He’s been itching to have a go since last Tuesday – since the
Government finally got control of those red leather benches – and
yesterday Special Minister of State Eric Abetz finally went the Clerk
of the Senate, Harry Evans. In what The Financial Review quaintly described as a “highly
unusual attack”, Abetz lodged a formal complaint against Evans and
questioned his legal and constitutional expertise.

Evans has told a Senate Committee inquiring into the government’s IR
ads that material submitted in the High Court case against the campaign
shows it is “clearly in violation of the constitution.”

“Senator Abetz accused Mr Evans, the Senate’s most senior public
servant, of compromising the non-partisan nature of his position and
doing ‘himself and the credibility of the Senate a grave disservice in
commenting in a most ill-informed manner’,” the Fin‘s Sophie Morris reports.

“Were I to have made this assertion about any of my colleagues in the
Senate, I am sure that Mr Evans would be instantly whirling around on
his chair to instruct the president to have me unreservedly withdraw
such a statement,” the Fin quotes Abetz as saying.

Kim Beazley praised shadow AG for her work on the High Court case in
yesterday’s Caucus meeting. The opposition aren’t the only people
concerned by the Government’s
industrial relations ads – let alone the decision to hire veteran Coalition adman Ted Horton to work on the campaign.

Fred Argy, a former Director of the Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC), let loose in Webdiary last week:

“Australia nominally has all the right democratic
institutions—regular elections, parliamentary sovereignty, ministerial
responsibility, an independent judiciary, federalism, a non-partisan
and expert public service and a free press. But these institutions
don’t always work the way they should and democracy is not just about
formal institutions; it is also about how the public opinion climate is
formed, how well-informed citizens are and their capacity to actively
participate in public debate. At both these levels—institutional and
participatory—there is cause for concern…

“Ideally, ‘information’ advertisements paid for by public money should
relate to legislation already enacted (or at least fully discussed by
the Parliament) and any judgemental argumentation in them should be
scrupulously balanced, with alternative views presented. The ads should
also be subject to independent oversight. Recent advertisements such as
on GST in 1998, on Medicare in 2004 and most recently on industrial
relations (IR) reform fail these tests. The decisions were made by a
Government Committee (the Ministerial Committee on Government
Communications) which is not accountable to Parliament or answerable to
Cabinet and not subject to independent oversight. Nor can their content
be described as non-political. The Broadcasting Services Act offers no
great impediment to the broadcasting of blatant political advertising
by governments using taxpayers’ funds.

“The current IR newspaper ads (responding to pre-emptive advertising by
the ACTU) are said to cost $20 million and are particularly
controversial. Unlike the Medicare ads, which related to new legislated
rights, the IR ads relate to a proposed and unlegislated policy
change—one that is highly divisive. And they do not tell a full and
balanced story.”

Read more in the Webdiary here.