Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1064 ..

MS DUNDAS (12.22): The ACT Democrats will be supporting the disallowance motion today. I am disappointed by the flippant arguments put forward by the Chief Minister about why we should not support the disallowance. I have noticed over the last little while that the government has been adopting the language and practices of corporate marketing. I want to make it clear that the Democrats oppose this superficial and cynical way of communicating with the community.

Even today we had a massive example of this marketing trend at the launch of the Canberra plan, which looked more like a trade fair than an actual public policy announcement of any substance. It was a very fun trade fair and I think everybody was pleased to be there, but the gloss did not let us get to the substance.

We have seen the increasing use of phone polling and focus groups instead of public meetings and stakeholder roundtables. We have seen more and more energy put into glossy brochures and cover design, big launches and public spectacles, with far less focus on detailed policy considerations or extensive and meaningful community consultation. The LAPACs, the local area planning and advisory committees, are a very good example of this. Where a consultation body has been shut down, we have seen nothing to replace it. But in the meantime we have the spatial plan being put forward.

This amendment that the government wants to make to the electoral regulations is in some respects a pretty minor change. But it is a continuation of a program of corporatisation that I believe is a threat to our democratic institutions. Why do we need a quarter of a million dollars spent every year on additional media advisers? Why do we need $10,000 spent on developing a logo for government? I do not think that the ACT government should be seen as a corporation. It does not need to be branded like a soft drink or a fast food chain. We need to consult and communicate with our community, not just give them marketing and image consultants.

We need to focus on the detail of the change for regulations that is proposed. We are talking about an apparently simple addition that allows the government document to be recognised by the presence of the phrase “Building our city, building our community”. This is the slogan that appears under the Labor government’s corporate style logo. It has a house, a building, some people, a tree and a road. And it is not only appearing on documents; this logo is now appearing on buildings—the ACT government owned buildings around the community.

However, this change to the regulation significantly changes the intention of section 295 of the Electoral Act. This section specifically sets out how a government document can be recognised and therefore whether that document should be exempted from the provisions relating to electoral matter. The Act states that a government document is recognised by the presence of the agency’s name, the phrase “Australian Capital Territory” or similar words, and the Canberra coat of arms. I believe that the last point is the real effect of the change to the electoral regulations. It means that the government no longer will need to display the Canberra coat of arms on government documents in order for them to be recognised as official. It can now replace the coat of arms with a market tested image managed logo. It is quite a drastic change to government policy to see the official symbol of Canberra being supplanted by a marketing campaign.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .