Only the Depth Varies: Tim Nicholls

Just hours into the campaign, the Queensland Government’s Strong Choices is being revealed as the shallow PR stunt it is. Public Relations lecturers across the country must be rubbing their hands together with glee; errors like this are such rich learning opportunities.

Strong Choices is a six million dollar campaign intended to fool Queensland voters into believing that they are being consulted about the next Queensland Budget. Underpinning that cynical, warm-and-fuzzy intent, the government hopes that voters will understand the tough choices involved in governing and view the LNP government more sympathetically in the lead up to next year’s state election. The inclusion of Asset Sales, while a valid solution, is also a deliberate attempt to soften voters’ attitudes to the same issue which brought down the Bligh government two years ago.

Strong Choices consists of an online survey, with feedback stations in two major Brisbane shopping centres, and a tour through Queensland to “listen to” locals. The premise is that voters will complete the survey or visit the feedback stations, and build their ideal budget, complete with tax increases, savings, and asset sales. The whole thing is backed up with an advertising campaign and social media presence, at a cost of about $6 million dollars.

Having said that, the website itself denies that it is a survey of any kind:

The People’s Budget is not a survey or a poll. Your responses here will be a fundamental part of an unprecedented consultation process that is already going on across Queensland. It will also include roundtable meetings with community leaders, open community forums and virtual town hall gatherings open to the public, hosted by the Treasurer, Tim Nicholls.

Make of that what you will.

Under the guise of ‘promoting economic literacy’ the online survey asks respondents to select from lists of tax increases, service cutbacks and asset sales to reach a level of debt reduction which has been predetermined by the government. Then, if you reach the approved level where you start to save on interest payments, you can select which areas you want to spend the savings on.

Side by side with the non-survey is a section called “Online Written Submission”, where respondents can write a few sentences about various potential tax increases, programme cuts and asset sales, rather than selecting a yes/no response. There is also a downloadable submission form with the same format as the online survey. All response methods are aligned with the same sub-headings and choices.

It sounds impressive, and as a piece of website design, it is. As a campaign, it’s Swiss Cheese.

Here’s where it fails.

Firstly, the name is a problem. Anything that ends with the word Choices just reminds people of WorkChoices, and that concept is still on the nose. Whoever would’ve thought that a government – any government in Australia – would have been stupid enough to mount a political campaign with a name that includes the word “choices”? It's code for "we don't care about you". With that stench of the Howard Government’s WorkChoices in 2007 still fresh, it was a courageous choice.

Then there’s the online survey itself - and I will call it a survey because that's what it is. The website worked for me, which is about all it has to recommend it. Survey respondents are encouraged to believe that the options listed within the survey are not necessarily under consideration by the government, but that's a tough sell in a hostile political environment. When commentators are talking daily about the federal Budget, it's unlikely that people will assume that the People's Budget - part of Strong Choices - is not even on the maybe pile until 2015.

Speaking of budgets, the Queensland Budget for 2014-2015 is due to be brought down on June 3. That’s less than two months from now. Major decisions about the Budget will be well and truly made by now. It’s unlikely that major changes will be made less than two months out, and virtually impossible to make changes between the end of the campaign on May 19, and the date on which the budget is due, just a couple of weeks later.

I challenged Queensland Treasurer Tim Nicholls about the timing issue via Twitter. He responded

“Choices will form part of a draft plan to be released with the Budget. They are not intended to feed into 2014-15 Budget.”

Okay, so Strong Choices is not about the 2014-15 Budget. All we'll get this year is a draft plan. I’ll accept that on face value, although I imagine a lot of people looking at the survey will assume that it is far more important than it really is. It also raises questions about the wording of a Facebook post to launch the campaign:

“Today, we are announcing the Strong Choices Campaign, an Australian first encouraging Queenslanders to participate in a People’s Budget. Between now and May 19^th we will be travelling around our great State and talking about the debt issues we are facing, listening to your thoughts and opinions on the #StrongChoices we need to make to get our $80 billion dollar debt under control.”

The post doesn’t state that the results of the campaign will feed into this year’s budget, but the suggestion is there…and if it doesn’t feed into this year’s budget it must be for the next major event on the Queensland political calendar, and that’s the 2015 election. Is Strong Choices is poorly disguised research effort from the LNP?

We’re not supposed to notice that the list of preferences for taxes to increase, services to cut and assets to be sold is a list predetermined by the government, either. Other than a small comment box at the end of the online survey, there is no opportunity to make your own suggestions. That's true of all three formats. Facebook comments already indicate that many respondents are writing in their own budget cut: axe politicians’ pay rises.

And if you happen to be a number cruncher who disagrees with the government's calculation of how far to cut, Strong Choices doesn't give you any option at all.

There are reports on Facebook that there are some technical issues: some people have been unable to submit their surveys while others have been able to submit their responses more than once, skewing the results in the process. In the lexicon of campaign sins, releasing a 'buggy' campaign website is pretty close to the top.

Also from Facebook, there are reports that comments critical of the government which were posted on the Strong Choices Facebook page have been deleted. That should not be surprising when the same occurs on King Campbell’s official Facebook Page.

The absolute clanger of Strong Choices is the fact that in order to enact any of the recommendations which could’ve come out of this campaign, Campbell Newman and his band of merry LNP MPs will need to win the next state election…and it appears that Strong Choices is one of the tools they’re using to do that. Isn’t that what Excel would call a Circular Reference?

Congratulations to the LNP Spin Team for such a valiant effort. Few organisations manage to include quite so many misleading cues as this single mis-named effort. It’s just a damned shame that Queensland taxpayers are parting with six million dollars for a campaign that should be funded by the LNP, and which will produce results that are unreliable at best.

Next time I decide to do the Strong Choices survey, I must remember to include the Strong Choices Campaign as a way to cut costs.

We have to talk about Gonski. We have to talk about what is happening to prepare the next generation for life. We have to talk about priorities.

We have to talk about King Campbell.

For reasons that I can’t begin to understand, King Campbell and his band of confused, overwhelmed ministers are planning to refuse $3.8 billion dollars from the federal government because Queensland can’t afford the $1.3 billion dollar state contribution that would be required under the Gonski reform plan.

Newmania’s Chancellor of the Money Bags, Tim Nicholls says that he’s already committed $835 million dollars of extra funding to education. By my calculations, that leaves just $465 million dollars to find. I was educated in New South Wales, so I did that calculation in my head.

In any case, Chancellor Money Bags will tell you that $465 million dollars is a whole lotta money, that would buy 465 hospital beds, almost 6,000 teachers or 9+ primary schools. It’s a trade-off. He says. I did those calculations in my head, too.

Here’s the reality: the Newmanian Government has decided that in a battle between a $5.1billion dollar investment in school education, including $3.8 billion of new federal government money, and $465 million of existing funds, the sane choice is to take the money we already have, rather than the gift we so badly need.

We need to improve education in this state. Last year, Newmanian students lagged behind the national average, and in some areas, behind minimum standards in NAPLAN testing.

Education-wallah John-Paul thinks that it’s a minor detail and was able to find a lot of excuses for why our kids aren’t performing as well as they should. I’m sure Western Australia would like to know about our decentralised jusirdiction, and both Sydney and Melbourne will be fascinated by our diverse cultural mix.

In fairness, the NAPLAN results for Newmania had improved in many categories; we beat the Northern Territory…possibly because Newmanians don’t subject their children to the NT News each day...but that's for another day.

Again, as always, we must go back to the policy documents the LNP released and campaigned on prior to the last election. Unfortunately, the LNP has removed that document from their website, and basically reworked their entire website for the federal election five months from now. Fair enough too: Newmania has already made its mistake. If nothing else, may it serve as an example to others.

Back to the LNP website, though, and you’ll see, under Policies, a whole bunch of airy-fairy feel-good words that almost everyone of any political persuasion would have trouble ignoring:

In our view, government should achieve:

•A just and humane society, where those who cannot provide for themselves can live in dignity

•The family as the primary institution for fostering the values on which a cohesive society is built

•Equal opportunity for all Queenslanders in a tolerant and diverse society without exploitation

•The encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice

•Preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations

•A spirit of patriotism in which all Australians are united in the common service of their country and accept the necessity of defending their nation in times of crisis or adversity

•A secure environment in which Australia is safe from aggression and plays its part in world security in defence of peace

Actually, the second dot point is a problem for me, but the rest of them are appropriately vague, warm and hairy. I’ve highlighted the fourth dot point, as it’s the only one that deals with education.

“The encouragement and facilitation of wealth…” the document says. I’d expect to see King Campbell running up the hill towards Caaanbra’s Parliament House, arms outstretched in fanatical encouragement of the fortune Prime Minister Gillard is offering. Okay, so the sticking point might mean that Chancellor Money Bags needs to do some fancy facilitation with $465 million to capture the prize. It’s worth it, isn’t it? Newmania’s kids are worth it, aren’t they?

Well, no, apparently they’re not.

The entire Education Spend in the last state budget was $10.7 billion. The Federal Government is offering to increase that by $3.8 billion, and we’re quibbling over $465 million. Excluding Gonski funding from the Federal Government, that’s 4.35% of the education budget. (I needed the calculator for that one.)

Put it another way: King Campbell is knocking back the opportunity to increase the state’s funding for education by 35.5% because it might cost him 4.35% of the original education budget.

Logic like this is why Newmania needs Gonski.