QT September 18

Question Time on September 18 reaffirmed one thing for me, politicians will say and do the most random, inconsequential things to make a point or perhaps more likely, not make a point and deflect attention from their inability to answer the question. What got to me though was, why if you do have a substantial and valid answer continue the ramble and lose the upper hand?? I understand its all about elevating oneself and ones party above the opposition but really to the naïve viewer (maybe I’m the only one that fits in this category – its highly likely) it makes the whole process relatively pointless.

Now to ensure I don’t do the same thing and just babble, leaving you sitting there saying, what on earth is she talking about, let me get to the point... I am speaking in reference to the battle between Labor Senator McEwen and the Coalition’s Senator Minchin (Minister for Finance and Administration) in regard to advertising spend in the year leading up to the 2007 Federal election (where this year begins and ends we still don’t know, but that’s a whole other story). McEwen questioned Minchin whether the alleged $500 million figure was an accurate description of advertising spend in the past 12 months and if so, was it valid considering it amounts to six times as much spent on rural health and 5 times that spent on mental health.

To begin with Minchin’s response was calculated, forthcoming and might I say clever. He argued Labors figures were inflated and their argument tired. In fact Minchin argued, in bringing the topic up, the opposition was only reaffirming that the government was fulfilling its responsibility to inform its citizens of policies and programs and their ‘advertising’ was simply a means of insuring this information was communicated. Simply ‘you are purely reflecting that we are an activist, reformist government’, a scathing shot met with jeers from the opposition and great support from Minchin’s barracks. Now it was here that things slowly started to back pedal... Minchin went on to support his argument, and at the same time take a stab at Labor’s careless attitude to budgets, when he stated the Coalitions total advertising amounted to $171 million only. Small change really when you consider Labor’s state governments have spent approximately $354 million over the same period on advertising. Minchin argued whilst it was true they had spent the majority of their advertising budget on IR Workplace reforms, private health insurance and climate change, Labor state leaders (Beattie, Rann and Bracks) had simply spent a much larger chunk of their significantly smaller budget on advertising themselves. However in the same sentence and with no particular follow up Minchin proceeded to launch an attack on the aforementioned premiers saying they fail to supply public transport, or supply water. Full stop, finished, that is all. Moving right along…

Now I can understand the sentiment or assume he was getting to the point that; Labor spend an awful lot of money on advertising themselves when the money could be better spent improving transport services, providing sanitized, clean water and generally supporting their citizens but Minchin simply drifted off and his message lost its oomph and therefore had little effect. Now I’m pretty sure I have just don’t exactly the same thing but the whole thing baffled me. Here were our nation’s leaders arguing incoherently with no resolve or might I say achievement in having said anything at all. Someone tell me what’s the point in staging such a sitting when no actual questions are answered and even the jibes hurled at one another dissolve into the abyss??

What was interesting however was the story published in Monday’s (October 1) Sydney Morning Herald by Phillip Coorey ‘Slips ups leave Rudd vulnerable’ Coorey described the Coalitions advertising as an ‘egregious abuse of taxpayers' money’ and ‘thinly disguised as an information campaign’. Coorey see’s these campaigns as a means of stretching out the election announcement to save on actually having to run a campaign to gain the extra 5% of the population’s support they need to defeat Labor. Considering each MP has approximately $300, 000 to defend their seat however and the Liberal Party have a significantly larger number of MP’s you would think they wouldn’t have a problem – if money was all it took.