This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/government-considers-information-campaign-budget
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Government considers 'information campaign' to explain unpopular budget | Government considers 'information campaign' to explain unpopular budget |
| (3 months later) | |
| The federal government is considering an “information campaign” but not a “major advertising campaign” to explain its unpopular budget. | The federal government is considering an “information campaign” but not a “major advertising campaign” to explain its unpopular budget. |
| “We are not planning a major advertising campaign. We do have a responsibility to ensure people across the community who are impacted by changes in the budget are aware of how those changes will impact on them and how those changes will not impact them,” the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said. | “We are not planning a major advertising campaign. We do have a responsibility to ensure people across the community who are impacted by changes in the budget are aware of how those changes will impact on them and how those changes will not impact them,” the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said. |
| “We will continue to do what needs to be done to ensure that information is provided to people in the most efficient, cost effective and well targeted way possible, to ensure people are aware of the budget changes that impact on them and how, as appropriate.” | “We will continue to do what needs to be done to ensure that information is provided to people in the most efficient, cost effective and well targeted way possible, to ensure people are aware of the budget changes that impact on them and how, as appropriate.” |
| Labor focused its question time attack on the proposed campaign, labelling it a “propaganda” effort that was being funded at the same time as $80bn was being “slashed” from schools and hospitals funding. | |
| The prime minister said “no advertising campaigns have been undertaken” and advised the deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, to “stop having the vapours about something that isn’t happening”. He called Labor's attack “a piece of confected fantasy”. | The prime minister said “no advertising campaigns have been undertaken” and advised the deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, to “stop having the vapours about something that isn’t happening”. He called Labor's attack “a piece of confected fantasy”. |
| Before the election, the Coalition castigated Labor for taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns to promote government initiatives. The Little Book of Big Labor Waste was produced shortly before the election and listed as “waste” $8.5m spent in 2012-13 advertising the Schoolkids Bonus because it was an automatic payment. According to the little book, because eligible recipients didn’t have to do anything to receive the payment there was no justification in spending taxpayers’ money informing them about it. | Before the election, the Coalition castigated Labor for taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns to promote government initiatives. The Little Book of Big Labor Waste was produced shortly before the election and listed as “waste” $8.5m spent in 2012-13 advertising the Schoolkids Bonus because it was an automatic payment. According to the little book, because eligible recipients didn’t have to do anything to receive the payment there was no justification in spending taxpayers’ money informing them about it. |
| In November last year, the government issued “short-term interim guidelines” for advertising campaigns which state campaign materials must not: mention the party in government by name; directly attack or scorn the views, policies or actions of others such as the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups; include party political slogans or images; be designed to influence public support for a political party, a candidate for election, a minister or an MP; or refer or link to the websites of politicians or political parties. | In November last year, the government issued “short-term interim guidelines” for advertising campaigns which state campaign materials must not: mention the party in government by name; directly attack or scorn the views, policies or actions of others such as the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups; include party political slogans or images; be designed to influence public support for a political party, a candidate for election, a minister or an MP; or refer or link to the websites of politicians or political parties. |
| When Labor embarked on taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns in 2010, the then opposition leader Tony Abbott said the government was “looting the Treasury because this prime minister cannot do the job ordinarily expected of a prime minister – that is, to explain, justify and defend the policies of the government”. | When Labor embarked on taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns in 2010, the then opposition leader Tony Abbott said the government was “looting the Treasury because this prime minister cannot do the job ordinarily expected of a prime minister – that is, to explain, justify and defend the policies of the government”. |
| And when the Gillard government spent taxpayer funds advertising its carbon pricing scheme, Abbott said: “If the Labor party wants to advertise, the Labor party should find the money and the Labor party should spend the money. Taxpayers should not be ripped off to fund political propaganda.” | And when the Gillard government spent taxpayer funds advertising its carbon pricing scheme, Abbott said: “If the Labor party wants to advertise, the Labor party should find the money and the Labor party should spend the money. Taxpayers should not be ripped off to fund political propaganda.” |
| Greens senator Rachel Siewert said “the most vulnerable Australians already know very well how they will be impacted by this budget. They know that they are being condemned to live in poverty, they don't need government advertising to tell them.” | Greens senator Rachel Siewert said “the most vulnerable Australians already know very well how they will be impacted by this budget. They know that they are being condemned to live in poverty, they don't need government advertising to tell them.” |
| In question time Abbott also insisted the government was not cutting $80bn from schools and hospitals because the reduction in forecast increases in funding – to help cover increasing costs of running hospitals and the Gonski plan for funding schools – was beyond the forward estimates. | In question time Abbott also insisted the government was not cutting $80bn from schools and hospitals because the reduction in forecast increases in funding – to help cover increasing costs of running hospitals and the Gonski plan for funding schools – was beyond the forward estimates. |
| “We are not cutting $80bn from schools and hospitals because there was no $80bn in any budget, no $80bn that had ever been set aside,” Abbott said. | “We are not cutting $80bn from schools and hospitals because there was no $80bn in any budget, no $80bn that had ever been set aside,” Abbott said. |
| “All that is happening is the rate of increase has been reduced." | “All that is happening is the rate of increase has been reduced." |
| The $80bn figure is based on the government’s own budget overview, which says “more realistic” funding arrangements for schools and hospitals with “sensible indexation arrangements ... will achieve cumulative savings of over $80bn by 2024-25”. | The $80bn figure is based on the government’s own budget overview, which says “more realistic” funding arrangements for schools and hospitals with “sensible indexation arrangements ... will achieve cumulative savings of over $80bn by 2024-25”. |
| Abbott also rejected questions asserting that the co-payment announced in the budget could deter sick people from visiting their GP. | Abbott also rejected questions asserting that the co-payment announced in the budget could deter sick people from visiting their GP. |
| “How can members opposite contend that a modest co-payment will stop sick people from visiting the doctor when a modest co-payment for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme does not," he said. "Their position is simply untenable.” | “How can members opposite contend that a modest co-payment will stop sick people from visiting the doctor when a modest co-payment for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme does not," he said. "Their position is simply untenable.” |