Page 5582 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Practices Act. It is, under the amendment, acceptable to use opinions, but they must be identified as such and not purport to be a statement of fact. This is a reasonable response to a complex issue and I commend it to the Assembly.
In relation to amendment 13, the committee received several submissions on the section. This is in relation to slogans and jingles. Leaving aside that road safety, health and routine advertising were all excluded, it was still felt that the section did not clearly articulate the purpose it was intended to address—that is, that advertising of legitimate announcements can be hijacked to become a political message. There have been a number of examples in the past, particularly at a federal level. Professor Sally Young provided a number of examples in work such as The Persuaders.
However, we accept the findings of the committee and we have revised the section to read that information in a government campaign must not include slogans or other advertising techniques designed to have or likely to have the effects of promoting a political party or possession instead of communicating a factual message. This covers the essence of the purpose designed in the original clause refined to more clearly express the intent.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (4:43): The government support these amendments. We think it is important that, most particularly, the comment or opinion must be clearly identified and clearly distinguished from statements. We agree with the proposition put in relation to slogans, jingles et cetera.
Amendments agreed to.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4:44): I move amendment No 14 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 5629].
The original bill required identification that the announcement was a government campaign at the beginning and the end. Submissions received indicated that this would occupy too much of the available air time, that only one was necessary and that there may be duplication with other legislation. The committee recommended removing this dual imposition.
We have accepted the recommendations as far as the submissions were concerned that two identifiers would take up too much time. However, we have adopted the approach that this single ID should be at the front. The biggest argument against this seems to be the turn-off factor. If all government advertising were compelling, the notification would be a plus.
It is worth, just in a print advertisement, demonstrating the effect of this, Madam Assistant Speaker. This is an ACT Health public notice. It is an advice from the Chief Health Officer, Australian Capital Territory, relating to asbestos at Pickles auction house. Clearly, that is ACT Health. Clearly, that is a public notice about a particular purpose. There is nothing in that that would see people not read it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video