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

It gives me great pleasure to begin the second reading debate on the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008. However, I should say at the outset that the news I have just received is that the government is not going to allow the potential for the bill to come to a second reading vote at the end of today or on Monday morning. That decision follows a period of requests to the government and the opposition, and it flies in the face of proper process here. This is private member’s time to deal with important legislation.

I have in particular, along with my Green colleagues, been extremely reasonable with the government in facilitating its important legislation through the Senate. This is the first piece of private member’s legislation for the year and it is important legislation. There are other bills which are quite important to be dealt with by the Senate lined up and the government is simply going to filibuster so that this bill cannot get a second reading vote. The request was to get it through the parliament, but the government does not want to show a vote on it. I take that extremely seriously as it is not a frivolous matter. It is high time the Senate took private member’s legislation seriously. I say to the government that there will be ramifications. The cooperation goes both ways. This is totally unfair; it is wrong to be treating private member’s time in this fashion.

I think it has been a major mistake by strategists in the Labor Party and there will be consequences. It is a very serious slight to the Senate, and to those who take this legislation seriously, that the government has decided it simply is not going to allow this bill to come to a vote. The government is, apparently, going to add extra speakers just to fill up time if we get towards finalising the debate by 6.30 pm. I object to that and there will be consequences.

That said, this bill is for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 to encourage healthier eating habits among children and to prohibit the broadcasting of advertisements for junk food during certain times and for related purposes. I had the second reading speech circulated when I introduced this bill last year. I am not going to re-read it all but I did want to read a couple of sentences from it.

The bill revises the bill by the same title first introduced by Democrat leader Senator Lyn Allison in 2006. I again acknowledge her long work in this area and, indeed, continuing interest in the area. The bill is to ensure that the advertising of junk food and beverages on television during children’s viewing times is disallowed as is the advertising of alcoholic drinks in those times.

What is important about this is that obesity is a problem the parliament can no longer afford to ignore. According to the Australian Medical Association the rise in childhood obesity may, for the first time in Australian history, result in a decline in the life expectancy of newborns. Access Economics estimates the financial costs of obesity in our country in 2008 at $8.2 billion per annum. That report calculates the net cost of lost wellbeing, including the dollar value of the burden of disease on individuals as a result of conditions associated with obesity such as diabetes, heart disease and various types of cancer, as well as lost productivity, adding up to a total financial burden of $58 billion a year.

Childhood obesity is a complex issue with many causal factors. An advertising ban alone will not eliminate the problem of obesity but it is a sensible first step that has the support of health experts including doctors, community groups and, most importantly, parents. A study of parental awareness and attitudes reported in the August 2008 issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health found that there was widespread parental concern about food advertising aimed at children and strong support for tighter restrictions. Almost 80 per cent of respondents were concerned about the volume of advertisements and 68 per cent were concerned about the methods used to market unhealthy food to children. Eighty-seven per cent of people supported a ban on unhealthy food advertising during children’s viewing hours. The survey, which was in fact in 2007 and was commissioned by the Coalition on Food Advertising to Children, found that 90 per cent of parents agreed that advertising food high in fat, sugar and salt directly to children was unconscionable, and in 2004 an Australia Institute study found that 86 per cent of people wanted more limits on advertising to children.

I quote from the Greens dissenting report to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which examined this legislation:

There is no dispute that obesity in Australia is a serious problem. The Committee majority report notes the following facts: Australia now has the fifth highest rate of adult obesity amongst OECD countries; that 17 percent of children aged between 2 -16 are overweight and 6 percent are obese; there is a demonstrated link between childhood and adult obesity; the cost of adult obesity in Australian in 2008 is estimated at $8.3 billion; and there are ‘negative effects of unhealthy food advertising to children’.

That included part of the majority finding. The aim of this bill is to address this massive health, social, economic and environmental problem, not totally but by attacking one of the fundamental problems connected with increased obesity, which is the purveying of junk food, sometimes through saturation advertising aimed at children in their own television viewing hours. I might add that studies show that children up to the age of 12 cannot discern between advertising and fact. The advertisers know that and, as we all know in this place, employ psychologists to manipulate children, and the pester factor children have on parents, to sell their unhealthy products to those children.

The committee had numerous submissions, and witnesses to the inquiry identified that the current timing of restrictions does not capture the broadcast periods when high numbers of children are viewing. The preponderance of evidence was for extending the restricted times outlined in this bill to the period from 6 am to 9.30 pm. I flag here that in the committee stage of the bill, which the government has now effectively blocked, we would have proposed amendments to the bill to incorporate that position.

Let me finish by saying this is important legislation. It is aimed at one of the insidious factors which are increasing obesity, the toll on health, the cost to the economy and the erosion of the wellbeing of individuals in Australia. It is important legislation. I thought the government would have a more mature, reflective and accommodating approach to this legislation. It does not. I repeat that this is a very serious affront to the Senate by the government. We have to take it as an indication that the government does not see the rest of the Senate as having the importance it does have and, in particular, does not see this legislation is being as important as it is to the Australian people. It is wrong on both counts. Its behaviour on this matter is way below the standard I would expect of serious consideration of serious legislation by the Rudd government in 2009.