Page 173 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
• Information in a government campaign must not include slogans or other advertising techniques, for example, jingles.
The last principle is important, because jingles and slogans are clearly part of the armoury of the advertisers, not part of the business of government. One of the reasons the line is blurred between government and election advertising is how similar the two look and feel to the consumer. If a campaign is truly designed to educate or impart information, jingles and slogans need play no part. For example, even during elections, there are strict guidelines on how messages can be used on taxpayer funded broadcasters such as the ABC. We propose similar limitations on using taxpayer funded advertising in any medium.
Campaigns must not be directed at promoting the government or a political party in any way. Occasionally a proposal such as this one today has been criticised even by federal members of my own party for failing to address the proposition that promotion of a government activity is, by default, promotion of a political party.
Our bill seeks to remove that by insisting that advertising promotes only the policy itself and not its proponent. Specific examples include mentioning the party in government or the party leader by name; deriding the views, policies or actions of others, including policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups; including party political slogans or images designed to influence public support for a political party, candidate for election, minister or member of the Assembly or mentioning or linking to a website of a politician or a political party.
Information must be produced in an efficient, effective and relevant way. Mr Rattenbury, as I noted earlier, noted the needless excess of some government advertising, which could not be justified on any communicative basis. This bill seeks to reduce the glitz and get governments to stick to the facts. We do not need glossy brochures when a simple one would suffice. We do not need Hollywood TV ads when a voiceover would impart the same information.
Government ads must be clearly identified. This is a requirement currently, but we are suggesting that an advertisement is identified as a government campaign at the start as well as the end.
There should be recognition of diversity. As is sensible in campaigns aimed at information, rather than influence, this bill asks that campaigns be reflective of the diversity of the community and with full access to all.
Lastly, and most importantly, there should be no government campaign advertising 12 weeks out from an election. One of the most blatant misuses of taxpayer advertising dollars is the use of constant or even increased spending in the run-up to an election. We observe the convention that advertising should not be used during the campaign proper, but we can all cite examples of government expenditure leading right up to that campaign, whereupon it is changed to almost identical looking campaigns of the incumbent party in a seemingly seamless transition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .