The Federal Government has refused to say how much it paid for its "hard-hitting new advertising campaign" video warning of the dangers of the drug ice, which is a scene-for-scene remake of a 2007 ad.

A new TV commercial released on May 9 as part of an $11 million spend to warn people of the dangers of ice, or crystal methamphetamine, is an almost identical remake of an ad produced in 2007, both opening with a doctor explaining the harmful effects of the drug.

When the ads are played side by side, the narration and action on screen mirror each other identically on a number of occasions.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Listen Duration: 3 minutes 51 seconds 3 m 51 s Groups warn anti-ice funding shouldn't come at expense of alcohol programs Download 7.1 MB

Scenes of glass shattering after being hit by a thrown object, concerned relatives being assaulted and falling to the floor, attacks on emergency staff and a user scratching at their bloodied forearms, all happen simultaneously or seconds apart.

Despite the similarities, Assistant Minister For Health Fiona Nash launched the campaign on May 9, calling the new ad a "hard-hitting new advertising campaign aimed at educating families and the broader community about the dangers of the drug ice, or crystal methamphetamine".

A spokeswoman for the Health Department acknowledged the latest advertisement, produced by Brisbane agency BCM Partnership, was "modelled" on the 2007 production, which was made by a different agency.

When contacted by the ABC, BCM Partnership refused to divulge how much they had been paid and directed enquiries to the Health Department.

In a statement, the department said the original campaign was "recently retested amongst young people and parents with the strategic approach, messaging and harms found to be still highly credible.

"The original campaign has not run since 2009. (It was taken off air by the former government)."

The department said the campaign had been "re-developed to incorporate a regional focus and new imagery to better reflect the impact of ice on the broader community".

"It also provides a range of new advertising materials for online and social media channels – elements which were not possible in the original campaign.

"These are essential to reach today's youth given their current media consumption habits have changed so significantly from 2007."

Anti-smoking campaign good example: Gordon

Dr Ross Gordon, lecturer at Sydney's Macquarie University and president of Australian Association of Social Marketing, argues the ads miss the mark.

"Running the same campaign over and over again, which we know from research doesn't work, seems like a strange thing to do," he said.

"Just trying to lecture them to not take ice doesn't work. They don't talk to them in their language."

The Health Department cited market testing of the new campaign which showed it was effective, but did not release the research to the ABC.

Dr Gordon said makers of the ice campaign should have followed the lessons learned by successful anti-smoking ads.

Similar scenes depicting an ice user being tackled by police in hospital, from the 2015 and 2007 Federal Government anti-ice ads. ( Supplied )

"We had the mass media campaign that tried to demoralise smoking, making it seem like it wasn't acceptable," Dr Gordon said.

"They're also realistic. They tell people 'look, you're not going to be able to quit straight away but stick with it and here are some services to support you in doing that'.

"People that take ice know that there are also health risks but they still choose to do it and they choose to do it for a number of reasons but until you understand them you won't get any progress.

"The starting point would be to do research and gain insight from the target group and build any campaign around the language and the lifestyles that they're engaged with."

Why not just run old ad again?

Tim Burrowes, content director at media news and commentary website Mumbrella, said it was clearly a copy, but the reasons for an agency to do so were not clear.

"Without a shadow of a doubt ... clearly it is a deliberate remake. What is less clear is why," Mr Burrowes said.

He described it as "very unusual, I'd personally struggle to think of other examples of when it has been done before".

He said one possible explanation could be the earlier ad being shot in Standard Definition (SD) and the new ad being remade to the newer High Definition (HD) format, which is not available on Australian free-to-air TV.

"But, if that was the case, I don't know why they just didn't say that."

Asked how much an ad like the 2015 version would cost to produce, Mr Burrowes guessed "in the hundreds of thousands of dollars".

"Could they have not just repurposed the old ad, if it was so effective?"