Update – 26/6: Republished, with permission, in today’s Crikey email.
Nick Evans writes:
The announcement of a ‘broadband fix’ by the Federal Government last week was quickly followed by accusations that the announcement was more about politics than policy, and the leaking of an email from the Minister’s office calling up a list of marginal seats for the Cabinet discussions really only leant weight to the argument.
But, in addition, a quick flick through last week’s Hansard reveals that the Government’s use of the issue to shore up marginal seat holders runs deeper even than that.
Last Tuesday’s Hansard contains this exchange between Labor’s Chris Evans and Communication’s Minister Helen Coonan:
Senator CHRIS EVANS (2.54 p.m.)–My question is directed to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister explain to the Senate how the member for Stirling, Mr Keenan, was able to have an advertisement in local newspapers promoting Australia Connected published on Tuesday of this week, the same day as the official launch? Was there a leak of the minister’s plans from her office or was it the case that as a member in a marginal seat, one of those listed in the 40 taken to cabinet, Mr Keenan was provided with advance information as part of the government’s political fix? Doesn’t this again confirm that the minister’s announcement is much more about short-term politics than about the long-term communications needs of this country?
Senator COONAN–As I said earlier, this policy has been in prospect and being developed for eight months and it is fully costed. There are coverage maps for the whole of Australia and it is a policy that has been carefully developed. Under no circumstances could it be said that this policy has been developed either in response to the Labor Party or to the forthcoming election. This has been in prospect since the supplementary budget portfolio statements of September 2005. How can you conflate a date back in 2005 to some urgent outcome in 2007? That is seriously overstating the case. The important thing about the so-called leaked email is that what it referred to was a series of maps that were being prepared, and those broadband coverage maps were prepared and released in their final form to all MPs on the day of the announcement. I stand by that–they were released on the day of the announcement. That is not to say that certain members may have made some sort of submission to the office; I will have to take that on notice.
Opposition senators interjecting–
Senator COONAN–Well, if you do not want me to take it on notice I will withdraw that offer. What I will say is what I know, and that is that all coverage maps, irrespective of whether they were Liberal, Labor, National or Independent, were released at the same time yesterday after the announcement.
Senator CHRIS EVANS–Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister did not actually answer the question. I ask when were the government MPs on the list of 40 considered by cabinet first advised. Is it the fact that they received information prior to the maps being distributed yesterday? If they were not advised earlier, how could the member for Stirling have got his advertisement into the papers today? Can the minister advise whether or not the ad was drafted by the government members secretariat on behalf of those members? Isn’t it the case that you didn’t release the information yesterday but you had put in a political campaign well before the announcement was made?
Senator COONAN–Senator Evans is completely wrong about that. The maps in their final form and all the details of the releases were released after the announcement was made yesterday.
To spell it out: the Liberal Member for the (very marginal) seat of Stirling in WA, Michael Keenan, had an ad about the broadband announcement in the local Guardian Express on the Tuesday after the announcement was made (the Minister’s press release is dated the 18th of June).
Now, if you haven’t dealt with the booking system in a local newspaper before, a Tuesday distribution, has a booking date of the previous Tuesday (12th) and artwork must be supplied by the Thursday 14th) – though from personal experience you can, at a pinch, get away with putting the artwork in on the Friday if you’re a good customer.
And, of course, the artwork must be done up which also takes time – and you’d be on a hiding to nothing if you bet that similar ads were lodged in target marginal seats across the country, with pretty similar artwork.
So, to add it all up – the Minister calls for maps of marginal seats while Cabinet is considering their broadband proposal; the proposal substantially benefits marginal government seats and those marginal seat holders are tipped about the announcement far enough in advance to be able to get ads about it into their local paper the same day that the announcement reaches the newspapers…
All we need is a Liberal Party linked agency to get a multi-million dollar government contract for a mass media campaign to ‘inform us about the new arrangements’ and the corruption of public policy for political gain will be complete.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that Michael Keenan and Stirling have been mentioned in the context of bodgy electioneering practises. Labor’s John Faulkner hauled the defence department over the coals in estimates last year, after the department apparently supplied Keenan with large numbers of tax payer purchased copies of a defence pamphlet which then somehow managed to find their way into an electorate wide mail-out in the marginal seat.
PS – apologies for the two step links to the relevant Hansard transcripts. The site’s permalinks don’t actually appear to work at all.
Great pick up there Nick, unfortunately this isn’t the least bit surprising. (sigh)
Isn’t the above a small example of the sort of utter untrustworthiness we have seen for eleven years now, week in, weekout; day in, day out?
Yet the electorate, after all this time, can’t seem to grasp why this sort of behaviour is grounds for suspicion of the government and justification for its removal.
Fair enough, the ALP has not been proven to be much use in opposition, but then we don’t know if a hypothetical decade under Labor in government might have been transformative for it and the country. After all, Hawke and Keating at their worst were no worse than Howard!
True, too, that some of the Labor state governments have been vile.
Personally, I prefer the Greens or even Democrats over certain elements within Labor). What I can’t see is how the electorate can be justified for its rewarding of Tory bad behaviour for nearly a dozen years?
Could Labor have been or be any WORSE?
If Rudd proved to be a fraction as bad as the other mob, I’d applaud his removal after three years!
That would be eight years less than Australians have given the Coalition. In the meantime, at least the country would have the chance to break the vice-like grip the Howardist vested interests have on qangos, lobbying and bureaucracy.
That Michael Keenan. What a bloke. He’s even a better clairvoyant than that American guy in The Dead Zone.
Did someone hit him in the head recently?
Maybe,the Australian population didnt give Howard power at all,but rules governing this so-called democracy did,and how many Australians have left the shores before during and after elections,and those from other countries arriving,but,not via a few little islands.This isnt being anti-stranger,but more,did they know!? I prefer the hueristics of the elections because I already carry some emotional pain,and foul language isnt an immediate right here or elsewhere. I may have mis-spelt heuristics!?
Interesting. It shows that there must be a bunch of this stuff happening that no-one ever hears about.
The defence force pamphlet, and now this – and that’s only one seat!
Thanks for trawling Hansard for us Nick! Somebody’s got to do it!
I just love all this mock indignation…..
Paul Walter answered his own implied question “Yet the electorate, after all this time, can’t seem to grasp why this sort of behaviour is grounds for suspicion of the government and justification for its removal”
with this answer
“Fair enough, the ALP has not been proven to be much use in opposition, but then we don’t know if a hypothetical decade under Labor in government might have been transformative for it and the country. After all, Hawke and Keating at their worst were no worse than Howard!
True, too, that some of the Labor state governments have been vile.”
It’s politics team – get over it! Politicians lie, are sneaky, use any tricks they can to push their own agenda – and don’t think the Greens or Democrats are holier than thou…. Bob Brown has been known to pull off a few stunts in his day!
To get re-elected, Howard needs to get voters thinking about just two things when they enter the ballot box – the economy and national security. That means neutralising any debate on side issues such as broadband, education, environment etc So low and behold – we have a broadband plan to follow the $5bn Uni trust fund and the carbon trading system…. for the average punter – Howard is acting on broadband, education and the environment…..
The the regular punter it’s now back to regular programming – have I got a job, what are interest rates doing, who’s going to keep the troublesome aboriginals in line and out of the city, and who’s going to keep radical Islam out of Australia….hmmmmmm….. maybe I’ll vote for Howard again.
And in Breaking news, yet another piece of Rudd Mud Slinging has failed to hit it’s target.
Fancy an ex real estate salesman like keenan being involved in something shonky?