AUSTRALIANS were overwhelmingly on side, the government was hungry for leadership and it had a $60 million plus advertising and public relations strategy ready to launch.
So why did Kevin Rudd choke when he was in a position to smash home a winner on climate change policy? Yes, the Copenhagen summit had been a failure. True, Tony Abbott had junked Malcolm Turnbull's deal with the government and was gaining traction with his line about a great big new tax. And Julia Gillard was urging him to forfeit the match. But documents released to The Australia Institute under freedom of information legislation show a government that, despite an array of weapons lined up to gets its message across, not only lacked the courage of its convictions but was spooked by a small minority.
It says a great deal about the risk-free politics that has taken over in Australia, as exemplified by this election campaign.
The documents serve to emphasise how vast are the resources of government when it wants to drive reform. The Climate Change and Environment departments conducted what the former called "multiple and various research projects" during 2009. They found that 72 per cent of Australians "feel it is important for us to act now to protect Australia from the impact of climate change and feel that we have a responsibility towards future generations".
That sounds like the consensus that Gillard says she is looking for through her 150-member citizens' assembly and by postponing any decisions on a carbon price for at least two years.
Moreover, in September last year 59 per cent of the community "felt it was the Australian government's responsibility to take action on climate change", a 16 per cent increase since November 2008. However, the research also found that Australians felt they did not have sufficient information about the issues and what they could do to make a difference, finding it hard to distinguish good from bad information.
"People are looking for leadership," the Climate Change department said of the research findings. "They accept there may be a price to pay and are hungry for decisive action". In the most recent research last year, there had been "a tendency to think the government is 'all talk, no action". People were confused and frustrated at the lack of progress.
The department drew up communications and public relations strategies based on this research. It acknowledged there were many challenges in selling the proposed emissions trading scheme, including its perceived complexity and costs to households. But there also were plenty of positive selling points. Global investment would be redirected to "early mover" countries, a strong element in the debate in countries such as Britain, where the Conservatives, as well as Labour, have strong climate change policies. Australia's alternative energy sector could grow 30-fold by 2050, said the department. A "messaging framework" prepared for the government by consultants OgilvyEarth included the themes of "act now to protect Australia" and, wait for it, "forwards not backwards". While there would be price increases under an ETS, they would be modest: according to treasury modelling, $4-$5 a week for electricity and $2 a week for gas and other household fuels and they would be more than offset for low to middle income earners by the government's household compensation.
In any case, the department was suggesting $60m or more of advertising and public relations to sell its proposals. Certainly, the department and its outside consultants were not leaving any avenues unexplored for influencing public opinion. It recommended spending $41m on advertising, including three television ads: one concentrating on the need for action on climate change and the role of government and individuals, the second explaining the government's ETS and the third reinforcing the message that it would be "good for everyday Australians", including through the compensation they would receive.
On top of that, there would be three months of "below the line activities" through a public relations campaign. Its many facets would include a "media partnership", for example by targeting primetime morning television shows such as Channel 7's Sunrise to run a regular "CPRS 101" slot, a simple explanation of the carbon pollution reduction scheme, the government's name for its ETS. And it was quite prepared to pay to get its story across: the department said there almost certainly would be a fee but it did not now how much, although it allocated $300,000 in its draft budget for "TV show partnership", which the department says was for a range of potential activities. To what extent viewers would have been aware of this government sponsorship is unclear.
But wait, there's much more. Media-friendly community events would be hosted by a university in each region. The cost was "TBA". Third party advocates and champions could "add gravitas" to efforts at community education. There would be formal partnerships with key groups such as GPs, education departments, sporting clubs, banks and Australia Post to spread the word through everything from co-branded posters to "point of sale information". The government would "cultivate" celebrity advocates to describe what they were doing at home -- such as Jamie Durie on drought-proofing the garden -- as well as "everyday" Australians who could talk about how they had made their households more energy efficient. There could be a Better Homes and Gardens climate change special and a possible TV special that would be "a blend between the national schools spectacular, world's greatest commercials and funniest home videos". Well, you can't accuse the bureaucrats of not entertaining ideas.
Whether the government should be spending taxpayers' money in this way is another matter. The Audit Office expressed concern about the government starting to advertise before the legislation passed the Senate, which it ultimately failed to do. Labor attacked the Howard government up hill and down dale for its advertising to promote Work Choices. That campaign remains the daddy of them all, costing $116m, according to John Faulkner when he was the minister responsible for the area. But this government is proving to be no slouch at the same game and recently changed the rules so that it could roll out advertisements for its mining super-profits tax.
Certainly, it was being urged on by the bureaucrats. Climate Change department head Martin Parkinson sent a cabinet-in-confidence brief to his minister, Penny Wong, in February in which he said: "The government is likely to be criticised for any advertising it undertakes on climate change, regardless of how extensive the campaign is. If the government decides to advertise, it would be advisable to resource and layer the campaign comprehensively." In short, go for broke.
But the government baulked. Planned launch dates for the advertising and publicity campaigns of October last year were postponed to January 1, then Australia Day, February and April. All the while Rudd had the option of taking legislation to a double dissolution election after the Coalition withdrew its support. If he had done so, he would have thwarted the Gillard assassination. We also would have had an election with at least one real issue, rather than the vapid campaign we are enduring.
If Labor had won, it is likely to have had the numbers in a joint sitting of both houses of parliament to pass its earlier version of the legislation. While it contained plenty of concessions to big polluters, at least would have spared us the additional raft of them negotiated with Malcolm Turnbull.
Of course there would have been risks. They are unavoidable if Australia is to move forward, to borrow a phrase. John Howard took a great big new tax in the form of a GST to the 1998 election and won, though not without getting a scare. Labor now is so much in retreat that it has resorted to the same defensive play the Coalition adopted 15 years ago on the republic: opting out of a decision by sending it off to a people's convention. It is every bit as much of a cop-out.
So why did Kevin Rudd choke when he was in a position to smash home a winner on climate change policy? Yes, the Copenhagen summit had been a failure. True, Tony Abbott had junked Malcolm Turnbull's deal with the government and was gaining traction with his line about a great big new tax. And Julia Gillard was urging him to forfeit the match. But documents released to The Australia Institute under freedom of information legislation show a government that, despite an array of weapons lined up to gets its message across, not only lacked the courage of its convictions but was spooked by a small minority.
It says a great deal about the risk-free politics that has taken over in Australia, as exemplified by this election campaign.
The documents serve to emphasise how vast are the resources of government when it wants to drive reform. The Climate Change and Environment departments conducted what the former called "multiple and various research projects" during 2009. They found that 72 per cent of Australians "feel it is important for us to act now to protect Australia from the impact of climate change and feel that we have a responsibility towards future generations".
That sounds like the consensus that Gillard says she is looking for through her 150-member citizens' assembly and by postponing any decisions on a carbon price for at least two years.
Moreover, in September last year 59 per cent of the community "felt it was the Australian government's responsibility to take action on climate change", a 16 per cent increase since November 2008. However, the research also found that Australians felt they did not have sufficient information about the issues and what they could do to make a difference, finding it hard to distinguish good from bad information.
"People are looking for leadership," the Climate Change department said of the research findings. "They accept there may be a price to pay and are hungry for decisive action". In the most recent research last year, there had been "a tendency to think the government is 'all talk, no action". People were confused and frustrated at the lack of progress.
The department drew up communications and public relations strategies based on this research. It acknowledged there were many challenges in selling the proposed emissions trading scheme, including its perceived complexity and costs to households. But there also were plenty of positive selling points. Global investment would be redirected to "early mover" countries, a strong element in the debate in countries such as Britain, where the Conservatives, as well as Labour, have strong climate change policies. Australia's alternative energy sector could grow 30-fold by 2050, said the department. A "messaging framework" prepared for the government by consultants OgilvyEarth included the themes of "act now to protect Australia" and, wait for it, "forwards not backwards". While there would be price increases under an ETS, they would be modest: according to treasury modelling, $4-$5 a week for electricity and $2 a week for gas and other household fuels and they would be more than offset for low to middle income earners by the government's household compensation.
In any case, the department was suggesting $60m or more of advertising and public relations to sell its proposals. Certainly, the department and its outside consultants were not leaving any avenues unexplored for influencing public opinion. It recommended spending $41m on advertising, including three television ads: one concentrating on the need for action on climate change and the role of government and individuals, the second explaining the government's ETS and the third reinforcing the message that it would be "good for everyday Australians", including through the compensation they would receive.
On top of that, there would be three months of "below the line activities" through a public relations campaign. Its many facets would include a "media partnership", for example by targeting primetime morning television shows such as Channel 7's Sunrise to run a regular "CPRS 101" slot, a simple explanation of the carbon pollution reduction scheme, the government's name for its ETS. And it was quite prepared to pay to get its story across: the department said there almost certainly would be a fee but it did not now how much, although it allocated $300,000 in its draft budget for "TV show partnership", which the department says was for a range of potential activities. To what extent viewers would have been aware of this government sponsorship is unclear.
But wait, there's much more. Media-friendly community events would be hosted by a university in each region. The cost was "TBA". Third party advocates and champions could "add gravitas" to efforts at community education. There would be formal partnerships with key groups such as GPs, education departments, sporting clubs, banks and Australia Post to spread the word through everything from co-branded posters to "point of sale information". The government would "cultivate" celebrity advocates to describe what they were doing at home -- such as Jamie Durie on drought-proofing the garden -- as well as "everyday" Australians who could talk about how they had made their households more energy efficient. There could be a Better Homes and Gardens climate change special and a possible TV special that would be "a blend between the national schools spectacular, world's greatest commercials and funniest home videos". Well, you can't accuse the bureaucrats of not entertaining ideas.
Whether the government should be spending taxpayers' money in this way is another matter. The Audit Office expressed concern about the government starting to advertise before the legislation passed the Senate, which it ultimately failed to do. Labor attacked the Howard government up hill and down dale for its advertising to promote Work Choices. That campaign remains the daddy of them all, costing $116m, according to John Faulkner when he was the minister responsible for the area. But this government is proving to be no slouch at the same game and recently changed the rules so that it could roll out advertisements for its mining super-profits tax.
Certainly, it was being urged on by the bureaucrats. Climate Change department head Martin Parkinson sent a cabinet-in-confidence brief to his minister, Penny Wong, in February in which he said: "The government is likely to be criticised for any advertising it undertakes on climate change, regardless of how extensive the campaign is. If the government decides to advertise, it would be advisable to resource and layer the campaign comprehensively." In short, go for broke.
But the government baulked. Planned launch dates for the advertising and publicity campaigns of October last year were postponed to January 1, then Australia Day, February and April. All the while Rudd had the option of taking legislation to a double dissolution election after the Coalition withdrew its support. If he had done so, he would have thwarted the Gillard assassination. We also would have had an election with at least one real issue, rather than the vapid campaign we are enduring.
If Labor had won, it is likely to have had the numbers in a joint sitting of both houses of parliament to pass its earlier version of the legislation. While it contained plenty of concessions to big polluters, at least would have spared us the additional raft of them negotiated with Malcolm Turnbull.
Of course there would have been risks. They are unavoidable if Australia is to move forward, to borrow a phrase. John Howard took a great big new tax in the form of a GST to the 1998 election and won, though not without getting a scare. Labor now is so much in retreat that it has resorted to the same defensive play the Coalition adopted 15 years ago on the republic: opting out of a decision by sending it off to a people's convention. It is every bit as much of a cop-out.
