So what has the government gained from its decision to exempt its tax reform campaign from its own vetting procedures, a decision that has taken another huge chunk out of Kevin Rudd’s credibility?
Fourteen days.
That’s the how much sooner the government will be able to air its television advertising courtesy of the decision.
Wayne Swan wrote to Joe Ludwig on May 10 asking for an exemption from the normal processes of vetting the advertising campaign that Treasury had been preparing since at least April 20, when the SPBC (that’s the prime minister, deputy PM, Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner) allocated $38.5 million for it. A communication strategy was developed and submitted to the government’s new Independent Communications Committee, headed by Dr Allan Hawke. The actual ads themselves, however, were still being prepared.
According to Swan’s letter to Ludwig, the first phase of the campaign, involving press ads, was going to commence on May 30, with TV, radio, press and online to come on June 20 “at the earliest” — the optimal timeframe for shooting and finalising the TV ads. “The benefit of the exemption from the Guidelines will be to ensure that advertising is able to go to air much more quickly,” Swan told Ludwig.
After Ludwig had agreed to the exemption on May 24, Swan replied four days later that radio, press and online advertising would start on May 29, a day earlier than the earlier schedule for the start of the press campaign; TV advertising would start on June 6, two weeks earlier than scheduled.
Reckon the government will get much value from the trade-off of its own credibility for two weeks’ extra ads?
The alternative is that the ICC might not have approved the campaign once the advertising itself was developed. This seems a tad unlikely, however, given it had already approved the strategy and it had approved the government’s health reform ads, which aren’t much different in purpose from the tax reform ads the government will put out.
The government could resolve that particular issue by asking the ICC to have a look at the campaign concurrently with it going to air. The committee could then indicate whether it believes the campaign is within the government’s guidelines. I have a sneaking suspicion it would, mainly because the advertising guidelines are so broad.
Nevertheless, it might help retain what little credibility the government has left on the subject if it allowed the committee to consider the campaign.
True: Labor can be its own worst enemy sometimes! There are moments when politicians lose perspective and this is clearly one of them.
I am not angry about the advertising plans informing us about the tax on the mining companies. I am indifferent. Howard lifted the art of using tax payers money to a whole new level when he was in government. Much more than $35 million was spent by Howard and the coalition to propaganda the community. I still remember the “pro work choices” adds – opps – I mean “information”. All paid for by the tax payer. Like this lot.
It all comes around doesn’t it! I heard that every government that comes to power spends more than the government before them, on such sharing of “information” with the public.
I am hopeful that people are waking up to all this. It seems like it. IF the latest polls are accurate… then more and more people are leaving both Labor and Liberal for the Greens. Good to see!
“Nevertheless, it might help retain what little credibility the government has left on the subject if it allowed the committee to consider the campaign.” Would it really? If the committee approved the ads, as you suggest, mightn’t that just make things look even worse for the govt, by exposing what a sham the process is? After all, if you can get advocacy ads for a policy proposal past the committee, what couldn’t you get?
It seems to me that this Gov’t is perpetually damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. It wouldn’t have taken Einstein to figure out the Miners would launch an anti tax campaign once it was announced and the Opposition cries fowl no matter what it says or does in regards to any issue. Credibility on every issue may be a luxury no Government can maintain. Can anyone tell me the last Gov’t that did?
Kerry O’Brien obviously doesn’t read Bernard or Crikey, having seen on the 7.30 Report tonight (Tues 1 June) his total surprise at learning that the tv part of the RSPT advertising campaign had been brought forward by (oh my God) two weeks. That was Kerry’s main argument trashed in a powerful and confident performance by the Treasurer.
The big O even resorted (a number of times) to cute little double-finger quotes either side of his noggin to emphasise how he thought Wayne was fibbing. Pathetic actually, and I won’t say that Kerry needs to be put out to pasture. That is bleedingly obvious.
But the ageing fox brought out the reserves (originally intended as the ‘salt on the wound’) that would cinch the notion that the ad campaign was really a ploy to boost the Government’s stocks before the election, because quite simply, Kevin Rudd was mortally wounded and could not prosecute the RSPT case as he did back in 2007 with the ETS campaign.
Good on the Treasurer for throwing it all back in Kerry’s face. Once the fox realised he had lost the main argument he should have withdrawn, and the way he misjudged the rest of the interview goes to show how the increasingly partisan Kerry should exit stage left while he still retains some credibility.
Peking Duck
@David – no, I don’t supposed anyone can maintain credibility on everything, but I’m not aware of any govt having used taxpayers’ money to promote a policy proposal – something not even legislated for – until John Howard’s GST ads of 1998. For most of our history that was the job of political parties, not governments.