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

Debate resumed from 3 April 2008.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [10.03 a.m.]: I take this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Parliamentary Electorates and Election Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007. From the outset I congratulate my colleague the member for Ballina and commend him for introducing this important initiative. The long title states that the bill 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

At this point I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of some members from Moree Plains Shire Council. As a new member to this House I find it extraordinary that we are debating this bill. My expectation and that of the community is that the standards and codes of conduct for political advertising should be a major tenet in the democratic process within the State of New South Wales. The amendments set out in clause 3 will make it an offence for a person to authorise, cause or permit the publication of an electoral advertisement containing a statement that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. The offence will apply to both 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 an individual.

As leaders, decision makers, policymakers, lawmakers and representatives of the people how we instil, maintain and support the fundamental values of truth and confidence in our system of government is critical to our legitimacy and authenticity. In more recent times there has been a basic disconnection between the Government and the people of New South Wales. The importance of this bill is that it seeks to restore public confidence not only in the democratic and electoral process but, indeed, also in the role of government in this State. I would expect bipartisan support for this bill from all members of the House and that that support would be widespread throughout media outlets. It appears that the Labor Party of New South Wales will reject this bill. It is incumbent on members opposite to support the bill because it is exactly what the people of New South Wales are calling for.

If the Labor Party does not support the bill, it needs to publicly articulate why and accept the wrath of the media and grassroots New South Wales. Issues around restriction of freedom of speech and the legitimacy and constitutionality of the bill have been subjected to legal and parliamentary scrutiny across a number of jurisdictions, and it has been shown that it can work. In 1985 the South Australian Government enacted the Electoral Act 1985. Section 113 of that Act makes it an offence to authorise or publish an advertisement purporting to be a statement of fact when the statement is inaccurate or misleading. Section 113 has supported a successful prosecution and survived a constitutional challenge in an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. In Cameron v Becker (1995) the court relevantly held as follows:

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 is factual material published in political advertisements is accurate and not misleading.

Politicians or would-be politicians are no different from anyone else within our communities and therefore should be subject to the same standards that the Supreme Court of South Australia has upheld. Reviews on this issue across the country continue to support truth in advertising legislation. We expect the same standards within industry in the launching and promotion of products and services. Product and service scrutiny within the political arena should not be left to isolated review by media programs such as Media Watch or the tabloids who suffer the temptation to dumb down the political information process around election time.

It is extraordinary that for the last election the Labor Government ran a $100 million-plus campaign, of which $90 million, as highlighted by the Auditor-General, was spent on political spin advertisements instead of good public policy advertisements. This taxpayer-funded multi-multimillion dollar spend-up occurred while emergency departments in our hospital system were crying for additional resources, and nurses and clinicians were calling for fundamental resource reform of the health system generally. In the lead-up to the 2007 election the Labor Government made public allegations in significant advertisements that the Coalition would cut 20,000 nurse, teacher and police positions. It is a shame the taxpayers of New South Wales had to fund this straight-out lie. There was no accountability, truth or substance to this outrageous and unfounded claim.

Our policy was very clear: no front-line jobs and no jobs in country areas would be lost. At the time 20,000 back-of-house jobs was a modest estimate of public service adjustments in what was perceived to be unaccountable growth and lack of ministerial leadership in many areas of the public service. Apparently, the Treasurer of New South Wales claimed in his party room that the cuts should have equalled 70,000 jobs. Notwithstanding those claims, what is the Government's position on this issue? Recently I attended the presentation of a number of reports of the Auditor-General, one illuminating briefing, and a good report on public performance, which was about managing the departmental amalgamation of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Primary Industries. I commend that report to members.

On 1 July 2004 the Department of Primary Industries was created as a result of the amalgamation of Agriculture, Mineral Resources, NSW Fisheries and State Forests. In 2004 total staff on amalgamation was 4,000. The objectives of the amalgamation were threefold. The first was to achieve budget savings of $36 million to $37 million in the first year, $57.4 million in the second year, and $58 million in the third year. The second objective was to give rural New South Wales a stronger voice in government, and the third objective was to provide better services to customers and stakeholders. Besides running a smear campaign against the Coalition, in the lead-up to the 2007 election the Government was responsible for serious redundancies. According to the Auditor-General, as a result of these amalgamations, 400 staff members have been made redundant. There was no consistency or truth in advertising in the lead-up to the 2007 election.

We regarded as a joke the Government's reference to a rural voice. The Rural and Regional Task Force did not refer to agriculture once in its 22 recommendations, so the objectives of the amalgamation have not been achieved. We also regarded as a joke the Government's reference to better services to customers and stakeholders as a result of the amalgamation. I am still petitioning the Government to fill a technical assistant position in Coonamble that has been made vacant. Too many front-line positions in the Department of Primary Industries are still vacant today, which is unacceptable. As I said earlier, 400 jobs in the Department of Primary Industries have been lost. On 2 April 2003 the Department of Commerce was created as a result of the amalgamation of Public Works, Fair Trading, Industrial Relations and the Department of Information, Technology and Management. The Attorney General said in his report:

There has been considerable change since amalgamation.

Amalgamation drew together 4,150 staff, which was subsequently reduced by 1,000 jobs over the first two years. Going into the 2007 election the amalgamation of two merged departments resulted in 1,400 jobs being made redundant. New South Wales has 69 budget-dependent agencies and 39 public trading organisations. A simple correlation might indicate that the Labor Government, whilst falsely accusing the Coalition of planning 20,000 staff cuts within the public service, cut back 40,000 to 50,000 jobs. This is based on the 700 redundancies for budget-dependent agencies, as highlighted by staff cuts in the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Commerce. Truth in advertising is all about spin, smoke and mirrors. It is a calculated plan to mislead workers and the people of New South Wales.

The Labor Government cringes at the concept of truth in advertising mainly because it is incapable of recognising the truth. Its ability to extract and truthfully analyse data as simple as truancy rates is indicative of its ability, simply and honestly, to report to the people of New South Wales what is going on. When it comes to the truth in public service employment figures, similar analogies can be drawn. It is possible and desirable to legislate to prevent candidates and politicians lying or misrepresenting facts during an election campaign. We can and must do better for the people of New South Wales. I again commend the member for Ballina for introducing the bill and ask all members to support it.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [10.15 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007. It is about time that politicians, political organisations and others meet the same standards of honesty that business and other organisations meet under advertising provisions. Members of the general public are not as gullible as advertising agencies and their political clients seem to think. It might be hard to believe that dishonesty in political advertising has added to the perception that politicians are prone to stretching the truth and, in some instances, telling straight out porkies. I support this bill because I firmly believe that truth in advertising in elections campaigns is long overdue. If our house were in order it would negate the necessity for this legislation. I support the bill, but was gobsmacked by the hypocrisy behind a member of The Nationals introducing it. The member for Ballina said:

During the recent election campaign the New South Wales Labor Party ran a series of negative advertisements about the New South Wales Coalition across a range of mediums that were grossly inaccurate and misleading.

He went on to outline a range of advertisements that he believed were dishonest. Well, Stoner the crows! How did The Nationals act in the seat of Tamworth at the last election? I support this legislation because I believe that the people of New South Wales deserve honesty in political advertising, not because The Nationals found themselves outplayed at their little game during the last election. The people of New South Wales decided that, despite their lies, they were less qualified to run the State than their opponents. The whole election ended up being decided on which side of politics people disbelieved the least. I support this legislation because I believe in it and I always have.

My experience at the hands of the hypocritical Nationals at the last election reinforced in my mind the need for change. Many people said to me that the last election in the State seat of Tamworth was the dirtiest they can ever remember. I assure members that that was not of my making. It is strange that The Nationals chardonnay set is now holding its State conference at the Kirribilli Club at Lavender Bay in Sydney. Before the last election The Nationals held their State conference in Gunnedah and they held their 2007 campaign launch in Tamworth so that they could promise my constituents a great collection of mistruths that they could never hope to deliver. They promised a dam on the Barnard River. They were going to divert the water and make it run backwards—$250 million worth of dam and waterworks to pipe water through the ranges to the western fall as a solution to Tamworth's water requirements.

[Interruption]

Listen to the bleating from The Nationals! They do not like the truth, do they?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clarence will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr PETER DRAPER: That was despite comments by former Federal leader, Mark Vaile, in the Manning River Times that, unless his irrigators agreed, it would not go ahead. Talk about hypocritical! At the end of the day The Nationals could not get their Federal colleagues to put a mere $6.8 million in the budget for the proposed Chaffey Dam before the last election. The Nationals said, "Vote for us and you will get a new hospital, new schools, new roads and new bridges." The Nationals promised electors everything. They were going to spend the whole budget in the Tamworth electorate. Unfortunately for The Nationals, who are still bleating behind me, people in the Tamworth electorate discounted their outrageous promises.

The coup de grace of their whole campaign was an advertisement on local television spoken by V. Moss, with no address identifier included, and authorised by B. M. Keene, Piallamore. That advertisement, which was an exact copy of the advertisements that were run in the metropolitan area, was spoken by the same voices that were used in the metropolitan advertisements. Besides being misleading, the advertisement featured the punch line, "Draper equals Labor." What a lie! The electors of Tamworth know that Draper equals Independent. It would be honest for me to say that The Nationals, who are still bleating behind me, are on a rapid slide into oblivion in this nation. It is not honest for The Nationals to say that Draper equals Labor.

I am disappointed that the Government is opposing this legislation, as its outcomes would deliver the best result for the people of New South Wales. The member for Drummoyne rightfully pointed out that regulating the content of election advertising is vexed issue in Australia. It is a vexed issue because the general population wants honesty in political advertising, while political organisations simply do not believe that it is in their best interests. It would be in everybody's best interests and, in some way, it might well address the cynical view of politicians that rightfully is taken by the community. The member for Drummoyne, when speaking against the bill, also said:

A common criticism is that regulatory efforts to encourage truth in political advertising might be desirable but are simply unworkable in practice.

It is not merely a case of being desirable; it is essential that we take action to clean up our political act. As for unworkable, it would work if members in this House were determined to improve the current state of play. Suggestions that the Electoral Commissioner's neutrality could be compromised if the bill is passed, in that he may be criticised when making a decision on whether a person should be required to withdraw an advertisement or refer a matter to the Supreme Court, just do not hold water. Like the Governor of the Reserve Bank and heads of departments, the Electoral Commissioner is well qualified to handle such situations. Over 30 years ago the bush poet and storyteller Stan Coster, a great Manilla boy, wrote the words to a song called Election Day, which was recorded by Slim Dusty. I shall quote from the words of the song as follows:

There's big mobs of rough stuff
And slinging of bulldust
As it draws close to election day, mate
O they're all really trying
And most of them's lying
To get us to vote for them aye mate


Ms Linda Burney: Sing it!

The SPEAKER: That interjection is definitely out of order!

Mr PETER DRAPER: I will leave singing and scheming to other people.

The SPEAKER: That comment is out of order as well!

Mr PETER DRAPER: Those rather perceptive words, written many years ago from the pen of a real Aussie storyteller, are as relevant today as they were back then, and it is a perception that we need to address. The object of the bill is to make it an offence for people to authorise, cause or permit the publication of an advertisement containing a statement that is inaccurate or misleading to a material extent. The member for Barwon referred to Labor advertising as being misleading and deceptive. Recently the former Federal Coalition Government spent an enormous amount on advertisements in an effort to convince people of the merits of WorkChoices. Similarly, the union movement ran Your Rights at Work. The community is justified in believing that this is money misdirected. When one considers the current fracas surrounding political donations and cash for influence, this legislation will work in tandem with proposed changes to political funding to bring honesty to political advertising. It is long overdue and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [10.22 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 introduced by the member for Ballina. For a long time I have been concerned that advertising by politicians and political parties, particularly during election campaigns, is not always truthful. This does not help the image of politicians and political parties because the public do not know what to believe and the bill will go some way towards making advertising campaigns more transparent. I understand the bill has similar provisions to that which apply in South Australia. Specifically, it will be an offence for a person who authorises, causes or permits the publication of an electoral advertisement if that advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate or misleading to a material extent.

It is proposed that fines apply for persons or bodies corporate guilty of the offence. The Electoral Commissioner may request the advertiser either to withdraw the advertisement from further publication or to publish a retraction in specified terms. A defence is provided if it can be shown that the person or body corporate took no part in determining the content of the advertisement or could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the charge relates was inaccurate or misleading. Arguments in favour of the bill are that political advertising should meet similar standards of probity and honesty as those required of commercial advertising under State and Commonwealth law. As it stands, the law allows people to seek and obtain political power through political advertising that can be totally fraudulent or misleading. This lax attitude to truthfulness fosters a culture that action is simply a part of the political game rather than a serious attack on the integrity of the political system. It has been argued that the bill could restrict political communication. I do not agree. The public merely seek honesty from political parties.

The object of the bill is to prohibit inaccurate and misleading political advertising. Under the current New South Wales law the provisions with respect to misleading advertising that apply to business do not apply to political parties or political candidates. Political advertising should meet the same standards of probity and honesty as commercial advertising. During the March 2007 election campaign the New South Wales Labor Party ran a series of negative advertisements. A strong Coalition policy at that time was to upgrade the Bells Line of Road to a four-lane divided, 110-kilometre highway so that cars and trucks could safely travel along that road, hopefully minimising the rate of accidents and deaths that currently occur.

Labor did not support that campaign to open the Central West to further expansion of housing and business opportunities; indeed it carried out a dishonest campaign to mislead the people. The Coalition costed the project at about $2 billion to $3 billion. The Government inferred that the highway would cost $8 billion, with a toll component of $60 to $80 return. That was just fearmongering. The preferred option was for it to be a State or national highway using both Federal and State funding, not a tollway. However, if it were to have a toll component, it would be nowhere near the amount suggested by the Government. Unfortunately, the public gave some credence to the Government's claims.

Another example of misleading advertising was that the Coalition was planning to cut 29,000 jobs. The Coalition said that it was going to cut up to 29,000 jobs but only by way of natural attrition because history has shown that during any term of government, that number of people retire or seek other employment. Therefore, we were not planning to replace staff in backroom positions. This did not apply to nurses, police and emergency service personnel. Indeed, with the money saved, we were going to employ more people in emergency services—more doctors, police and teachers. It is because of Labor's misleading campaigns that the member for Ballina has moved this private member's bill.

The bill provides penalties for a person who authorises, causes or permits the publication of an electoral advertisement if that advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate or misleading to a material extent. This applies to advertisements published by any means, including radio, television or on the Internet. The bill also applies to local government elections. The bill will legislate the application of fines for persons or bodies corporate guilty of this offence, with maximum penalties of $11,000 for an individual or $110,000 for a body corporate.

The Electoral Commissioner will be the regulator or the judge of whether a statement purporting to be fact is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. The bill provides the Electoral Commissioner with two options if an advertisement is found to be misleading and inaccurate to a material extent: first, the commissioner may request the advertiser to withdraw the advertisement from further publication, and/or, second, the commissioner may request the advertiser to publish a retraction in specified terms. If the advertiser refuses to comply, the Electoral Commissioner may apply to the courts for imposition of a fine. Parliamentarians should set an example. As we know, countless government rules and regulations apply to retailers, producers of commodities and factories, but we do not act as we order others to act.

For example, if a butcher advertised chuck steak as rump steak with the accompanying profit margin, the Department of Fair Trading would come down on him in a flash. If in my previous life as an egg producer I had packed eggs in a carton and advertised them incorrectly, I would have been subject to a fine imposed by the same State Government that does not lead by example. There are thousands of instances of rules and regulations applying to real estate agents, producers of commodities and others to whom the State Government says, "Thou shalt do what we say, but we do not have to act with the same responsibility." I believe the bill is worthwhile. I hope Government members support the bill, but I do not expect that they will. If the Government believes that we should act in the same way that we expect other businesses in New South Wales to act it will support the bill.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [10.31 a.m.]: I will not take up too much of the time of the House because I do not want to prolong the misery of the member for Clarence, who had to sit through the lengthy speech made by the member for Tamworth. I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007 introduced by the member for Ballina, which will increase accountability. I welcome the comments made by the member for Barwon who asked where truth is in advertising. It certainly was not apparent in the 2007 election in Dubbo. I am pleased that one member of The Nationals and others who support the bill have seen the light, and I think the light is called honesty. The bill is not about a new vision; it is all about honesty, which New South Wales voters expect.

I can speak from personal experience about a by-election in November 2004 when I replaced the late Tony McGrane. I consider that my fellow main contender was a fellow swan. We both agreed that we would run an honest campaign. Jen Cowley was The Nationals candidate, a person whom I admire. I like Jen very much. We decided to tell our supporters that we would run a clean campaign and run on merit, and that is exactly what happened. Although I am most pleased that I won the election, had Jen won the by-election, I know she would have done the job with honesty. While my opposing candidate in the 2004 election was a fellow swan, in 2007 I had a goose. I do not mind unflattering photographs being used of political rivals or any little bit of humour that occurs during election campaigns because it is all part of the process, but I draw the line at blatant lies and blatant promises that a candidate knows cannot be kept.

Three weeks out from the election, when candidates for The Nationals knew that the Government would be re-elected, they made false promises to win the seat for the party, instead of doing what is good for the people. I say with a degree of modesty that the electorate knew it had a member who would be prepared to work hard for them, and was prepared to work with parties of all political beliefs, and that is what I do. But listening to all the promises being made to lure voters during the campaign, particularly in Dubbo, was alarming. The member for Barwon is right when he says elections are all about spin, and that certainly was the case in the Dubbo electorate during the 2007 election. The election was all about spin after spin after spin, and lots of it. There were lots of brochures, lots of advertising, and it was all rubbish. A list broadcast on the radio was authorised by M. Blake who has been a foot soldier in the area for many years.

I was happy to put my name and voice to every campaign advertisement that I ran, so my name was behind what was being said, but that was not the case with the goose candidate in 2007. Some of the claims were that "they do not want the Lourdes Hospital" in Dubbo. I must point out that "they" meant Labor and Dawn Fardell. I do not know what Labor wanted, but I certainly know that Dawn Fardell was working hard for Lourdes Hospital. Another claim was that "they don't want a new police station". I know that for some years there were lots of discussions between the mayor at that time, Allan Smith, and me about the police station, and we knew what was happening. We knew when the tender was being advertised. But claims that "they don't want this" and "they don't want that" were just blatant lying. My opposing candidate was just guessing without ascertaining the facts, which made him out to be a goose.

Every day when I am in Dubbo I drive up Justice Place, and "justice" is certainly apt because Justice Place is right alongside the site on which the new police station is being built. It should be completed in October. The term "justice" comes into my mind every time I drive up Justice Place because I know that what was promised did happen, and I supported it. The bill refers to truth in advertising, and it is good to see that The Nationals are supporting the bill. I also welcome provisions relating to fines. I would like the Government to support the bill because the legislation would bring some of the candidates in Dubbo, particularly the last one, to account. If the bill is not passed, the gate will be left open for untruthful allegations to be made against candidates regardless of what party they belong to or whether they are Independents and for false promises to continue to be made.

How far will the legislation extend? Will it extend to fines being imposed? For example, when two Ministers with whom I have a good working relationship came to Dubbo and asked how they could help me to deliver the message about what I intend to do for the community and how they could help me to do the job for which I might be chosen, it was not good to hear from them the night before an election that another candidate told them that I am a devout atheist. That is evil.

Dr Andrew McDonald: You cannot be a devout atheist.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: That is right. It was not good when fellow candidates paid vulnerable people needing to fund their substance abuse to walk among my supporters and say an expletive word plus Fardell, or to challenge three young people aged approximately 16 years who were walking around my front veranda at 3.30 a.m. Those youths were fearful when they realised I had recognised who they were, but things got worse when, after I asked them why they were doing that and who set them up to do it, the source was revealed. For my sake I do not mind the all-round nastiness, but I do mind for my family and I am concerned for the safety of my family. I can accept failure—we can all accept failure or loss because it builds character—but I just want truth in what people do. I want people to run for election on merit and not on dishonesty. That is all I ask. That is why I support the bill.

I commend the member for Ballina for introducing the legislation. There are good people on the Opposition side of the House who also will speak with good reason to commend the bill. I commend the bill to the Government and urge Government members to support it to strengthen accountability and provide for the imposition of fines for wrongdoing associated with election campaigns, just as all other fines apply to breaking the law or doing anything that is not proper in society. I welcome any strengthening of accountability and honesty in advertising during election campaigns.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [10.37 a.m.]: The experience of contesting a seat as marginal as Port Stephens taught me a thing or two about the Labor Party's approach to truth in advertising. As many members would be aware, Port Stephens swung against the Labor Party by a factor of 7.3 per cent, and the Labor Party lost the seat by 68 votes. In such a close race, the people of the region were subjected to the usual parade of Ministers announcing funding and projects in an altogether cynical effort to shore up Labor's chances of electoral victory. Of itself, that is not the problem. A popular political slogan in the Hunter Valley is "let's make it marginal". People in the Hunter Valley know they get a more equitable share of Government funding when the region's seats are at risk of falling to an Opposition political party or an Independent.

While that does not make for a healthy democracy, many projects in the Hunter Valley would never have seen a cent were it not for the threat of the electoral defeat of the Government. However, in the lead-up to the 2007 election, the advertisements and commitments offered by the Labor Party crossed the line and misled the people of Port Stephens in particular. That behaviour highlights the need for government regulation of election material to ensure our democracy remains one where honesty and accountability are held at a premium. One example that springs to mind is the Port Stephens Local Area Command. It would not have taken a political genius to figure out that the Port Stephens community had swung whole-heartedly behind the idea of having its own dedicated local area command to cater to the area's unique policing needs.

By 2007 the need for such an administrative change was obvious. Two police patrol cars were forced to cover an 8000 square kilometre area at night and response times were suffering. The then Minister for Police, John Watkins, committed the New South Wales Government to investigating and delivering a new local area command in nine separate statements to a local news outlet. The commitment was then repeated on local radio and repeated by the Labor candidate for Port Stephens. It also featured in Labor Party election material. But following the Labor Party's election loss in Port Stephens, not only was the commitment shelved but also the incoming Minister for Police, David Campbell, would claim no such commitment was ever made in an answer to a question in this place. His predecessor was not accountable to anyone, his claims had no oversight, and in the end, the people of Port Stephens suffered. Instead of answering that question, the Minister went on to lecture the Opposition about the Government's charter of budget honesty that we continue to support. If there can be a charter for budget honesty, why can there not be one for advertising? Honesty is not something you can be selective about; you are either honest are or you are not.

For the better part of a decade the Labor Party went to the polls in Port Stephens advertising that it would commit to the construction of a new Raymond Terrace police station. Year after year this promise was broken: a promise that constituted part of Labor Party election advertising year after year and a promise it had no intention of keeping. As the Labor Party's desperation to win Port Stephens increased, the advertisements increased in number and in tone in an attempt to portray its opponent in a negative light. Worse still, the advertisements made claims to fix and fund many programs and facilities in the region that even 12 months on have still not been completed. For example, Wirreanda Public School, which presently uses four demountable classrooms while it awaits crucial capital works funding to construct new ones, was promised with great fanfare and accompanying radio advertisements new classrooms in time for the 2008 school year. In January this year the school was told it would have to wait another term. It is still waiting.

A government must be accountable when it cynically misleads a region and its people, and I am satisfied the bill will provide that accountability. Whilst those opposite try to deride the legislation that the member for Ballina has introduced, I wonder if they have considered just how much damage their negative advertising does to their own candidates. As I moved between polling booths on 24 March last year, one thing I noticed was the disgust the community felt at much of the Labor Party's election material. I know the people of Port Stephens saw through the shameful practice of using the union movement to distribute shameful material that told outright mistruths about Coalition policy. I do not think the Labor Candidate for Port Stephens, Jim Arneman, who is a respectful man, was altogether impressed with the advertisements his campaign workers were forced to distribute. Jim attempted to run a fair and positive campaign—68 votes make a lot of difference. Things could have been a lot different had the Labor Party demonstrated a little more respect in its campaign material.

It takes a particular type of individual to stand in front of a camera or a crowd and tell a barefaced lie. I am proud to say I do not know too many people on either side of the House who are capable of that level of deception. Of course they do not have to when a proxy agency like the union movement can be trotted out at every election campaign to lie on behalf of the Labor Party. During the election campaign the people of Port Stephens were subjected nightly to advertisements depicting the former Leader of the Opposition Peter Debnam, claiming falsely that he would cut jobs in key front-line areas. My constituents were subjected to an outright lie. The advertisements made no claim to having any evidence of their statements, they presented spin as fact and did the people of New South Wales a tremendous disservice by making an election that should have been about service delivery and Government accountability instead about who could tell the biggest lies. I am at least proud to say my party and those who sit behind me lost that contest, even if we lost the election.

People were subjected to advertising on television, on radio, and on the posters that mysteriously appeared on telegraph polls night after night, high enough that only a cherry picker could have placed them there. These items of electoral advertising were not endorsed by the Labor Party or its candidate, but by the Health Services Union and the Electrical Trades Union. They were able to pay for advertising and were not accountable to the individual who actually put his name forth to run in that seat, a practice that is deplorable. It does not merely damage the proponents of these advertisements' political opponents, it also damages the political process, and it damages the faith that the people of New South Wales have in their elected leaders. Cynicism in this House runs rife, and it cannot be solely blamed on the many scandals and shady dealings that the Labor Government has participated in. This cynicism stems from the practice of negative and untruthful advertising, and it must stop.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [10.44 a.m.]: I support the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007. I commend the member for Ballina for introducing this overdue bill. All speakers, including the Independents, agree that there must be parity with the private sector, industry, and politicians. I understand why politicians in general have a bad name. The stench of not only corruption but also fraudulent activities and lies fits perfectly with the image of a politician who goes to an election campaign and completely puts the wrong perspective across, and makes false promises and commitments that everyone knows will never be fulfilled.

The current law in New South Wales allows people to seek and obtain political office through political advertising that can be totally fraudulent. At the last election the Coalition had a policy to cut 29,000 backroom bureaucrats' jobs through natural attrition. The advertisements at that time showed an old lady in hospital calling for a nurse, but she could not get one. A voice-over then said, "When the Coalition gets into office, this is what will happen. You will lose the front-line services, such as nurses, police and the firefighters." The idea of cutting 29,000 backroom bureaucrats was to enhance the front-line services we desperately need and do not have. We need more nurses in hospitals and more police on the streets. Party hacks and backroom bureaucrats are now filling out paperwork and warming seats that do not need warming at all.

I have always maintained that had we won Government at the last election the first job to go would be that of a former Labor candidate for Clarence who was given a cushy job as the political agricultural and policy adviser to Tony Kelly. I speak of Terry Flanigan who sits in a cushy office in Grafton and collects a handy pay for being a party hack and writing letters to editors trying to undermine the good governance in the Clarence area. If Labor Party people who do not get into office following elections are fair dinkum they should keep fighting for the promises made to provide those front-line services. I refer not only to the last election but also to the election of 1999 when $7 million was promised for the upgrade and redevelopment of the operating theatres at Grafton hospital. The upgrade was urgent in 2003, it was urgent in 2007 and it is still urgent. Now that the Federal Government has come on board and committed the money, hopefully the upgrade will occur. What is the New South Wales Government doing with the Federal Government money? Where is it? It should be spent right now on those operating theatres at Grafton hospital.

At the 2003 election former Premier Bob Carr gave an ironclad guarantee for $7 million to build a bridge in Grafton. He said the money was there—unallocated Roads and Traffic Authority funds. The Government's advertisements said it was doing a great job and that it would build the bridge, but when the election was over it could not find the money. Now here we are, six years later, and the bridge is yet to be started. To draw an analogy, if McDonald's put out an advertisement that showed someone choking after biting into a Hungry Jack's hamburger and then someone else came along and fed the person a Big Mac to make the person better, McDonald's would be in court for totally misrepresenting the facts. The same laws and penalties should apply to political mistruths in advertising.

The bill would impose penalties on a person who authorises, causes or permits the publication of an electoral advertisement if that advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. This applies to advertisements published by any means, including radio, television or the Internet. The bill would also apply to the local government elections, which are coming up shortly. The bill legislates for the application of fines for persons or bodies corporate who are guilty of this offence. The maximum penalty is $11,000 if the offender is a natural person and $110,000 if the offender is a body corporate.

Let us hope that body corporate includes unions that run union-funded advertising in support of the Labor Party, as they did during the last Federal election, because those advertisements contained a lot of lies when they were supposedly for the public benefit. I support the member for Ballina, who has brought some truth into the House. Let us hope that if there is some integrity on the Labor side of politics, and hopefully among the Independents as well, the bill will be supported so that we can raise the perception of the integrity of politicians in this State from down the bottom of the list with car salesmen up to where it belongs—as true corporate representatives of the people.

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