look at the electronic blackout. The Minister for Fair Trading earlier made a reference to music. That relates to the Internet material that the Labor Party published. One of the problems with the current blackout is that the Internet is not covered. One can debate that, but it would be very difficult to regulate the Internet in that way and to include it in the blackout. It is more important that the blackout cover radio and television, as it does today. Simply extending it to seven days would reduce the pressure.

This bill is a great initiative and other democracies should replicate it. As we have seen over the past decade, other States have often copied initiatives that the Coalition has promoted in New South Wales. I would like to see other States follow our lead in this regard. I congratulate the member for Ballina for introducing this legislation. My colleagues should not be precious about the advertisements attacking me; the advertisements attacking policy were truly wrong and a grave disservice to the people of New South Wales. The advertisements we should focus upon are those with the outright lies stating that under a Coalition Government 20,000 nurses, teachers and police officers would lose their jobs. That was an outrageous lie. And the Brett Holmes advertisements were the worst of the worst. They are the advertisements upon which we should focus. My message to the media is—do something!

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [10.18 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 and I commend my colleague the member for Ballina for this important initiative. The long title provides that this is:

An Act to amend the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 to provide for truth in political advertising in State and local Government elections.

The amendments set out at clause 3 would make it an offence for a person to authorise, cause or permit the publication of an electoral advertisement containing a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. The offence will apply to State and local government elections and will carry a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units, or $110,000, for a body corporate and 100 penalty units, or $11,000, for individuals. Mandating truth in political advertising can only be a good thing. Everyone who is selling a product or a service is required to be truthful in their claims and their advertising. I note that the Minister for Fair Trading is in the House. She knows that the Sale of Goods Act 1923, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Fair Trading Act 1987 clearly point out that this is a fundamental principle of business. A central government role must surely be to ensure that trade and commerce, whether in the market for goods or services, is conducted fairly.

Governments cannot stop people making foolish investments, but they can stop people from cheating, lying or misleading potential customers. Surely the legislative arm of government should be subject to the same rules that it applies to everyone else, and politicians, political aspirants and their supporters should be required to tell the truth in their advertising. It seems crazy that we need to have a debate on legislative changes that are so inherently sensible. In fact, as a new politician it amazes me that such a requirement is not already enshrined in law. There are some arguments against legislating for truth in political advertising, but I submit that they can be easily rebutted.

My first argument is that truth in political advertising has been tried before and has not worked. For example, various State Houses in the United States of America have attempted to enact truth in political advertising laws or similar provisions. However, that has been frustrated by the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That guarantee and its interpretation by the United States Supreme Court casts doubt on the constitutional validity of truth in political advertising provisions in the United States. In Australia, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 inserted a new section that became section 329 (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. That section stated:

A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish, or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral advertisement containing a statement:

that is untrue; and

that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive.

The Hawke Government quickly repealed that legislation, with critics arguing that the section allowed candidates to use injunctions to prevent the publication of an opponent's political advertisements, thereby obtaining publicity for the candidate and disrupting the opponent's advertising. Given the tight time frame of an election campaign, a court ruling might not be made in time to be useful, which could cause grave injustice to the candidate or party and disrupt the normal political process. However, no evidence exists to suggest that truth in advertising legislation has been used for those purposes. I am unaware whether general trade practices legislation has been used to thwart the launch of a competitor's product, but I very much doubt it. In any event, the terms of this bill are quite different to the terms of the Commonwealth legislation.

A more common criticism is that requiring truth in advertising for political campaigns would offend the implied right of freedom of expression in the Commonwealth Constitution. However, that argument can be easily dispensed with. In 1985 the South Australian Parliament enacted the Electoral Act 1985, of which section 113 makes it an offence to authorise or publish an advertisement purporting to be a statement of fact, when the statement is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. Section 113 (1) has supported a successful prosecution and survived a challenge to its constitutional validity in Cameron v Becker (1995) 64 SASR 238, which involved an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court relevantly held:

(c) The constitutional free speech defence failed because the limitation imposed by section 113 is manifestly proportionate to the legitimate object of ensuring that what is represented as factual material published in political advertisements is accurate and not misleading.

The South Australian law was, therefore, found to be constitutionally valid by the South Australian Supreme Court. No-one argues that the implied constitutional right of free speech should protect false advertising of a product, so why should false advertising by a politician be treated any differently? Further, the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee of the Queensland Parliament provides endorsement for the objects of this bill, having released its "Report on Truth in Political Advertising" in December 1996. After a review process involving the production of an issues paper, the receipt of public submissions and the holding of a public hearing, a majority of the committee found that it is both possible and desirable to legislate to prevent candidates from lying or misrepresenting facts during an election campaign.

The legitimacy and constitutionality of the bill has been subject to parliamentary and legal scrutiny across a range of jurisdictions, and it has been shown to work. Failure to act on this issue merely exposes politicians as hypocrites. How can we impose one standard of honesty on the business community, but apply a lesser standard to ourselves? Requiring truth in political advertising is important because, one way or another, the truth has a habit of emerging and people should be able to vote on the assurance that what they are being told is true—because they will find out eventually. As Winston Churchill remarked:

Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is.

I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [10.24 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007, which was introduced into the House in June 2007 by the member for Ballina. There should be no reason for anybody to oppose a bill that seeks to prohibit inaccurate and misleading political advertising. The bill makes it an offence for a person to authorise, cause or permit the publication of an electoral advertisement containing a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. I note that the bill covers both State and local government elections, but at its current rate of sacking councils the Government is fast reducing the potential application of the provisions.

The genesis of the bill lies with the misleading, inaccurate and deliberately distorted advertising commissioned and run by the New South Wales Labor Party and various unions in the 2007 State election. Under New South Wales law the misleading advertising provisions that apply to businesses do not apply to political parties and this allows Machiavellian manipulators to produce political advertising that is demonstrably false. Advertising which is based on the whatever-it-takes principle of the New South Wales Labor Party permits purveyors of untruths to attain political office in a fraudulent manner. We were once the premier State. Now we are the State of crisis—and all because the Government has become so inured to underhanded dealings, to subterfuge and distortion of acceptable practice that it is no longer capable of distinguishing any boundaries.

We need only recall recent events to prove that assertion—developer donations and payments for approvals, hastily amended electoral returns following Independent Commission Against Corruption questioning, corrupt councillors, double standards on retention of Ministers; the agony goes on and on. As the member for Ballina observed when introducing this legislation, "misleading and inaccurate advertising erodes our democracy and makes a mockery of our political system, increasing distrust among voters". Miranda Devine, in her article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 February 2008, compared the New South Wales Government to bank robbers holding the State hostage, stating that New South Wales is in the grip of Stockholm syndrome, the psychological phenomenon which has victims identifying with their tormentors. She went on to write:

In much the same way the voters of NSW keep willingly voting into power a government that abuses us in every conceivable way: from fleecing us with new taxes and draconian fines to giving us snarled traffic, mismanaged hospitals, run-down schools, emasculated police, corrupt developers, cronyism, fatal train crashes, abused children.

The truth is in the evidence and so it should be with Labor's advertising. The bill is based on the South Australian Electoral Act 1985 and proposes similar provisions be incorporated in New South Wales legislation. Political advertising should meet similar standards of probity and honesty as commercial advertising under State and Commonwealth laws. In his contribution earlier in this debate, the member for Vaucluse referred to the Federal Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the ban on electronic advertising in the three days leading up to an election. That itself is a double standard in that in Australia we are presumed to be more susceptible to electronic advertising than to press advertising. The member for Vaucluse suggested that the ban be extended to a week and we might also consider the extent of print advertising within that consideration.

I will concentrate on one aspect of electronic advertising and address commercial advertising on television. Commercial television stations have a body representing them called Free TV. That body has set up within itself an organisation called Commercials Advice to give advice on television production, commercials, their placement and the very production and nature of those advertisements. That division has a document entitled "Television Commercials Production Checklist" that covers legislation, standards, codes and guidelines that might affect the production and placement of television commercials. Its general advice states that it provides an overview of the main legislative requirements affecting commercials. It points out:

It is the responsibility of each advertiser to ensure that their commercials comply with State and Federal laws applicable to advertisers, including the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Fair Trading Acts and relevant voluntary codes and guidelines e.g. the Advertiser Code of Ethics and ACCC Advertising & Selling Guidelines.

Under the heading "Defamation", the television commercials production checklist states:

Advertising should not include defamatory material. Any commercial that contains an express or implied statement that will damage a person's reputation, or will cause that person to be shunned or ridiculed by other people is considered defamatory material. Publication of defamatory material constitutes defamation and both the advertiser and the broadcaster could be liable unless a defence can be established such as truth or the public interest.

I raise that in relation to the advertisements run by the unions and the Australian Labor Party in the lead-up to the 2007 State election and suggest that many of the commercials would have failed that test. Under the heading "Comparative Advertising", the checklist states:

Comparative commercials must compare like with like and must not be misleading or deceptive. Some guidelines to consider when preparing commercials which name or draw comparison with another product or service are:

The intent and connotation of the commercial should be to inform and not to discredit or unfairly attack competitors. The advertising should compare related or similar properties. The identification should be for honest comparison purposes.

If we look at the cases that have been before the courts or before the public in recent times we only have to consider that the Australian Labor Party could have advertised itself as being a party that would prefer and assist paedophiles and drug offenders, because that, unfortunately, is the truth of what effectively occurred, but we would not presume that that would be a way of advertising.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: I find the contribution made by the member for Albury and his comments on paedophiles highly offensive. I ask him to withdraw that reference to members on this side of the House.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro has requested that the member for Albury withdraw those comments.

Mr GREG APLIN: Clearly I made no reference to members opposite. I was talking in terms of comparative advertising and it did not embrace that. I said it was a potential that one could publish that type of advertising but it would not be done.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Albury will temper his remarks and address the substance of the bill.

Mr GREG APLIN: Indeed. I am not surprised members on the government side are concerned, because this goes to the heart of truth in advertising. Clearly, the member for Monaro would, in that case, agree that the standards Commercials Advice Pty Limited should be applied to his party's own advertising. I applaud his recognition of that fact and I hope he will agree and vote with us on this bill, because that would endorse his viewpoint and his point of order. Under "Claims", Commercials Advice Pty Limited had this to say:

No claim may be either false or misleading. Commercials must comply in all respects with the provisions of Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and any other relevant legislation.

Indeed, Commercials Advice Pty Limited might require written substantiation of claims made in a commercial, and a warranty might be required that the commercial complies with the Trade Practices Act. I suggest that much of the advertising conducted in the lead-up to the 2007 State election would not have met those standards. Of course, the links that we have established between that advertising and what has subsequently occurred would prove it was groundless and the very party that put forward those advertisements would have had enormous amounts to cover and to run from. In conclusion, false and misleading advertising is unacceptable in business, yet under current law there are no legal repercussions for producing and running inaccurate and misleading advertising for the political business of running the State. It is time for a change, a change for the better, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.33 a.m.]: I was upstairs listening to members' contributions to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007, as I so often do on a Thursday, and I was moved to speak to it. This is just another stunt by the Opposition. The bill enables members opposite to make a speech and try to sound holier than thou and a bit pure, yet what we see in reality—

Mr Brad Hazzard: You don't sound holy? You don't sound pure?

Mr STEVE WHAN: I am happy to sound pure, but I object to people coming into this Chamber speaking as though they are holier than thou and pure, especially when they have nothing to back it up with and their practice is so far from what they say. We see that here today. The member for Albury really lowered his principles when he made insulting comments, grubby remarks and accusations about the Government that have no substance. I had always thought of him as somebody who had a higher standard than that, but he has certainly demeaned himself by his comments today, which is rather sad. However, I am most amazed by the contribution of the member for Vaucluse. I feel sorry for him. I wonder if, every night, he dreams of what might have been.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: It is all well and good that the member for Monaro has taken time to speak, allegedly, to the bill. But this morning is about legislation. He has to speak within the ambit of the bill. If he seeks to make personal attacks he should do so by way of substantive motion and allow us to respond to his inanities.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for Monaro will confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Of course, and I will also respond to some of the things that have been raised by other members in the debate. This morning the member for Vaucluse talked quite a bit about things that happened during the last election campaign when, of course, he was Leader of the Opposition. One would think from his comments that it was all the fault of advertisements that he lost the last election. Let us look at some of the things that happened, which will reveal the hypocrisy of what those opposite are putting forward today when they talk about truth in advertising.

During the last election campaign the member for Vaucluse, as leader of his party, approved television advertisements for the Monaro electorate telling people that nothing was happening on Queanbeyan hospital. But the people of Queanbeyan could see the lie in that just by visiting the site and seeing the building going up. It was not just a lie; it was a stupid lie, because people could see with their own eyes that the advertisements were not true. It was harder for them to see through the lies in some of the direct mail-outs undertaken by members of the Opposition and its candidate in the local area. The Opposition made outrageous claims in direct mail-outs, but, fortunately, the people of Monaro were smart enough to see through that.

The member for Vaucluse talked about the cut-off time before an election, the blackout time. I have some sympathy for him and with others who say we should get the advertisements off the air as soon as possible because we are all sick of them during election campaigns. I am sure many people would have some sympathy for that. The member talked also about the role of the media. That is something you cannot deal with glibly, as the Opposition did when it introduced the bill as a stunt. One has to consider the impact of third party campaigns and whether they are covered by advertising standards, and whether the media reports campaigns fairly and in an unbiased way or whether they are pushing a particular point of view. Unfortunately, sometimes it is only the party's advertising that can make up for that.

The classic example of this, and it is relevant to the current discussion about political advertising, is third party campaigns. In Monaro a third party campaign run by Canberra Airport costing many tens of thousands of dollars was aimed at me. A political party did not run the campaign but, obviously, it benefited one political party. Unless we are applying these rules to people who conduct that type of campaign as well, we do not have effective legislation to control what happens in election campaigns. Certainly truth in advertising was not adhered to in that campaign when we consider that photographs showed that planes would fly low over houses when, in fact, they would be way up in the air. One has to apply truth in advertising honestly and equitably. The Liberal Party in its hypocrisy has introduced this bill as a stunt. I wonder whether, with truth in advertising, members of the Opposition will say what they think of each other.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The member has been speaking for almost half the time allocated to him without mentioning a single provision in the bill. Could the member be brought back to the bill?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member is speaking to the bill. The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Wakehurst has been here long enough to know that is a silly point of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I have been here long enough to know you have not spoken to the bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I am speaking about it. I thought this bill was about truth in political advertising, which is what I have been talking about. If the member for Wakehurst had listened he would have realised that. I talked about third party political advertising, which is vital, but members of the Opposition have not talked about it. They, too, might be subject to third party advertising one day; all sensible people on both sides of the Chamber should think about it. The third party advertising campaign I mentioned was not declared in the register of political donations from the last election.

Mr Andrew Constance: Electoral rorts. Bring it on!

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Bega is living in a glass house, but I will say more about that later. The Nationals did not advertise in the last Monaro election campaign, but one of its candidates tried to make misleading points on Queanbeyan hospital and revealed in a slightly less scripted moment "Why would you bother setting them up here?" referring to services at Queanbeyan hospital. He thought people should go across the border to Canberra. That was not in its advertising. It is most hypocritical for members of the Opposition to lecture us about truth in political advertising at the same time as an investigation is underway into their appalling behaviour in Western Sydney and the Penrith area during the last Federal election campaign. I will be interested to see the outcome of that investigation as to who was responsible. Who can forget the headlines in the Daily Telegraph "Libs busted. Shameful race tactics exposed in key seats." Members opposite have not spoken of their embarrassment or remorse about the disgraceful and dishonest campaign of their party colleagues.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: My point of order follows the point of order taken by the member for Wakehurst. How can this conceivably relate to the provisions of the bill?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I allowed the member for Albury a wide ambit when he spoke to the bill. I will allow the member for Monaro to continue at this stage. However, I remind him to address the substance of the bill.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Members of the Opposition felt free to range across a lot of political advertisements and cite ridiculous examples in their contributions, but they are very sensitive about the distribution of misleading political material by the Liberal Party.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: The member for Monaro is completely canvassing your ruling in relation to the provisions of the bill. I ask you to draw him back to the provisions of the legislation, which is clearly in relation to truth in advertising. It does not talk about election material.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Legislative Assembly is a robust Chamber. Earlier the member for Albury strayed from the substance of the bill in his contribution to the debate. I again ask the member for Monaro to confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I am happy to comply with your ruling because political advertising is about media advertising and material that is put in letterboxes. This bill is just a stunt if members of the Opposition concede that they believe it does not apply to the disgraceful tactics used in the last Federal election campaign. I know that members on this side of the House know that members of the Coalition have used those tactics. The Government knows of candidates against whom those tactics have been used. By taking frequent points of order the Opposition must believe that this bill does not cover material placed in letterboxes that shows the inadequacy of the legislation, that it is just a stunt and that this House would quite rightly vote it down.

This has been an opportunity for Opposition members to posture and try to look pure; the member for Vaucluse has been able to relive his nightmare of the last election. They have failed to understand that the result was not everybody else's fault. The voters of New South Wales made an informed decision at the last election on the basis of information presented to them. Yes, we should have truth in advertising, but the Opposition should not be hypocritical and produce stunts such as this bill. By taking frequent points of order those opposite have admitted that the bill does not cover the disgraceful actions referred to under the headline "Libs busted in Western Sydney".

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [10.46 a.m.]: The object of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 is to prohibit inaccurate and misleading political advertising. Under current New South Wales law, the false and misleading advertising provisions that apply to business do not apply to political parties or political candidates. As the member for Ballina stated in introducing this bill in June 2007, political advertising should meet similar standards of probity and honesty as commercial advertising under State and Commonwealth law. The bill would allow the Electoral Commission to force corrective action and for the Supreme Court to impose penalties where a person authorises, causes or permits the publication of an electoral advertisement that contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent.

This bill addresses an essential part of any good relationship—truth. Truth in advertising benefits consumers but also those that offer a product or service. Image is important and when advertising is materially inaccurate or misleading, everyone ultimately suffers. Politics is no exception. Slick advertising campaigns to sell political services are particularly prevalent at election time and often disappoint. It is sad that we have to pass legislation to encourage political advertisers to tell the truth. Honest advertising is obviously desirable and a good product virtually sells itself. If a commercial product or service lives up to its hype it is more likely to succeed in the long term with repeat business. Telling the truth about your product or service is fundamental to good business with consumers rightly disdainful of false and misleading advertising. When a commercial product fails to meet expectations, the ramifications can be disastrous and a business can fold. Likewise, political bankruptcy can occur when hype and spin has little substance and a Government fails to deliver on its advertised promises.

In this place we should all regard what we advertise or sell as not just our electoral credentials but the value of our profession and political system. Unfortunately, truth is somewhat lacking in politics today and the image of politicians is not what it should be. At times it seems we can promise the earth without having to deliver. If a product manufacturer or the provider of a service did that, the business would fail. However, slick gimmicky campaigns can entrap the unwary in the short term. At its heart, this bill reflects simple but positive ideals and principles. The public looks to political leaders to set high standards of behaviour in our community, not to find excuses to accept substandard conduct. Any child would tell you that truth in political advertising is a good ideal and principle, and should be encouraged. While legislation can rarely be perfect, to oppose a bill such as this requires sound arguments. I have examined the five excuses offered by Labor members in this debate as to why they should not support this bill and I am not impressed. I will now address those five arguments.

First, the member for Camden said that the bill was not necessary because members of the Government had never circulated any false advertising material. There is no doubt in my mind that politicians across the political spectrum have engaged in such conduct at times, with various examples already provided by previous speakers. To assert otherwise blindly flies in the face of all public opinion. Second, the argument that similar Commonwealth legislation did not succeed in its brief life in 1984, almost 25 years ago, ignores the successful implementation of South Australian legislation for many years. In South Australia the independent Electoral Commissioner has clearly been able to handle the extra responsibilities. This bill is based on section 113 (2) of the South Australian Electoral Act 1985.

Third, the argument that the courts might find the legislative scheme unconstitutional, given the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication, is hypothetical. The fact that no appeal has been made to the High Court leaves the relevant decision of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of South Australia as the legal reality. To claim otherwise suggests ignorance of our legal system. Fourth, the argument that breaches of the law prior to an election may not be able to be addressed until after an election is again defeatist in nature. Even if redress has to wait until after an election, the maximum fine for persons found guilty of an offence is $11,000 and for body corporates it is $110,000. Finally, the argument that we should not bother making materially untruthful statements of fact illegal because materially untruthful statements of belief or opinion might still be possible is like saying, "because we cannot stop serious assaults occurring, we will not bother outlawing murder".

The member for Manly quoted recent Roy Morgan research that found only 16 per cent of people over 14 years believe members of Parliament to have high standards of ethics and honesty. When I reflect on our profession's public standing, I am disappointed that politicians are not rated more highly. Integrity should not be an optional extra for politicians. The message of truth in this bill is self-evident and would be welcomed by disillusioned New South Wales voters like an oasis in a parched desert. We must restore faith in our democratic processes and political system. What message do we want to send the voting public and children of New South Wales? What message do we want to send our own friends and families? If the Labor Party votes against the bill, as indicated, then the public deserves to hear better reasons than the weak excuses put forward by the Government to date. As I said at the outset, it is sad we have to legislate for truth in political advertising. My only consolation is that if Labor votes against the bill then that fact, together with the reality of public experience and the role of a vigilant media, should assist truth to win over dishonesty at the 2011 State election.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [10.53 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 brought to the House by the member for Ballina. This is extremely important legislation for many reasons. The residents of New South Wales have witnessed deceptive and misleading political advertising for many years. It has become an almost symbolic feature of election campaigns. This fact was painfully obvious during the 2007 State election when the New South Wales Government launched a vicious and misleading advertising campaign against the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vaucluse, rather than advertise its policies for the State.

These misleading advertising campaigns seek to demonise people who stand in the way of the Government by selectively quoting them and taking their statements out of context to smear their reputation and evoke fear and caution in the minds of voters. This unacceptable behaviour must be addressed by passing this important legislation. I know this issue is of great concern to the residents of the Tweed, and once again I am 100 per cent for the Tweed, the people whom I represent in this House. They do not need unnecessary spin. They seek truth relating to the matters that affect them because, at the end of the day, that is what is important to every person in this State. I have no doubt that the majority of residents hold similar beliefs. They are sick and tired of the Labor Government's endless spin doctoring and simply want the truth about our state of affairs.

The Iemma Labor Government should join the Opposition in supporting the legislation for many reasons, none more than the fact that it will restore to the Government much-needed integrity and credibility. I struggle to comprehend why the Iemma Government opposes the bill. It is fascinating that in the business environment, deceptive and misleading advertising towards consumers is regulated by organisations such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and specifically in the State of New South Wales, the Department of Fair Trading. Infringements of deceptive advertising against consumers can lead to severe punishment in the form of hefty fines. Given this fact, it seems entirely logical and appropriate for the Government to support this bill to ensure that these same community standards are reflected in the New South Wales political arena.

Campaigns should be carried out on the basis of merit of party policy: what substance candidates can bring to the table as elected members of the New South Wales Parliament. It should not be a game of one-upmanship and demonising opponents by giving the public false impressions of character and political intentions to distract attention from one's own abysmal leadership record, as the Carr and Iemma Labor governments have actively done over the past 11 years of government. The citizens of my electorate and New South Wales deserve much better than what they are currently forced to put up with. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [10.57 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 at a time when the reputation and integrity of parliamentarians has never been at a lower point. I cannot remember a stage during my lifetime when there has been such doubt about the capacity of the Government and politicians to respect the wishes of the electorate and for the need for proper conduct and honesty in politics. We all know that in a democracy Parliament is only ever as strong as people's belief and confidence in it as an institution. Parliament is not upheld by guns or an army; it is upheld by the trust of the people. No member would doubt that there is a problem with credibility in New South Wales. I refer to the shocking episode in Wollongong, which has not yet run its course; and no doubt there will be others, as there have been in the past 12 months.

In that context it seems extraordinary that there is not bipartisan support for this bill. There are, of course, always reasons why governments do not like to see bills brought forward by the Opposition or private members. Governments like to be seen to be in control of the agenda of the Parliament. However, it does not stop on this occasion the recognition that a bipartisan commitment to lifting the standards of the practice of politics requires that advertising be fair and honest. Honesty is something we expect of children at school. Children are punished for not being honest. We now expect honesty in commercial advertising. There are a number of standards in commercial advertising that are well recognised as an important part of the operations of the market. In a modern economy they are a very important part of informing the consumer. Politics should not ever be seen to be above that.

The evidence is that people now see the desire of the Parliament—in this case the Government of New South Wales—to put itself apart from that and regard its political advertising as different from the sort of advertising we see for other goods and services as a mark against all of us. I call on the Government to provide bipartisan support for this bill, not because this is a cheap way of making an attack on the other side but because it is in all our interests that the people of New South Wales have confidence and trust in the institution of Parliament, the practice of politics and the integrity of politicians. Most of the time most politicians work their hearts out and do the very best they can. The confidence that people have in this institution is at a very delicate stage.

I call on the Government to provide bipartisan support for no other reason than that it is incumbent on all of us to support this great democratic institution, particularly at a time when that institution is under a cloud. It is important that we all, whichever side of politics we are on, are seen to believe that politicians, like any other part of society and the economy, respect the need to be honest. This is all about honesty. As the High Court has said in relation to political information, honesty is a very broadly defined term. I am not suggesting that we should move to entirely colourless factual advertising, but the claims that we make must be factually based and outrageous claims and misrepresentations of fact should be able to be dealt with. I support the bill and commend it to the Government.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Brad Hazzard and set down as an order of the day for a future day.