Remember those ridiculous big business-sponsored ads showing three thugs (supposed to represent union members) switching the lights off at a dress-maker store? Needless to say that militant unions and textile industry (especially small tailor shops) are not a realistic combination. In fact, somewhat ludicrously, one of the purported "union thugs" is wearing a CFMEU symbol - it is hard to see how CFMEU would be involved in dress-making shops, but obviously there is not need for reality in the favourite past-time of big business and Howard government - constructing union activists as thugs.
But with this ad the big-business sponsors have shown a closer associated with thugs than the union officials they are keen to defame. The Age reports that two of the three actors in the ad are real life criminals, convicted of a host of offences, including drugs, dishonesty crimes and sexual crimes against under-age girls.
The ad was pulled after the identity of these "actors" was revealed, but it has served its purpose - showing that the big business unions may well have closer association with thuggery than the unions that defend workers' rights. This is yet another embarrassment in the WorkChoices advertising campaign: a little while ago an ad had to be discontinued when it was discovered that actor in the ad ripped off his workers to the tune of about $13K and is now being prosecuted. Perhaps it is just too hard to get honest actors who could even pretend to support the Howard government's unfair workplace laws.
Watching TV is becoming increasingly more unpleasant - those incessant WorkChoices ads are very annoying. The nonsense about employees having “even more protection” from an ambiguous and unenforceable, backpacker administered fairness test, the smug looking actors trying to convince us that employers would never sack anyone unfairly, the self-serving big business ads…
So I decided that every time those ads become particularly annoying, I’ll be running a counter-advertising campaign on this blog.
Imagine the outcry if our television screens were flooded with advertisements telling us that Coke is a health drink. Public authorities and various governments would surely kick up a storm - the blatant falsehood of the advertisements, the deception that a drink that is at best mildly harmful is presented as something good for the people, the cries about obesity in children, the declarations that Australian people should be protected from misleading ads telling us that something that is bad for us is in fact good.
Well, the good news is that no one is advertising Coke as a health drink. The other bit of good news is that, consumed in moderation, Coke isn't going to do you much harm. The bad news is that while public authorities and governments would rush to protect us from the evils of misleading Coke advertising, they are the worst offenders in peddling poisons as heath drinks or tolerating such conduct from political allies.
Yes, I'm talking about those damn WorkChoices advertisements. The current "favourite" is the ad with the two guys sitting in a pub and one of them tells the other that his boss gave him an AWA, he read through it and it "looked alright", but the boss had to bump up his pay to get the AWA through. Oh so you got a payrise, says the other guy and immediately requests that the first bloke buy the next drink. How delightfully Aussie, eh. And how utterly misleading! In what circumstances would the boss have to up the pay? Only if, as occurs with almost all AWAs, our happy drinker was required to give away one or more protected condition, and the boss had to provide whatever small compensation a backpacker with a spreadsheet determines is appropriate. Does the ad mention this? Of course not. Let's just mislead people into believing that an AWA automatically leads to higher pay. They are good for you. Just like Coke is a health drink.
We have laws to protect us from blatantly false advertising for products. But nothing protects us from misleading political advertising. One might think that being misled into electing a government whose policies will deprive your kids of security and fairness in the workplace is at least as harmful as your kids drinking too much Coke. But of course neither political party is anxious to ensure that political advertising (whether via TV ads or sending dodgy letters attacking the Greens) is accurate or at least not blatantly misleading. And the Libs are certainly not interested in stopping the "union of bosses" aka the big business coalition from airing misleading ads.
Well, if blogs are "citizen journalism" then lets have some citizen counter-advertising. Here's a great version of the big business ad, with a few corrections introduced along the way. Enjoy.
I have previously written about the Howard government's extraordinary waste of taxpayer money on advertising itself. The most recent Sunday Age investigation reveals that Howard government has spent $2 billion of taxpayers money on political advertising. Two hundred million will be spent this year alone, before Howard calls an election. Since the previous election, Howard government is said to have spent an extraordinary $850 million of our money on self-promotion.
A government representative Peter Phelps denies these figures, but these denials ring hollow when you consider that the government goes to great lengths to conceal its advertising expenditure from any oversight. If the government won't let us know how much of our money it is spending, it forfeits the right to dispute figures uncovered by investigations. Mr Phelp's credibility falls into further doubt when he attempts to argue that the spending of $2 billion is "not excessive" because in "the final years of the Keating government" they spent $100 million per year "in real terms".
Phelp's statement is yet another example of government dishonesty. Spending $2 billion dollars of our money is not excessive because the Keating government spent a fraction of that?! The government tried to use a similar excuse with the Senate Committee in 2004. The argument was rejected by the Committee. The Committee stated:
Between 1991-92 and 1995-96, the average yearly advertising expenditure through the Central Advertising System was $85.6 million. Between 1996-97 and 2003-04, the average yearly expenditure on advertising was $126.75 million.1 The median expenditure over the whole period from 1991-92 to 2003-04 was $97 million. Expenditure by the Howard government since 1996-97 thus averages $29.75 million more than the median; expenditure by the Keating Labor government prior to 1996-97 averaged $11.4 million less than the median. Excluding the bi-partisan advertising campaigns for Defence Force Recruitment, the next nine most expensive advertising campaigns since 1991 have been conducted by the Howard government.
1. The figures are in 2003-04 prices. They reflect only the cost of ’media placement’ over this period, and do not include the cost of the design and production of the advertisements, public relations, market research and evaluation costs, or publication and distribution costs.
Let's remember that this was before the increase in Howard government's advertising expenditure since the 2004 election (having a Senate majority and being able to avoid scrutiny obviously helps). Let's also recall that the Committee found that it in fact underestimated the advertising expenditure, thanks to the lack of transparency and the government's refusal to cooperate with the Committee. And of course let's not forget that, although the Keating government advertising expenditure of $85.6 million (in today's values) falls well short of Howard's extraordinary advertising splurge - $200 million per year on average, almost $300 million per year over the last three years, Howard, as the Leader of the Opposition, vociferously criticised the Keating government for spending taxpayer money on government advertising.
There is a press release that the government would like us to forget. In the release, titled "Auditor-General to examine Government advertising" on 5 September 1995, Howard stated:
"This soiled Government is to spend a massive $14 million of taxpayers’ money over the next two months as part of its pre-election panic. Judging by information coming from within the public service, if the full communication barrage runs its course it could reach $50 million. This Government has effectively allowed the Labor Party to get its fingers into the taxpayers’ till"
…
"there is clearly a massive difference between necessary Government information for the community and blatant Government electoral propaganda"
…
"[when] in Government, we will ask the Auditor-General to draw up new guidelines on what is an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money in this area".
Upon being elected, the government promptly forgot the difference between necessary information and government propaganda, as well as its promise of independent guidelines in this area. I guess it was a non-core commitment and the lure of billions of taxpayer dollars for self-promotion was just too much to resist.
Howard's hypocritical reaction to Labor's vastly smaller advertising spend is not something that Peter Phelps wants to remind us of. He would also like us to forget that the government presently has 18 campaigns on the go - there are the "don't know where you stand" Workchoices advertisements (to compliment the blatantly misleading big business ads), there are the "we are so good on superannuation reform" ads, there is supposed to be a massively expensive climate change campaign (no doubt designed to change the political climate rather than to forestall global warming), there are the "if you see or hear anything suspicious" security hotline ads (I wonder if seeing or hearing a dodge government ad counts as "suspicious"?) and many others. Peter Phelps wouldn't want us to know that the Howard government advertising spending is one of the highest in the world on a per capita basis or that it is the biggest advertiser in Australia.
And he wouldn't want us to remember that the $2 billion dollars he doesn't think is excessive, means $100 from the pocket of every man, woman and child in Australia. When someone puts their grubby hand into your pocket and, without your permission, helps himself to $100 for every member of your family, do you trust them to represent your interests? Do you trust them to run the country? Do you trust them enough to listen to their misleading advertisements and vote for them in the next election?
If you do, can I give you an address to send your $100 to?
It's not like we have enough misleading Howard government advertisements clogging up our TV screens, a coalition of business groups have now released their own "independent" advertisement in support of Howard government WorkChoices laws (designed by Liberal party pollsters, no doubt for maximum independence from the government!). If anyone was in any doubt about whom the IR laws were designed to benefit, that doubt should have been dispelled by the business groups spending millions on these advertisements. But lets take a look at the ad:
The ad starts with telling us that "it hasn't been easy, but over the last two decades Australia has undergone workplace reform". Well, that's interesting, lets stop right there. Over the last two decades? So a decade before the Howard government the then Labor governments were changing and reforming our IR system to make sure it kept up with the times. But that's not what these business groups want - they don't just want progress, they want the extremes of Howard government's IR agenda.
Then we have those great slogans of all WorkChoices propaganda "Choice", "Flexibility" and "Productivity". Yes, the business groups would like the choice and flexibility it gives the employers to cut their employees' conditions, wages and protections and to force more flexibility out of employees. There are no real choices or flexibilities for the employees, but who cares about the workers, right? The ad then heads into even murkier waters. "Australia's economy has grown by nearly 4%" it boasts - quoting March '07 quarter ABS figures. This is accompanied by a graph showing the rate of growth in seasonally-adjusted GDP increasing from zero to 4% (presumably in response to WorkChoices legislation):
The representation in the graph is blatantly misleading. Needless to say, before the introduction of WorkChoices, GDP growth was nowhere near zero. Secondly, the ad suggests that there is some sort of a causal relationship between WorkChoices and 3.8% annual increase in the GDP evident from ABS figures. No such relationship has been established. Further, GDP growth has on several occasions exceeded the 3.8% in the last decade, see the graph below:
The rate of GDP growth goes up and down in cycles (the average over the 20th century is about 3.5%). To implicitly suggest that the current rate of growth is unusually high or that it is causally related to WorkChoices is to engage in deception.
The subsequent representations that "since the introduction of workplace reforms" new jobs have been created, exports increased and higher dividends have been paid to shareholders are similarly misleading because they suggest a causal relationship between WorkChoices and any economic events since their introduction. The suggestion is utter nonsense. For example, employment figures have been increasing steadily for more than a decade before the introduction of WorkChoices. Similarly, export growth figures are not unusual and the sector is much more likely to be affected by free trade agreements that have been signed, international price and currency fluctuations and international economies than WorkChoices. The suggestion of a link between the two is simply mischievous. The same reasoning applies to dividends to shareholders. Incidentally - if there is a link between dividends and WorkChoices then perhaps we should blame the recent sharemarket collapse on WorkChoices!
Having finished with the blatantly misleading praising of WorkChoices the big business advertisement then descends into ridiculous warnings of the end of the world if WorkChoices laws are abandoned. There is the very subtle "gone out of business because of union bosses" sign painted over a window (gone out of business because of corporate fraud or mismanagement would be a much more realistic sign) followed by a statement that to undo WorkChoices is like trying to unscramble an egg (hmm, WorkChoices = scrambled eggs, nice analogy!).
And then we have the best part - a doom and gloom scenario based on "independent" research. The so-called independent research report that is pictured was produced by Econtech - a company that has close affiliations with the Howard government and the report was in fact commissioned by ACCI for the purposes of this ad, based on rigged assumptions designed to create the outcomes that ACCI wanted.
This blatantly misleading ad concludes with a plea to "keep the workplace reform". Trust us - we the big business know whats best for you. OK, so our member companies maybe the ones that are slashing your conditions and reducing your take home pay, but its not like we are just interested in our profits and our executive bonuses. OK, so we just released a deceptive advertisement, but its for your own good you know, how else are we supposed to get you plebs to see the benefits of being deprived of your rights? Just trust us, ok?
The Howard government knows its in trouble. The polls aren't looking good. Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars the government is spending advertising its unfair WorkChoices laws, the electorate isn't convinced. The interest rates have risen 4 times since the last election in 2004, when the government ran a scare campaign against Labor and promised that interest rates will stay low under the Libs, and it looks like they will rise again, housing affordability is at the lowest level since records began and prices on food and essential items are are rapidly increasing.
To top if all off, leaked government-commissioned research by Mark Textor revealed that Howard is seen as "old and dishonest". If the results of the research are accurate, the only surprise is that it took the voters 11 years to cotton on to Howard's dishonesty. But that is not the theme of this post.
The same research report advised the government to "emphasise the commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states"
Given that all States and Territories are presently governed by Labor, that explains a lot. If you can't shake Rudd and can't win on merits because the electorate realised that your merits are much more limited than you've been putting on, attacking Labor-governed States is a great way to go. At least now we know the true explanation for some of Howard government's recent conduct - it was following advice on an electoral strategy!
In recent months the Howard government has been aggressively interfering in State affairs. It sent troops into Northern Territory (not quite a State, but close) to deal with sexual abuse problems in indigenous communities - problems that the Howard government ignored for the last decade. It threatened to do the same in WA. It is planning to take control of the Murray-Darling basin with its water management plans. The Howard government's explanation for its actions adopted the Textor report recommendation to "emphasise the commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states" to the letter. In an announcement posted on YouTube (trying to counter the "too old" image, no doubt), Howard stated "my Government only intervenes in those areas where state or territory governments have not fulfilled their obligations and local communities feel let down." One could ask why the government did nothing about these issues for 11 years, but the Textor report doesn't require that attacks on States have actual merit.
More recently, the government interfered in Tasmanian government health reform plan, promising funding for Mersey hospital services which were to be transferred to another hospital (and leading to a senior doctor at the hospital resigning in protest). And of course, consistently with the Textor recommendations, Abbott warned States that the "Commonwealth cannot rule out future interventions if state governments fail their constituents." There does not appear to have been any analysis about the pros and cons of the Tasmanian government health reform plan or about whether the intervention is likely to cause more harm than good, Howard government just followed the formula - "emphasise the commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states" - and made sure its action was advertised all over Tasmanian newspapers. At least throwing Tasmania's health reform plans into disarray is not as morally objectionable as sending troops into indigenous with the primary aim of electoral advantage rather than achieving a positive outcome for the people concerned.
The latest Howard government tactic is to blame the States for anticipated interest rate increases and, consistently with the government strategy "when in trouble, spend lots of taxpayer money advertising", new TV advertisements are about to be aired blaming the Labor State governments for rising interest rates. The fact that the same governments ruled the States when in 2004, Howard took credit for low interest rates and strong economy does not seem to have struck the government as a bit of a contradiction. Either in 2004 Howard alone could not claim the entire credit for strong economy and low interest rates, and so he was lying then, or the current rising interest rates are not the fault of the states, and he is lying now. Either way, the perception of dishonesty appears to have sound basis.
Hopefully, the voters can remember the government's hypocrisy as they are bombarded with more misleading advertising, paid for by their hard-earned dollars.
Update: please see the excellent comment by Marek Bage in comments to this post regarding the Mersey hospital.
If the Howard government wasn't spending insane amounts of taxpayer money on advertising itself, some of its ads could be considered funny. Not because they are by their nature humorous, but because they are utterly idiotic.
Consider this ad:
That telephone pole got in the way when I was taking the photo, but the left part of the ad reads "Who really pulls Labor's strings." Let's put aside such reasonable thoughts as why leading employee organisations is a negative thing and forget the fact that they may have been union leaders but surely not union bosses.
Does this ad remind you of something? Remember that television ad about genital herpes? The one that has little red silhouettes of men and women illustrating that "one in eight Australians have genital herpes"? I tried to find a screenshot of the ad, but no success so far, so you'll have to picture it in your head. To make the task easier - just look at the government's ad - those silhouettes look very similar!
Oh and to make it more amusing - this ad was just across the road from an advertisement for treatments to increase one's sexual function and boost one's sex life. How very appropriate.
How about this ad:
No doubt you would have seen these ads defacing many locations (public transport stops being most popular). This particular photo is from a tram stop shelter. As you can see it provides a wealth of information - a stone wall and a post it note saying "know where you stand" - almost as informative as the "know where you stand" television advertisements.
Well, if you consider the ad, it is hard to escape the conclusion that what it says is that you stand with your back to the wall (why else would there be a picture of a wall in the background?). That pretty much sums up what WorkChoices does to employees, but somehow I don't think that the government intended to be quite that honest!
That the government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to advertise itself is a sign of a corrupt and unprincipled government. That their ads are this stupid must be a sign of desperation. I would have said that it was also a sign of incompetence, but to be fair, it is hard to advertise a product which has no merit.
No, I'm not referring to the expensive refit of Howard's plane or the posh cabinet chairs - travelling in luxury is not the most objectionable example of Howard government's misuse of public funds. Misusing taxpayer money to keep himself in power is much worse - especially when the money is directed to misinformation of the public.
One unit, reportedly set up under the auspices of Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (although not surprisingly none of its staff is listed in official staff handbooks) at the cost of more than $1 million is said by an insider to have only "one brief — shoot down Labor's plan and promote the Government's plan." It is producing "information kits" for Liberal candidates in marginal seats and will design a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to be run by the government (again at taxpayer expense).
Another propaganda unit called the "Government Members' Secretariat" employs 14 staff at a $1.5 million cost to the taxpayer. It's brief is solely to exclusively to help Coalition MPs with their election campaigning. It was reported that Philip Ruddock runs yet another "dirt unit" (funded by the taxpayer), although Ruddock, not surprisingly, denied the allegation. The Age reports that Howard government ministers employ up to 20 staff "whose sole task is to help the Government get re-elected and whose work has nothing to do with their ministers' portfolios."
The PM also employs some 73 media advisors and spin doctors at a cost of $8.4 million per year (up from $5.9 million three years ago), again all at public expense. To be fair, Kevin Rudd also has taxpayer-funded advisors, but only 16 of them, at a cost of $1.2 million, ie 14% of what Howard spends.
It is true that all governments use public money and they can do so legitimately. However, the Howard government is using our money to feed us spin and to promote itself, it is using public funds in its own interest, not in the interest of the nation. Be it secret propaganda units or idiotic billboards about the link between unions and Labor (I saw one today - talk about a waste of space!) such activities are not legitimate, they reek of corruption. We pay taxes so the government can use the money for the benefit of the country - not to keep itself in power.
A healthy democratic society thrives on debate and discussion of the merits of different view points. In a healthy democracy a multitude of voices can clamour for attention, each as entitled to be heard as the next, each equally entitled to persuade and lobby.
There are several ways to undermine a healthy democracy. One is by crude show of force, for example a government arresting or assassinating those opposing it. A society used to democratic ideals wouldn't react very well to such an unsophisticated attack. A government that took such action would find itself facing strong and unrelenting opposition. Another way is gradual and subtle - stigmatise the opposition, demonise the opposing viewpoints, paint all opposition to your ideological standpoint as a dark shadowy conspiracy. You have to have patience, you have to do it gradually, you can't rush it or you'll give away the gameplan.
There is a highly sadistic experiment that illustrates the difference in effectiveness between the two approaches. Take one live frog. Put it in a pot of boiling water. The frog will jump out of the pot, it will know that it was in mortal danger. Now put a frog in a pot of cold water and heat up the water to a boil. The frog will sit there passively slowly boiling to death, unable to perceive the gradual temperature changes as a threat to its existence.
It is this latter approach that the Howard government has adopted. It has gradually, with great patience and subtlety boiled the Australian democracy. It has managed to stigmatise all opposing view points. Any opposition to the government or its policies has become a dark conspiracy, any lobbying opposing the government a con on the voters. Voting out the government at the next election is no longer seen as an exercise in democracy, but as an attempt to destroy Australia. The government has made itself the country and any opposition to it a hatred of Australia itself.
You can see this daily in public discourse. For example, consider the government's portrayal of the ACTU plan to campaign in support of Labor. Today's newspapers (at least the Australian) and parliamentary debate were full of claim of "secret campaigns" (how secret can it be if Hockey spent half the day waiving around the so-called campaign manual), and "dirty tricks". There was talk of "union apparatchiks" (yep, its that threatening Communist word) who would "infiltrate" community groups (like KGB agents, no doubt) so that the corrupt union bosses could seize power.
A perfectly legitimate democratic activity has become a conspiracy. Democratic discourse has been portrayed as dirty, illegitimate tricks. Unions that are the enemy of the government have been portrayed as the enemy of Australia. Similar lobbying or advertising by big business is ok. It is not a dirty trick, it is not a conspiracy. Australians can trust organisations whose only aim is increasing their profits. But organisations whose aim is to protect Australian workers must be seen as evil. Government lies, lack of transparency, scaremongering or two billion dollar taxpayer funded advertising campaigns are legitimate. Lobbying for the Labor party is not. It is a conspiracy to "trick" the voters into supporting Labor.
In the same vein, and again, today, Julia Gillard's questioning about the governments undisclosed plans to force 20% of the Australian workforce on AWAs and about the deliberately misleading economic "studies" commissioned by the government (designed to give the answers the government wants) is nothing more than "visceral hatred of AWAs". The government does not have to account for its underhanded activities or plans that it neglected to share with the electorate. The challenge to the government is nothing more than hatred, not an exercise in democracy by an elected representative of the Australian. people.
We have allowed the government to convince us that opposition to it is an illegitimate conspiracy. We have allowed the government to brainwash us into believing that exercising our democratic choice in a way it doesn't approve of is nothing more than falling victim to deception. We have allowed healthy democracy to become a taboo.
It is not my contention that we should all chose Labor, only that we should chose. That our choice should bebased on merits of competing discourses and not in a deluded belief that by not supporting the government we are partaking in a conspiracy to destroy Australia.
Thanks for reading, and please jump out of the pot, before the water comes to a boil.
The Liberal party does not like unions. In part it is due to its neo-liberal ideological vision of unregulated or nearly unregulated employment markets, where the employee bargains one on one with the employer (too bad if there's a massive imbalance of power). But in part it is also due to the fact that unions have been traditional supporters of the Labor party. It is therefore not surprising that political donations from unions would be made to the Labor party and not to the Libs.
The Libs are not happy with that. It is one thing when they accept massive donations from big business or conservative political groups. That money goes into the Liberal party coffers. The unions on the other hand aren't that generous to the Libs. Any donations they make will go to the Labor party coffers. That's just not right! How dare they show such political favouritism!
What is the solution? Well lets make it so burdensome for the unions to make a donation that they won't bother. What's the most burdensome requirement that can be designed? Hmmm, lets try requiring approval of the majority of union members in a secret ballot. Every time they want to make a donation, they need to hold a mini-referendum. What an excellent idea - the administrative costs involved will probably exceed the donation sum, serving the double purpose of discouraging donations to the Lib's natural enemy and draining union funds! Its a real stroke of genius.
No doubt the proposal will be couched in terms of protecting the union members and ensuring transparency - the Libs really care about the internal workings of organisations that they despise. The true aim is clear enough - undermine the support base of the Labor party.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all the Libs want is a transparent and accountable system of political donations.
If that is the case no doubt we will see proposals mandating that all donations from businesses are approved by a majority vote of shareholders and all donations from political or religious groups are approved by a majority vote of all its members and all "donations" by taxpayers towards each Howard government advertising campaign be approved by a majority vote of all Australian taxpayers. In the short term, I'd even settle for a majority vote of both Houses of Parliament.
Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it. - Robert Frost
RSS
