Following the Printing Industries Association of Australia (PIAA)’s stint in Canberra, the association says it is eyeing the removal of laws requiring printers to stamp their names on election material.
PIAA CEO Andrew Macaulay alongside staff member and former politician Mary-Jo Fisher sat with fifteen members of parliament over two days in a bid to bring attention to major industry issues.
Macaulay and Fisher met with Independent Senator for SA Bob Day in regards to a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Electoral Act to remove the requirement that ‘printed by printer xyz’ be published on all Australian electoral material.
The law as it currently stands reads, “A person shall not print, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, an electoral advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice unless the name and place of business of the printer appears at the end thereof.”
The PIAA’s lobbying move has sparked a debate in the industry over the necessity of displaying ‘printed by’ stamps on electoral print material.
Many printers producing election work claim they have been abused over the phone and threatened legally after election content was linked to their presses.
Macaulay told ProPrint following the last Federal election, the association was ‘inundated with concerned members suffering from orchestrated attacks on social media and over the phone’ from unregistered political groups disagreeing with the election content.
[Related: Four new contenders in PIAA election race]
“A printer is an unbiased party, but the Act requires its name printed on the bottom of election material. This has resulted in employees and businesses attacked by political delegates that don’t agree with the content,” says Macualay.
On the other side of the coin, however, several printers argue removing the ‘printed by’ logo will eliminate political party obligation to support local, smaller printers, thus leading them to print with the cheaper print giants.
“Members of parliament have a strong interest in promoting their support of small printers when they are legally compelled to display the printers name,” says one anonymous electoral printer.
“Without the printed by stamp, nothing will stop parties from palming off the work to big brokers or printers, and you will end up having a collection of big printers dominating the election market.
“Printers complaining about the abuse should think about whether they would prefer the angry calls or not having the work at all.”
Macaulay says a potential solution to the issue may be changing the Act to require only the naming of which Federal electorate the material is printed in.
“One solution may be to change to requirement to identify what electorate it is printed in rather than a specific printer, which is a middle ground for both sides of the debate,” says Macaulay.
“At this stage we are still canvassing member opinions, and if there remains a strong divergence we may even need to leave it as it is and encourage stronger security against threats and trolls.
We understand that taking off the printer declaration removes accountability, and we are working towards a fair middle ground,” he adds.
The Association’s meeting with minister for communications The Hon Mitch Fifield also saw Macaulay push to convene with Australia Post CEO Ahmed Fahour to ‘discuss consultation in advance of increases in postal prices, as well as the vagaries of delivery times’.
Further issues discussed with members of parliament were the census transition from print to online and parallel book imports.
Comment below to have your say on this story.
If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.
Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter