Defence equipment advertising is both lawful and morally legitimate in a democracy

How banning defence equipment advertising in Australia would prevent overseas wars remains unexplained by its proponents. As does how such advertisers are also somehow responsible for atrocities overseas by those not using their products. Or why it is somehow no longer morally legitimate for liberal democracies such as Australia to lawfully use such defence equipment in, say, UN-endorsed operations to end or ameliorate overseas atrocities.


Letter to The Canberra Times 
Thursday, 03 September 2015
(published Thursday, 10 September 2015)

In answer to Martyn Hearie, Harry Davis and Peter Marshall (Letters, September 3), defence equipment advertisers surely retain the right to advertise their products lawfully.

Especially to the tax-payers of a country needing to modernise it’s defence force and which uses them only as per international law.

In answer to Peter’s queries, most of those advertising at Canberra airport are not ADA corporate members.

Indeed one of them has long reacted to the criticism that our independence enables and our public-interest watchdog role requires.

As the ADA website explains, to preserve this independence:

No ADA advocacy is or can be directed by any corporate member.

Our income has always mainly been from individual and institutional members with no commercial relationships with the Department of Defence.

Total contributions from the few institutional members with such relationships are capped at $5000 annually.

Finally, Peter should check with those of his party with national security portfolio responsibilities.

These Greens senators have always acknowledged the ADA’s independence and our institutional integrity as a public-policy contributor.


Back to Letters: 2015