• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Firearms control

by Simon Longstaff

When John Howard lent support to the campaign to establish a national regime for the control of firearms, he demonstrated the good that can be done by a committed leader. He showed courage and tenacity in the face of radically divided opinion and, in doing so, gave further evidence of how well the Australian federation can work when politicians of good will set aside parochialism for the sake of a greater national good.

It is therefore surprising and more than a little disappointing, that the integrity of the campaign to encourage the surrender of illegal firearms has already been called into question. Specifically, it has been alleged in the New South Wales and Commonwealth parliaments that the process used to select an advertising agency, to design and run the campaign, was compromised.

Speaking in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the Minister for Police, Mr Paul Whelan, disclosed that he was a guest at a meeting of the Commonwealth's ministerial committee on government communications which was meeting to choose an advertising agency and public relations consultant for the national gun control public education campaign.

Given his belief that “the success of the national gun laws is dependent on an effective public education campaign”, Mr Whelan was obviously keen to attend the meeting. Yet, he then witnessed an 'extraordinary' meeting at which the Commonwealth government apparently “based its selection process on research and evaluation and then chose to ignore it”.

If Mr Whelan is right, it appears that the government spent $450,000 on evaluating the various proposals. To do so, they utilised the services of a highly reputable, independent research firm. Mr Whelan claims that the campaign prepared by DDB Needham “ran third out of three” when tested. He went on to state that:

The Commonwealth Government's selection process said that the DDB submission barely met the requirements of the brief, tested extremely poorly with the target audiences, was full of contradictions and was flawed.

Despite this, the committee awarded the contract to DDB.

Now, it must be borne in mind that Mr Whelan is a senior figure in the Labor Party and that he would naturally be delighted to cause embarrassment to the coalition government in Canberra. However, this does not explain away the fact that a government committee awarded one of the most critical of its communication contracts to a firm whose work had failed the test of independent assessment.

This has to be one of the most important contracts that the government will award in the area of public education. Having commanded the support of the nation as a whole about a matter of profound significance, it beggars belief that the decision on such a matter could be tainted.

There is already great sensitivity about the issue of national gun laws, with people sincerely holding strongly divergent views. Those opposed to national gun laws will seek to undermine their legitimacy by attacking the integrity of the gun buy-back scheme. Many gun owners are already cynical and suspicious enough. Why provide another reason for their opposing this initiative?

It has been suggested that personnel from DDB Needham played a key role in the Liberal Party's election strategy and that this fact may have influenced members of the ministerial committee in reaching its final decision. It is extremely difficult to judge whether this claim has any basis. This is because the final decision was made behind closed doors and the record of the meeting is not available to public scrutiny. In any case, the perception of a conflict of interest has been raised and needs to be addressed.

Should further investigation reveal that a lucrative government contract has been awarded as a way of repaying a favour, then something akin to corrupt conduct will have occurred. This, of course, is a far more serious matter. The mere fact that Mr Whelan's comments carry this implication is a further reason for the government to give a full explanation.

This will not be done by alleging that the Labor Party has done the same thing in the past. The claim may be true. But to offer this as a response to the serious allegations that have been made is worse than useless. It suggests that at least one Minister in the Commonwealth Government believes that two wrongs make a right. If this is Mr Jull's sincere belief, then Mr Howard really has his work cut out in trying to restore public trust in the integrity of government.

There are many people who sincerely hoped that a change of government would see new standards of propriety being applied in the conduct of public affairs. Of course people make mistakes. And it could be argued that an error of judgement does not automatically amount to a breach of ethics. However, a refusal to correct (or even acknowledge) a wrong - does amount to unethical behaviour.

A number of people have had their trust in the processes of government undermined by this exercise. It could have been otherwise - if only those involved had thought a little about the way in which people would perceive their conduct.

A simple declaration of past association with DDB Needham would have gone a long way to neutralising criticism. Abstention from a vote on the matter may have been appropriate in some cases - not because the rules require it, but because of a proper concern for ethical behaviour. At the very least, the reasoning of the committee should have been made available once the issue was raised in its current form.

A candid response is called for and, given the importance of the issue, I would hope that the Prime Minister will ensure that the truth about this matter is aired - even if it is unpleasant for some and even if it means that the mistake has to be corrected. This would be embarrassing for a number of people. However, any reasonable assessment would suggest that a few red faces is a small price to pay for getting a public education campaign that expert opinion recommends as being most likely to succeed.

A postscript: it is claimed that DDB's slogan for the public education campaign was “Bite the Bullet”. It is difficult to imagine anything less appropriate for the purposes. Yet, this is the proposal that the committee supported!

discuss this article

---