Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Democrats support the intent of these amendments but have problems with the design. Ever since the Black Death, communities and those responsible for public health have taken measures to attend to and push back major diseases which affect the community as a whole. The question is whether the government is doing enough on public health grounds with respect to this particular issue. We believe that a more holistic approach needs to be taken than is offered by these Greens amendments. In fact, the health spokesperson for the Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison, will put forward a private senator’s bill which attempts to cover off the issue in a far fuller manner than is being done here. But we are glad that Senator Brown on behalf of the Greens has raised this issue, because it is of acute concern not just to our society but internationally. Quite properly, a large number of health ministers and governments have become extremely concerned about obesity and its effect on modern society.

Turning to the Greens amendments specifically, their amendments would require the minister to personally approve every food or beverage advertisement broadcast in about 390 hours of annual programming on each television station in the country. The minister would also be required to make an essentially subjective—and, of course, there is the danger of it being essentially partisan—judgement about which advertisements are beneficial to the health of children. The amendments would not prevent the broadcasting of junk food advertisements in those parts of the C band that have not been designated C periods by broadcasters.

We Democrats are consistently wary of ministers having excessive discretionary powers. I sometimes deliberately lay claim to small ‘l’ liberal views, and I do not like the idea of ministers telling me what I can read, being censors over what I can read or deciding what drugs should be available to the community—that is why we have the Therapeutic Goods Administration—and I certainly do not want them being the censors or arbiters of advertisements. Nevertheless, that does not mean that advertisements themselves should not be subject to regulation and oversight. But we would be alarmed at giving the health minister—of any government, I might say, not just this particular health minister—excessive discretionary power.

The banning of junk food advertising to children is quite a popular concept, as I understand it, with many parents and many members of the community. It is certainly supported by public health groups of some considerable standing. It is noteworthy that some health and education groups are actually supportive of a total ban on advertising to children on the grounds that children are not developmentally able to understand and resist advertising, so it is unethical to advertise to them. That is a system, as I understand it, that exists in countries such as Sweden. I recall—20 years ago or maybe longer—seeing a statistic that one penny in every 10p spent in Great Britain on food was actually spent on chocolates, lollies and what we would broadly describe as junk food, so it is a problem that has been around for a long time.

The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children wrote to senators in a general letter on 3 February 2006. That coalition includes the Australasian Society for the Study of Obesity; the Australian Confederation of Paediatric and Child Health Nurses; the Australian Consumers Association; the Australian Dental Association; the Australian Medical Association; Dr Rosemary Stanton; the Public Health Association of Australia; the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Paediatric Branch; the Cancer Council of Australia; the University of Adelaide, Department of Public Health; the Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide; and Young Media Australia. It is not a minor organisation. I am not sure if all of those constituent organisations supported or ticked off on this particular letter, but we take note of the weight of support for action in this area. That letter had an attachment. The letter states:

On 7 February, Greens Leader Bob Brown will table an amendment to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1). The Greens’ amendment will prohibit all food advertising during children’s viewing hours and make exceptions to the ban subject to approval by the Health Minister.

The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children asks you consider the health of Australian children and support the Greens’ amendment.

The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children, which includes among its members the AMA, the Australasian College of Physicians, Cancer Council Australia and the Australian College of General Practitioners, has been consistently calling for such a ban. CFAC draws on research evidence that TV food advertising promotes mostly junk food to children and this plays a role in the epidemic of childhood obesity which currently affects one in four children in Australia.

Research shows that parents support changes in this area. Research in South Australia found that 88 % of parents were concerned about TV food advertising to children and want to see much stronger enforcement of regulations.

The Australian government has an opportunity to turn around childhood obesity by helping parents in their task of educating children to make healthy food choices. Lessening the incidence of obesity is a health priority and the Government’s National Obesity Taskforce has detailed comprehensive strategies to do so, in its Reported Healthy Weight 2008. Among these are ‘better protection for young people against the promotion of high-energy, poor nutritional value foods and drinks’.

Please put the interests of our children above big business profit. Support the Greens’ amendment.

I do not necessarily agree that this is the only way in which you can tackle the matter. I note the attachment says:

Advertising to children is prohibited in Sweden (since 1991), Norway (since 1992) and Quebec Canada (since 1980).

I did not see in the attachment what effects that has had; whether children from Sweden, Quebec or Norway are thinner than children elsewhere. Certainly when I visited Denmark I saw that people there were indeed a lot thinner than Australians. I put it down to their penchant for riding bicycles. In fact, you have to take care crossing the road there because bicycles whip along at a great rate of knots. That is a reminder, of course, that part of the way in which you defeat obesity is to get much more exercise. In the part of the world where I come from sport and exercise were a major requirement for all children, regardless of ability. I was pretty concerned when I came to Australia to discover that it was not in fashion in many schools at that time. Hopefully, it will come back into fashion. Without doubt, exercise is a vital part of it all.

We are here therefore in furious agreement with Senator Brown in terms of intent but not in terms of the design of these amendments. I am hopeful that the government will recognise some of the concerns which have been expressed here and elsewhere and in fact will pick up their game even more in this area—I know they have been attending to that.