Page 5583 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In fact, the fact that it is at the top actually draws people’s attention to it. We see other examples, such as one with Mr Barr’s picture on it, which are less clear at the top. The same would be true with electronic advertising. In electronic advertising, if you had an important government message about swine flu I dare to suggest that you would get people’s attention.
If it is a genuinely important government message then it would grab people’s attention. So we actually believe that there should be nothing to fear from governments putting it up the front, being up-front that it is a government advertisement and then giving the message, whatever that may be. We do not see why there is anything special about having it at the back. In fact, we would argue that putting it up the front is far more transparent, far more open. People know from the moment they are watching it that they are indeed watching a government advertisement.
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) (4:46): The government do not support this amendment. We believe this is a very serious issue and I have an amendment on the same subject. My amendment No 10 proposes that the words at the beginning of clause 13(3) be removed. I am speaking to my amendment now at the same time as speaking to Mr Seselja’s amendment.
I do not disagree with, most particularly, the printed Health example and many cases in relation to issues like that where there is a genuine health issue—potentially, a crisis—where the government is seeking to alert people of the seriousness of a health issue, whether it be swine flu, asbestos or, indeed, any issue of significant public health concern.
There is an advertising advantage in that advertisement in saying that essentially this is a message from ACT Health to draw people’s attention to the urgency of it, particularly in an area where there is a crisis, potential crisis or a genuine health issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Similarly, in relation to Emergency Services, as an advertising technique one would want to highlight the fact that this message comes to you from a reputable, trusted part of government that is concerned about your health or your safety.
We do it deliberately. That particular advertisement highlights to a particular, significant extent the fact that it is a health person so that people will stop and pay attention. But my advice, and it is advice from the department, advice garnered from advertising experts and those that essentially do this for a living—I am sure they would give you the same advice if you asked them—is that it diminishes the effect and power of an advertisement dramatically if, at the outset, there is a message that this is a government advertisement.
People do turn off. They do not listen unless it is a matter of immediate concern to them directly in relation to their personal wellbeing or their personal safety. In other
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video