1. Non-Discrimination
2. Health

The bill should be supported because it aims to protect children, a vulnerable group, from the pervasive influence of unhealthy food marketing. Such marketing contributes significantly to unhealthy dietary habits, leading to obesity and other chronic diseases that affect children's long-term health outcomes [Judgment]. Aligning with international standards, the bill reflects Australia's commitment to public health and the reduction of non-communicable diseases among children. The prohibition also aligns with recommendations from the World Health Organization, emphasizing the government's role in policy development to safeguard children's health.

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

While the bill's intentions are commendable, it may be argued that it imposes on the freedom of expression for broadcasters and advertisers. Commercial entities might view the restrictions as overly broad, potentially stifling legitimate marketing activities that could be better addressed through targeted educational campaigns or parental controls [Judgment]. Additionally, the definition of 'unhealthy food' as determined by governmental or ministerial instruments could result in arbitrary or inconsistent categorization, leading to challenges in enforcement and compliance.