Not paying for politics

Press, 19 December 1988, Page 20

Not paying for politics

One of the final decisions of Parliament before it rose for the year was to agree to the introduction of yet another bill to control broadcasting, both public and private. One of its provisions has the potential for mischief. The bill proposes that paid- for political programmes and advertising be banned from radio and television, and that radio and television stations should be required by law to provide free air time — up to six hours — for party broadcasts in the run-up to an election. The allocation of this free time between campaigning parties will be decided by the Parliamentary Service Commission. The bill also proposes that broadcasters who accept paid political advertising, or who refuse to provide the required free time, should face fines of up to $lOO,OOO. This is an unwarranted intrusion on normal commercial activity, a threat to the freedom of speech, and an undesirable interference by Parliament — the people already in power — in the process of elections that might remove them from power. It would also deny the public the freedom to listen to a radio station or watch a television channel that set out to improve its ratings by promising that no political material whatever would be broadcast, thus offering a refuge from politicians during an election campaign. At the other end of the scale, the bill pretends that political slogans are somehow different from slogans for soap powders and that the radio and television stations should be denied the income that political parties are quite willing to spend on advertising their policies or people in their own way. The

chairman of the Independent Broadcasters’ Association, Mr Doug Gold, estimates that the ban would have cost commercial radio stations about $2.5 million had it been in force at the last election. It is a dangerous argument to suggest that Parliament should be entitled to ban a perfectly legal transaction and activity that is meant to leave electors better informed and against which the most serious accusation is one of leading to boredom.

Political advertising does not lead necessarily to a decline in public morals, or undermine public health, or cause grave offence; if it did, the backers of the bill could hardly argue for dollops of the same advertising to be compulsory fare provided at the expense of people in business to make money from the running of radio and television stations. The argument is not one against political advertising; it is an attempt by politicians to protect themselves from the message of contenders who have wealthy backers, or who have such wide public support as to be able to afford expensive campaigns, or who offer a message not to the liking of the Parliamentary Services Commission.

Voters should be trusted to assess political messages themselves, unsifted by a panel of people sitting in the capital. Political advertising is subject to the same standards of good taste and the same prohibitions against misleading statements as other advertising. That — and the off-on switch — is all that is needed to protect the public. Parliament’s meddling is neither necessary nor advisable.