Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to comment on the committee's report, Reclaiming public space: inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising. I have a particular interest in this area as a mother of two young girls. My interest in the external influences of the wallpaper of our society on my two girls has sparked a particular interest generally in this issue. I made some public comments recently about the importance of having appropriate images out there in the public domain. Like many others in the community and some organisations specifically established to comment on the inappropriateness of images in the public domain and the premature sexualisation of young children, I was waiting to see what the committee report would come up with. I have to say that I am bitterly disappointed. It is telling the advertising industry, 'It is okay, you can keep doing what you have been doing.' It is as effective as a slap with a wet lettuce. It is a total cop out. It is almost a waste of time for the committee to have sat and listened to evidence and then gone through the draft report and corrected it.

The committee has essentially recommended that the outdoor advertising industry be given one last chance. It has rejected calls for G-ratings on advertising billboards and it has called for advertisers to be named and shamed online if they put up inappropriate images. But I would argue that this would be as effective as Fuelwatch and Grocery Watch.

Outdoor advertising is in a different category to other sorts of advertising. It occupies public space. It is privileged space. It is open to all, whether it is on billboards, bus shelters or park benches. This unique character of outdoor advertising was accepted by the committee and that is what has brought it to the attention of so many Australians who are concerned about the issue.

On the one hand the report acknowledges the significant problems associated with self-regulation but then actually stops short of recommending a system of regulation or even co-regulation. They say this for two apparent reasons. One is that the industry does not want it—surprise, surprise. The other is that comparable countries have not done so yet. I think that is a total and utter cop out. The test should be: what does the public think is acceptable for our children to view and be affected by? What does medical evidence say about the images that continually bombard our children? The medical evidence is saying that all of these images are death by a thousand cuts; they are affecting our children's emotional development and they are affecting them later on in life. This is the sort of evidence that should be looked at. I am astounded that this did not weigh more heavily on the minds of the committee members. The committee stated:

Even though the Committee does not consider that government regulation of outdoor advertising content is warranted, the Committee expresses its strong view that the current self-regulatory system needs to be more rigorous and transparent in order to address the serious issues raised in the inquiry.

That is not going to happen. If you want evidence, just look at some of the reports in the print media of late on comments by the advertising industry. One of these reports states:

Advertising and media groups were putting a positive spin on the committee's findings yesterday, insisting they were a vote of confidence in the advertising self-regulatory system.

Of course they would, because that is what the report effectively is.

I also refer you to the following quote from Alina Bain:

We note the Committee has not recommended government regulation of outdoor advertising. This shows that they have taken into account the low levels of complaints and breaches under the AANA Codes, which indicates that our system is working well.

No, it does not indicate that the system is working well, because there would not be so much concern out there in the community if the system was working well. I wonder if Ms Bain has actually looked at the medical evidence, both in Australia and overseas, on the impact that inappropriate advertising—highly sexualised and suggestive advertising—is having on young children. Colleagues on both sides of the House, this is not about the rights of an advertiser against the rights of a so-called wowser who does not want to watch; this is about whether the advertising dollar is more important than the welfare of our children, whether the advertising dollar speaks louder than the collective public conscience about the sort of environment in which we want our children to grow up.

In comments from the industry, Outdoor Media Association Chief Executive Charmaine Moldrich said that the committee's recommendations that related to the outdoor ad industry 'have already been put in place or are in the process of occurring'. In other words: 'Thank you, little committee members; you've done your little work and, guess what, we're not going to take much notice of it because we're so good that we're already doing the things you want us to do.' Well, they are not acting appropriately, and this committee has let go of an ideal opportunity to actually do something real about this problem.

The report notes that the self-regulatory system has been 'largely reactive in nature, whether to public criticism or other threats to the status quo'. It goes on to say that 'the regulation of outdoor advertising should not be more lax than that of advertising in other media.' Yet we know that other forms of media are far more highly regulated, so this seems to be a contradiction in the report.

Self-regulation has failed. It is not the answer in so many other areas. We have the ACCC to look after the interests of small businesses and consumers. We have regulation in other parts of our life. One wonders why the committee were so hostile to actually having some form of real regulation in this area. I would not say that the personal views of members of the committee influenced their opinion about regulation about highly sexualised images; I would not say that the chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, who is known to be an author of highly racy novels, was influenced in the recommendations of the report by his personal opinions and the literature he has written—but others may.

The impact of outdoor media is significant. It is not like the television, which you can just switch off. This has been recognised by the Outdoor Media Association. They acknowledge the impact and the reach that their advertising has. They say that it can achieve direct communication with consumers wherever they go—'where they live, work, play, where they drive and shop, where they commute, and where they congregate'. Billboard and outdoor advertising is probably the most in-your-face, unavoidable form of public advertising, and there have been some pretty shocking and highly sexualised images in it over the last few years.

The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau has failed to protect our children from the content on these billboards. As I said before, it is about not just one image but an accumulation of images that have such an extraordinary impact. We as adults may be totally numb and immune to much of this imagery, but anyone who has had small children knows that they are sponges and absorb so much more in their environment than we do, which is why the failure of self-regulation is having such a disproportionately damaging impact on our young children.

We need regulation. I have said before—and I will repeat it in this chamber—that we need to have a statutory body with some real powers, including the power to issue serious fines to offenders. Why can't it be the time to codify community standards and put weight on medical opinion about the impacts on children? We err on the side of caution so often in public policy. We have heard of the precautionary principle when it comes to environmental policy, but where is the precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children and providing a safe environment in which they will grow and develop?

None of the evidence in the committee's report regarding these sexualised images and their impact on young children has been disputed, yet a parent cannot take a child to a park, to school or out to the shops without being subjected to outdoor advertising. So what is the answer? What does the committee say to parents who are concerned about this imagery, who have seen self-regulation fail, who have seen reports where the media mock the committee's recommendations, claiming the recommendations support their current position and what they are doing? What do you say to parents who say that you have failed as a committee?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Indi must remember to avoid the use of 'you'—

Mr Neumann interjecting—

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am disappointed. I join many members of the public in being disappointed, because the medical evidence—

Mr Neumann interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair will get his chance.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I take your note, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—has not been taken into account, and nor have community standards. We are not talking about how liberal you are, your civil libertarian values, about what you should read or what you should see. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home as long as it is legal. That is what we in the parliament, on both sides of the House, generally believe. I am not talking about that; I am talking about the protection of children. Some people have said to me, 'Oh, well, kids need to grow up; they need to know what it's like in the real world.' Actually, there is a time and a place that is appropriate for such knowledge, comments and imagery. Young children do not have the capacity to process and understand much of the sexual imagery with which they come into contact in the public domain.

Again, I express my disappointment in this committee report. I am sure it will be greeted with great acclaim by the sectors of the advertising industry that have not yet commented on it and with disappointment by the rest of the community that is focused on child welfare. Do not call us wowsers, because we are not. Do not call us people who want to restrict the free market, because we are not. We are looking after the health and welfare of young children. I am sure that one impact this report will have is to put wind into the sails of the community organisations and parents out there who are fighting this great problem in our community. Just because we as adults are immune, are numb or have become desensitised to certain images does not mean that our children are not affected by them.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report, Reclaiming public space: inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising. The report, released on Monday, provides a comprehensive examination of billboard and outdoor advertising regulation. It also provides a number of important recommendations to help outdoor advertising better reflect community concerns.

I would firstly like to turn to the rationale for this inquiry. As the chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, has said on a number of occasions, the very nature of outdoor advertising makes it unavoidable. As University of Melbourne academic Lauren Rosewarne says:

Unlike the ‘private’ world of magazine and television advertising, outdoor advertising is displayed throughout public space, thus making regulation of the medium a pertinent public policy concern. The inescapable nature of outdoor advertising, compounded with the increasingly sexualised display of women within, demands that an active public policy response occurs.

This report into outdoor advertising directly addresses the issue of billboards and other outdoor media being inescapable for the whole of the community. When we drive down the major freeways of our big cities and even down our suburban streets, we are exposed to an onslaught of often highly provocative and highly effective outdoor advertising. From billboards, public transport shelters and kiosks to public toilets, park benches and phone booths, we live in a world saturated by advertising—and the committee took a wide range of evidence of these images, amongst other things. There is saturation with things like ads for nasal-delivery erectile dysfunction sprays, naked men pictured wearing dog collars and leashes to sell pantyhose and Lolita-like ads with women looking extremely childlike with lollipops, in seductive poses, to sell handbags. When people are faced with all this, I can fully understand why our community says, ''Enough is enough.' Unlike with other forms of advertising, we do not have the power to turn the page or change the channel. Every member of the community is stuck with the same overt billboard or other form of outdoor advertising until it is replaced by a potentially more contentious one.

In response to this, the committee received 51 submissions from stakeholders, all of which were thoroughly considered in producing this report. This report comprises five chapters containing 19 recommendations. As well as making these recommendations to the government, the committee has made them to relevant industry bodies, acknowledging that neither the government nor the committee has authority over these industry bodies in many respects. One of the major concerns being expressed by stakeholders is the fact that the advertising industry is a self-regulating one. The committee recognises that the advertising industry has demonstrated some willingness to review and make changes to this system of self-regulation. The committee understands that the advertising industry has the opportunity to implement the recommendations contained in this report in order to improve its own operation.

I would now like to discuss the issues of most concern to the people of Greenway, whom I represent, and to myself, which the committee addressed in producing this report. The first is the oversexualisation of advertising. We are increasingly being subjected to oversexualised displays in media and especially in advertising. Advertisers realise the effectiveness of using sex to sell, and they consistently rely on the objectification of the female body to convey many a message. The committee looked at a number of examples displaying overt sexualisation of the female body in outdoor advertising, some of which I am sure many members is this place would, unfortunately, be familiar with.

One submission presented to the committee a particularly provocative campaign from a prominent Australian clothing retail chain. This particular marketing campaign was entitled 'I love sex.' This campaign saw billboards displaying a naked woman, a man covering her breasts with his hands and the word 'sex' behind her head. I suppose one could be forgiven for thinking that this clothing chain is in the business of selling something other than clothes. As a result of the ad, a number of complaints by the public were made, including by one of my own constituents.

Because of the pervasive nature of billboard advertising, these images, which may be appropriate for certain magazines and television, are visible for all to see—men, women and children, 24 hours a day. These images can sometimes be located near places of worship, schools and childcare centres and, as a result, expose all parts of the community to often controversial messages that cannot be avoided.

At the core of this issue is the exposure of oversexualised images to children. One of the most concerning aspects of exposing our young people to such oversexualised images in such public places is the effect it can have on their body image and their expectations of the other sex. This issue becomes even more problematic when we see our young people so obsessed with the superficial and the glamorous. Adolescent psychologist Dr Sloane Madden of Westmead Childrens Hospital details the rather frightening realities that our young people are experiencing:

One third of 8 year olds are not happy with their weight and shape. Nearly 1 in 4 are dieting. I think there is a growing concern amongst eating disorder professionals around the world that children at this age are being subjected to increasingly sophisticated adult messages, messages equating thinness with success—sexualised images—presented to children at an age when really they're psychologically unable to understand those images.

This is the reality of what is happening to many of our young people. By exposing children to oversexualised images—which is what currently occurs, unfortunately, in some outdoor advertising—we leave open a range of social, psychological and physical problems for our young people. These are problems no child should have to face.

I now turn to discussing some of the existing regulations. It became apparent to the committee, in addressing these community concerns, that existing regulations on advertising had in many respects failed. I believe the recommendations that the committee understands will be adopted by industry will work to rectify these community concerns regarding the oversexualisation of advertising. The committee did look at the option of introducing a classification system that was submitted by the Australian Christian Lobby, who wanted a G rating for all outdoor advertising. However, as argued by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, this could have the effect of excluding advertising that is in the public interest, such as illicit drug awareness and sexual health messages. The committee made 19 recommendations to industry to improve its processes. Some of these recommendations were as follows. The committee recommended that the Attorney-General's Department review by 30 June 2013 the self-regulatory system for advertising by evaluating industry's implementation reports and assessing the extent to which there has been effective implementation of the recommendations contained in the committee's report. Under recommendation 4, the committee recommended that the Attorney-General's Department look to include 'the unrestricted display of racist or sexualised images in the public space' in the scope of discriminatory practices with the intention of reducing the number of over-sexualised images that we currently see displayed on many billboards. Under recommendation 8, the committee recommended:

that the Australian Association of National Advertisers amend its advertising code of ethics to proscribe sexual objectification of men, women and children.

Under recommendation 9, which was made to the Advertising Standards Bureau, the committee recommended that research be conducted every two years into:

community perceptions of the use of sex, sexuality and nudity in advertising in general and specifically in outdoor advertising;

…   …   …

prevailing community standards on health and safety in advertising in general and specifically in outdoor advertising;

prevailing community standards on advertising to children …

To ensure that the industry makes a concerted effort in cleaning up its act in these matters, it has been recommended by the committee that the relevant industry groups provide a comprehensive report to the Attorney-General's Department by 30 December next year detailing their responses and how the relevant recommendations contained in the committee's report have been implemented. To ensure complaints from the public are dealt with in an effective manner, the committee has recommended that members of the Australian Association of National Advertisers and the Outdoor Media Association:

'forward complaints they receive from the public directly to the Advertising Standards Bureau'.

The final recommendation made by the committee was again to the Advertising Standards Bureau. It recommended that it strengthen its independent review process.

I believe the committee's recommendations are the appropriate measures to take at this point in time, as did the entire committee unanimously. The report has delivered 19 recommendations to government and industry in order to improve the processes governing outdoor advertising so that they better reflect community standards. I am sure that the committee's report will be welcomed by many in my electorate, where there has been considerable concern about the standard of outdoor advertising. In closing, I thank my fellow committee members for all their hard work in contributing to this report. I make special mention of the committee chair, the member for Moreton, and the committee deputy chair, the member for Pearce. I thank the committee secretary, Dr Anna Dacre, and everyone else involved with the committee secretariat. I believe we worked in a very constructive manner on a very important issue. We took a wide range of written and in-person evidence, all of which was taken seriously and analysed thoroughly. It has been a privilege to be part of this committee, and I do hope the recommendations outlined in this report go a long way to seeing us reclaim our public space.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The consumer has a choice about whether to view television, print, radio or internet advertising but no choice about whether to view outdoor advertising. Sexually exploitative, provocative, violent and discriminatory images can be shown in outdoor advertising, but the consumer cannot turn them off. Whether these images are on billboards, buses, bus shelters, taxis, toilets or transit centres, they are in your face. The community is justified in feeling concerned, if not angry, at the outdoor advertising we have seen. In my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, on the Ipswich motorway, there have been a number of issues raised about billboard advertising, including evidence that came up during the inquiry of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs about advertising for Sexpo. This matter was raised in letters to the editor in the Queensland Timesit wasraised in media locally—and there was consumer concern about it, because if you were driving towards Brisbane and had your children in the car, you had no alternative but to look at that billboard that was right there in your face. Self-regulation in its current form is not working; regulation needs to be strengthened.

I am pleased that the advertising industry, who—I must say—at first seemed reluctant, hesitant, self-defensive, have moved. During the course of the committee's inquiry, when there were seven public hearings—in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne—and 51 public submissions offered, we saw movement from the advertising industry. They have to accept that the community is concerned with sexually exploitative, provocative, violent or sexually discriminatory images that are shown clearly on places such as those adjacent to schools or churches, out the front of airports or on major highways, particularly in South-East Queensland, where I come from. At first the advertising industry were saying that statistics about this issue backed up their story, but in fact, when you delved deeper into this particular issue, you discovered that just over 2,000 complaints were forwarded to the Advertising Standards Bureau, of which just over 10 per cent were found to be in breach of the advertising codes of practice. It looked all right but, of those 2,000 complaints, 437 were for outdoor advertising and 35.7 per cent related to advertising that breached the codes of practice. Of the 90 outdoor advertisements that the Advertising Standards Board considered, 16.67 percent were found to be in breach, compared to less than 10 per cent for all other categories. So outdoor advertising breaches the codes of practice more frequently. Four of the top 10 most-complained-about issues about advertisements were for outdoor advertising.

The inquiry investigated whether self-regulation was effective for outdoor advertising and we found that, in relation to specific categories of advertising which required their specific codes of practice, those codes needed to be strengthened, particularly the need for a separate code where public space is occupied—that is for sure. Unrestricted, untargeted audiences can be seen, and this can have a cumulative effect, as the previous speaker said. There is concern in the committee and in the community about the complaints-based aspects and all the burden of complaint resting on the public. The public is not necessarily aware of how to make the complaint. Often the public, consumers, are time poor and not necessarily, as I said, aware of how to do it. We recommended that the Advertising Standards Bureau actually advertise the complaint process more and increase its accessibility.

The advertising standards boards make decisions on advertising contents relating to prevailing community standards, and I am not always convinced they get it right. The committee found that it is not clear how these standards are established and recommended that research be conducted to determine the prevailing community standards in relation to outdoor advertising; the use of sex, sexuality and nudity; health and safety; advertising food and beverages; advertising alcohol; and advertising to children. A wide variety of people and organisations lodged submissions: everyone from the Alcohol Policy Coalition to the Australian Christian Lobby, the Salvation Army, 2020women Inc., the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and Collective Shout. Everyone from the whole spectrum, from the civil liberties groups to the more conservative Christian groups, lodged submissions in relation to this. They were not all saying the same thing, but it was interesting that many sang from the same hymn sheet, really, in relation to this issue. It was quite clear.

The outdoor advertising industry, if I can put it like that, is on its final notice. It must clean up its act. It may shape up and get its house in order or, by 2013, this report recommends the government intervene. This is a really big warning to that industry. It really needs to look at itself. The lack of enforcement powers and sanctions for noncompliance with the voluntary codes was a consistent criticism of the advertising self-regulatory system. The committee is of the view that, to instil public confidence in this system, you need to have muscle. For example, we need to have more public exposure and disclosure. The information, in relation to complaints decisions, should not be buried in websites or tucked away but should be transparent and obvious—listed by their parent company's name rather than the product name, for example, so everyone knows which company has offended against codes of practice. We think there should be a prominent webpage, dedicated to naming the products and the advertisers which breach, circulating the names of non-compliant advertisers to third-party media organisations such as the Outdoor Media Association, providing the names of non-compliant advertisers and getting this out into the public's domain—getting public scrutiny. Pre-vetting or copy advice is something which is world's best practice but it is not always done. Providing independent, non-binding copy advice to advertisers prior to running a campaign is recommended. Given the unavoidable impact of outdoor advertising, this can be done, but that advertisement can be displayed for a month or more before action is taken. So we think that it is necessary that copy advice or pre-vetting be provided for all outdoor advertising and we think there needs to be monitoring in this regard. The idea of world's best practice is simply to random-monitor outdoor advertising, so we think it should be complied with. We think compliance surveys should be conducted at locations such as near schools or sports grounds or for specific industries such as alcohol. The Australian Association of National Advertisers is currently reviewing its code, and it is not before time; it is the first time in over a decade. It plans to review other codes in the new year. The committee recommended that voluntary advertising codes be reviewed on an annual basis, or a regular basis certainly.

The committee is concerned about the proliferation of outdoor advertising of alcohol in areas such as public transport where young people could be exposed to it. We recommended that the alcohol beverages advertising code system be monitored by an intergovernmental committee. We were also concerned about the proximity and the juxtapositioning of alcohol with sports. The Australian Association of National Advertisers' food and beverage code restricts the advertising of unhealthy food products to children. The committee was disappointed that sports sponsorship was not included in the code and recommended that sports sponsorship be recognised as a form of advertising and therefore subject to advertising codes of practice relating to food and to children.

This was a bipartisan report, a unanimous report. The member for Indi is simply wrong to criticise her Liberal colleagues in the way she did. I want to commend the member for Moreton for his leadership as chair of this particular committee. To make the kind of surreptitious slurs that she did in relation to him was unseemly, unnecessary and beneath her. The member for Moreton did a fantastic job. I also want to commend the deputy chair, the member for Pearce, for the spirit in which she participated in this inquiry. This was a difficult inquiry and the coalition members contributed in an exemplary way. To cast aspersions on her own colleagues in the way the member for Indi did tonight is really quite shameful. They must have interesting party meetings. I would be very interested in how they might vote in any internal Liberal Party ballot in the future. It was a derogatory diatribe about the integrity of the committee, including her three Liberal colleagues. As I said, it was a unanimous bipartisan report. I congratulate the secretariat, who make us all look very good in this place.

The outdoor advertising industry and the advertising industry is on its last legs with respect to self-regulation. They must get this right. If they do not, a future of government intervention and co-regulation beckons for them. They must respond to community standards in a way that is relevant to what the community feels. They should not have the notion that they are above or beyond what the community has to say. It came through pretty clearly to me that at the beginning of this inquiry the industry was out of touch and by this inquiry was dragged kicking and screaming into a new world. Those media releases that the member for Indi read are making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It really is the case that the industry needs to have a good look at itself, not just in Western Sydney, not just in South-East Queensland but across the whole country.

I commend the members of the committee, the secretariat, the chair and deputy chair, and I urge the industry to have a look at itself and respond to the committee's recommendations, and the government as well.

Debate adjourned.