re: latham is normal and decent Lumpy is quite normal and decent in comparison to our little dirt bag wedgie who is such a "champ".
I just keep getting this wedgie's taxpayer political advertising and putting it unread into the bin.
The difference between champ and chump is U.
" Ugly rash of political spots
Nicola Roxon - Shadow Attorney-General, Assisting the Leader on the Status of Women The Australian - 29 June 2004
IT is usually only once an election is called that your neighbours and constituents start ducking for cover when they spot your stall at the local shops or see you loitering at the train station, campaign pamphlets at the ready as they go past. But today they are no longer safe even in their own homes.
No election has officially been called but you can't turn on the television or open a newspaper without coming across an array of glossy advertisements courtesy of the Howard Government.
There is a reason you are seeing this advertising now, before the election is called. This way the Howard Government gets to spend our money – taxpayers' money – on the ads. Once the election is called, the Liberal Party would have to pay for its own advertisements – one reason to bet on a later election after all.
In the meantime, in the lead-up to the election campaign, John Howard will spend more than $120 million on saturation advertising, money that could be spent on services that people need. Most of the campaigns don't even appear anywhere in the budget papers – so where is the money coming from? Which government services are getting their share of funds slashed so the Government can spend more on its advertising than McDonald's, Kellogg's or Vodafone?
At least with commercial advertising we know it is aimed at getting us to do something: buy a product, use a service. But what about government advertising? Perhaps just a little vote might be nice? Not if you believe the Prime Minister – it's just to let you know what has been going on recently in Canberra.
But it isn't just the annoyance of the ads that gets me. It is the waste of public money, the wilful ignoring of sensible guidelines and not even clearing most of the expenditure through parliament. It is an abuse by the Government of its position.
Before Howard was elected in 1996, he promised to get the Auditor-General to develop guidelines to make sure government money was not used for political purposes. He welshed on this promise and has nearly doubled his advertising budget each election since then.
After the 1998 election, the Auditor-General recommended a tightening of the existing rules and set out guidelines to identify legitimate non-political advertising. Howard has refused to adopt these guidelines because he knows he is on to a good thing. He refuses to give up a political advantage for the Liberals, even when it comes at such a huge cost to the public.
On the weekend, Labor publicly committed to adopting the Auditor-General's guidelines. We put the Government on notice that the Liberal Party will be sent the bill for any money spent from Sunday on advertising outside these guidelines.
The Government has so far scoffed at such accountability and integrity being required. But it has failed to explain why Australians shouldn't have guidelines as rigorous as those overseas – in countries such as New Zealand and the UK.
Of course, there is lots of advertising that governments can and should do: recruitment campaigns for the defence forces, information from the electoral commission, programs you have to know about and apply for all are within this category.
But for the past few months the Government has gone soft and cuddly, with gentle voices reassuring us about Medicare and whole pages of pictures of grandma's hands clasping on to another for support. It has the audacity to do this with expensive advertising, while starving those same services of the funding they need.
It is all the more outrageous when you consider that $120 million buys you a lot of pneumococcal vaccines, a lot of doctors' appointments or a lot of places at TAFE or university to train much needed teachers or childcare workers. It nearly buys you the Government's entire annual legal aid budget and you could have children's books to last you a lifetime.
Consider family tax benefits as a prime example. Thousands of families have been incurring debts for several years because of the Government's silly calculation system – but never in that time has it run a campaign explaining the process or alerting people to the risk. Instead, we have a $20 million advertising blitz to notify people they are going to get a cheque in the mail, even though they don't need to apply for it.
I bet a fair few of those families have better ideas about how to use that $20 million.
There is a reason you are seeing this advertising now, before the election is called. This way the Howard Government gets to spend our money – taxpayers' money – on the ads. Once the election is called, the Liberal Party would have to pay for its own advertisements – one reason to bet on a later election after all.
In the meantime, in the lead-up to the election campaign, John Howard will spend more than $120 million on saturation advertising, money that could be spent on services that people need. Most of the campaigns don't even appear anywhere in the budget papers – so where is the money coming from? Which government services are getting their share of funds slashed so the Government can spend more on its advertising than McDonald's, Kellogg's or Vodafone?
At least with commercial advertising we know it is aimed at getting us to do something: buy a product, use a service. But what about government advertising? Perhaps just a little vote might be nice? Not if you believe the Prime Minister – it's just to let you know what has been going on recently in Canberra.
But it isn't just the annoyance of the ads that gets me. It is the waste of public money, the wilful ignoring of sensible guidelines and not even clearing most of the expenditure through parliament. It is an abuse by the Government of its position.
Before Howard was elected in 1996, he promised to get the Auditor-General to develop guidelines to make sure government money was not used for political purposes. He welshed on this promise and has nearly doubled his advertising budget each election since then.
After the 1998 election, the Auditor-General recommended a tightening of the existing rules and set out guidelines to identify legitimate non-political advertising. Howard has refused to adopt these guidelines because he knows he is on to a good thing. He refuses to give up a political advantage for the Liberals, even when it comes at such a huge cost to the public.
On the weekend, Labor publicly committed to adopting the Auditor-General's guidelines. We put the Government on notice that the Liberal Party will be sent the bill for any money spent from Sunday on advertising outside these guidelines.
The Government has so far scoffed at such accountability and integrity being required. But it has failed to explain why Australians shouldn't have guidelines as rigorous as those overseas – in countries such as New Zealand and the UK.
Of course, there is lots of advertising that governments can and should do: recruitment campaigns for the defence forces, information from the electoral commission, programs you have to know about and apply for all are within this category.
But for the past few months the Government has gone soft and cuddly, with gentle voices reassuring us about Medicare and whole pages of pictures of grandma's hands clasping on to another for support. It has the audacity to do this with expensive advertising, while starving those same services of the funding they need.
It is all the more outrageous when you consider that $120 million buys you a lot of pneumococcal vaccines, a lot of doctors' appointments or a lot of places at TAFE or university to train much needed teachers or childcare workers. It nearly buys you the Government's entire annual legal aid budget and you could have children's books to last you a lifetime.
Consider family tax benefits as a prime example. Thousands of families have been incurring debts for several years because of the Government's silly calculation system – but never in that time has it run a campaign explaining the process or alerting people to the risk. Instead, we have a $20 million advertising blitz to notify people they are going to get a cheque in the mail, even though they don't need to apply for it.
I bet a fair few of those families have better ideas about how to use that $20 million. "
