From today’s Crikey email:
Kim Beazley must have been onto something with his selection of retired SAS officer Peter Tinley to run for Stirling.
In Estimates hearings on Monday, John Faulkner did what he does best – probed hapless Defence bureaucrats to uncover some political skulduggery.
After May’s budget, Defence printed 5000 copies of a booklet summarising its budget, and sent a few copies each to individual MPs and Senators’ offices. A typical piece of government public relations, one would assume. Initial copies were sent to RSL Clubs and others on the Department’s mailing list. Faulkner’s questions revealed otherwise.
Subsequently, 63,000 copies were printed for Members and Senators. Defence claims not to know who asked for them. They were distributed directly by the printer according to a list provided by Nelson’s office.
But it turns out that fully 37,000 copies of the full colour 16 page A5 publication [link to pdf] were distributed to households in the electorate of Stirling. They were paid for by Senator Chris Ellison’s postage allowance.
Defence officials claimed it was not a partisan document.
However, through further questioning, it was revealed that the words: “Written and authorised by the honourable Dr Brendan Nelson MP, Minister for Defence, Parliament House, Canberra ACT” and a printer’s imprint were added to the second print run, on the grounds that it was being distributed through MPs’ offices. So Defence claims it wasn’t partisan, but then admitted that they added a printed and authorised because they knew that it would appear political. Which it was.
Sources in Western Australia say that Liberal Party polling shows the one term member for Stirling, Michael Keenan, has poor name recognition and that his chances of re-election aren’t looking flash. Billboards appearing around the electorate in recent months suggest that these sources are right, and the Liberal Party is spending up big.
But so apparently is the public purse.
It would seem logical that the Liberals’ polling is also picking up national security as a weakness in marginal electorates like Stirling. Defence is being used to defend the seat. Keenan has previously tried the brilliant tactic of politicising Anzac Day with a glossy brochure distributed in the electorate featuring his Leader’s photo.
Kim Beazley might have rendered his final service to the ALP in his own state with the clever selection of a decorated former Army Officer to contest the poll against Keenan.
I agree. It was a pretty marginal win by Keenan in 2004, so a strong candidate like Tinley is a smart move.
The Libs seem to love using billboards. In 2004, I remember massive billboards of Keenan’s head all over Perth, to which sets of horns were regularly added. Maybe it has something to do with his goodlookingness? It’s not like he had any competition, though – Jann McFarlane was no Julie Bishop, let alone a Kate Ellis.
Mark:
Several times recently, I have reminded everyone of the comflict inside the U.S. military during the earlier part of the Viet-Nam War.
On one side, there were the Pentagon’s thud-and-blunder time-servers, the people who had pipe-dreams of bombing their way to victory without bothering to understand their Enemy or to make contingency plans.
On the other side, there were the bright, dynamic, experienced young Special Forces officers straight back from the stark realities of fighting the Viet-Cong on their own home-ground.
Let’s all hope that a similar fracture is not now happening inside Australia’s Defence Department. If it is …. then 37 000 rounds of H & I have just been fired.
All:
Truly amazing. No comments on this potentially very damaging issue for 24 hours ….. or do D Notices apply at Larvatus Prodeo too?
OK, I’ll bite.
Contrary to the implications of this article, Defence is actually one of the least politically partisan agencies of government. Recall Air Marshal Houston and the ‘children overboard’ affair. I worked as a Defence civilian for several years, and the notion of Defence putting out propaganda for a political party is ridiculous.
The decision to write and publish the document in the first place would not have been taken on political grounds. Defence is constantly releasing glossy booklets and leaflets for its own PR purposes. I have a thick file of them from the 90s.
Regarding distribution to the electorate of Stirling: “They were paid for by Senator Chris Ellison’s postage allowance.” OK then. The Senator paid for the distribution of these. What’s the problem?
If this is an example of Crikey’s skill at investigative journalism, I’m glad I never bothered to subscribe.
The Senator didn’t pay for them himself. We did. If it’s intended to be an informational booklet for people in the field, fine. If it’s to be a mass Liberal Party mailout then the taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for it.
Is that clear about what the problem is?
If it wasn’t political, they wouldn’t have added “printed and authorised by” to the second – huge – print run. If it was standard practice, it would have been on there during the first small run. It wasn’t.
This is an incredibly dodgy mailout. The taxpayers paid for a full-colour brochure through the defence budget. Either it was important enough that everyone in the country should have received it, or it wasn’t. What kind of department budget information is only necessary in marginal seats?
I’ve just been reading the transcript of the estimates hearing at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9780.pdf
Apparently the initiative came out of the Minister’s office, not the Department. The person answering Faulkner’s questions was someone I remember from my Defence days: a senior bureaucrat by the name of Peter Jennings.
Jennings is identified with the Liberal party, and indeed, if I remember correctly, he drafted the Liberal Defence policy for John Hewson.
Nonetheless, the transcript establishes that “there was a substantial uptake [of the document] … across party lines within the House and the Senate.” The ALP apparently sent out a mass mailing of the document to the Labor seat of Cowan (although Jennings did not have the exact figures for how many were sent).
I stand by my previous comments.
That substantial uptake amounted to “significantly less than 1000 per member or senators that requested the material”. Earlier in the transcript they admit they didn’t know where it went once it left the printer.
So – about 65 members and senators ordered an average of 1000 each, yet somehow the Liberal Member of a marginal electorate under threat managed to get his hands on about 37 000. You think that’s OK, do you?
The defence budget paid for the printing of these brochures, yet left it to others to decide where it went. They played no role in distributing their own brochure, kept no records of whom it was sent to, and somehow half of them ended up in one marginal seat.
There’s a difference between a Labor MP sending it out to a few RSLs and interested constituents, and a Liberal MP whose seat is under threat sending it out to his entire electorate and not having to use an electoral printing allowance to do so.
I recall reading that each Senator and MP has an enormous postal allowance – it seems to go up every few years and is quite substantial now – at least many tens of thousands of dollars or maybe even 5 figures? I don’t know.
I’m sure it’s very useful for distributing “parliamentary information” to electors.
Here’s your answer: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mps-get-60m-junk-mail-allowance/2006/08/16/1155407883862.html
The Special Minister of State also happens to be a marginal seat holder. Is that a conflict of interest I wonder…
This isn’t about how much each MP is given to spend.
The Defence Department paid for the brochure – Senator Ellison only paid for the postage. The huge money spent on printing it wasn’t taken out of the huge budget they already have for printing.
The taxpayers paid for it out of the defence budget that’s apparently supposed to help protect us from the terrorists, and they still have to pay for the huge printing allowance given to each MP.
I trust Paulus understands Howard’s sadness that there’s no scope for income tax cuts. It’s because of FACTORS BEYOND HIS CONTROL and not at all because of his bloated public sector waste….
Mmmm, just think of the 0.1 of a cent tax cut each and every Australian citizen could have had if Defence hadn’t spent that $20k on the brochure. You’ve convinced me, Kim. Give me that 0.1c Howard, you bastard!
P.S. There is waste in the Defence organisation, to make the cost of this brochure seem loose change by comparison. Let’s keep our eye on the big picture, shall we?
Yes – what a waste of the Defence budget – they could have spent it on another fridge magnet to help protect us from terrorists.
Well, with an attitude like this from such intelligent people, it’s fairly clear to me now why Howard’s managed to get away with this sort of thing for so long.
This is just one example – do you really think it’s the only time it’s happened?
I live in the electorate of Stirling and have done for 12 years.
I had never heard of Michael Keenan before the last election but I actually met him – twice – in the election campaign. Once when I was doing my grocery shopping and once down the beach. Maybe it was just a coincidence or alternatively he did a lot of hitting the street work in the election campaign. Before the last election I’d never seen a candidate in public like that before.
Paulus:
I do appreciate your concern and perhaps there are indeed many decent, honourable, honest and dedicated people in Defence.
Sadly, we have seen too many examples of what the other sort can do in the way of dodgy deals, political favours, back-scratching and cover-up ….. Nomad crashes, gas warfare experiments in North Queensland during the Second World War, Agent Orange, nuclear weapons tests in Australia, very noisy submarines, M60 machine guns, etc., etc., …. they just can’t help themselves. Political interference would just come so naturally to them again. They’ve got form.
What we really have to concentrate on is how to change the corporate culture inside Defence so that this sort of shenanegans can never happen again.