If this wasn’t an election year, Stephen Conroy’s reaction to the Coalition broadband policy might have been very different.

Maybe something like; “I told you so.”

The rancorous debate about broadband that the major parties have engaged in for the past eight years reflected profound differences. 

Labor believed Telstra needed to no longer be allowed to continue to own the monopoly connections into people’s homes if we were to achieve a competitive level playing field. The Coalition was violently opposed to this as they said it punished Telstra shareholders.

Labor believed the public should pay for the rollout of a national network so broadband was a utility service available to all, and to ensure none were on the wrong side of a digital divide. The Coalition believed the private sector should be left to work it out, with a few specific programs to assist in target areas.

In the lead up to the 2010 election campaign, the Coalition released a policy that was a comprehensive rejection of almost every element of the Government communications policy, and completely ditched the national broadband network concept.

What a contrast with 2013.

The Coalition policy today confirms that Malcolm Turnbull has dragged the Coalition policy into line with what the industry has been calling for, and in so doing created bipartisan agreement in most areas. And, the Coalition agrees the public should pay tens of billions to secure national broadband infrastructure. Just not as many tens of billions as the Government wants to spend.

The big debate between the parties now is really only about when Australia takes the final step to a network that connects all building in cities and towns using fibre, and how long the copper can provide an interim solution.

Turnbull, in effect, accuses the Government of paying for everyone to have Rolls Royce broadband when most people need only a Hyundai. Minister Stephen Conroy responds that the Government is actually providing the equivalent of a 4WD which will be needed to climb the looming data download mountain.

The debate then becomes how big and how close that mountain is, and whether we will all be driving up it at the same time.

For industry, this is a healthy, sensible and reasonable debate. It reflects both parties placing a competitive level playing field at the centre of Australia’s communications future.

There are plenty of questions still to be answered for competitors, including important ones about whether the choice of technology is capable of delivering the type of competitive environment both policies now embrace.

But in terms of the great religious wars about industry structure, the debate is over. Minister Conroy is to be congratulated for taking what is truly a world-leading policy position on competition, and his shadow minister should be congratulated for dragging his party – so often criticised as being overly negative –to a place where they are able to agree with the Government.

-DF

A Parliamentary committee has recommended a referendum for constitutional recognition of local government be held this year – for the third time in the past 40 years. There was a referendum on the matter in 1974, and one again in 1988, neither of which carried. 

The call has been made by the Joint Select Committee (the Committee) on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government in its recently released report (the Report): Preliminary report on the majority finding of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government: the proposal, timing and likely success of a referendum to amend Section 96 of the Australian Constitution to effect financial recognition of local government. 

The Report produced four recommendations:

#1 The Committee recommends that a referendum on financial recognition of local government be held in 2013.  Given the importance of securing state and territory support, the Committee further recommends that, in addition to the efforts of the local government sector, Commonwealth Government Ministers, particularly the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, the Attorney-General and the Special Minister for State, immediately commence negotiations with state and territory governments to secure their support for the referendum proposal.

#2 The Committee recommends that the referendum propose an amendment to Section 96 of the Constitution:

…the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State or to any local government body formed by State or Territory legislation on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

#3 The Committee recommends that a referendum on financial recognition of local government be held at the same time as the 2013 federal election.

#4 The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government begin all necessary preparatory activities to ensure a successful outcome for a referendum on financial recognition in 2013.

 
In 2011 the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government was tasked by the Australian Government to produce a detailed report on the matter of constitutional recognition of local government.

The Panel identified and explored four options for constitutional recognition; Financial, Democratic, Symbol and Recognition through federal cooperation.

Financial recognition was the majority finding.

The Panel also recommended the committee be established. The Parliament directed the committee to assess the likelihood of success, the consequences of and when a referendum could be held on the issue.

According to the report, both previous referendums failed to incorporate specific wording that would allow for significant reform, while protecting the states and territories’ power over local government bodies.

The committee believes the current wording would overcome this issue.

Despite the challenging timeframe, the committee is confident that, if the relevant stakeholders can mobilise in a coordinated fashion and an effective public awareness campaign is launched immediately, there is a realistic chance the referendum could occur and be carried.

The final report is to be released in March, at which point we can expect a decision on whether the referendum will go ahead.
 

The popular media’s treatment of immigration as a “hot-potato issue” belies Australia’s legacy of placing migration policy at the heart of Government and economic planning. Even while it has been mired in political controversy, it has continued to evolve to meet economic needs.
 
At a time of tight labor markets, businesses should be aware of the immigration policy drivers, especially given the policy is now strongly focused on meeting business needs, and ask whether they address their own employment  issues. 

Photo: Mumbrella
 
Australia created the world’s first specific immigration portfolio in 1945 according to a 2012 Parliamentary research report, ‘Skilled migration: temporary and permanent flows to Australia’. Post-war era Australia established international migration programs for ex-servicemen, displaced persons and migration applicants from many countries across Europe and the United States. In the era of “populate or perish”, Australia benefited from the injection of population, skills, labour and entrepreneurship that arrived, mostly, by boat. 
 
Fifty plus years on and the objective and role of migration to Australia has evolved. Before the Howard Government, family migration (reuniting family members) was the majority category for permanent migration into Australia, representing over 50%. In 1996 the Government shifted and established skilled migration as the priority. 
 
A year later, arrivals under the skilled migration category had overtaken the family migration stream and in 2011-2012 skilled migrants accounted for 68% of the Migration Program. 
 
The Rudd Government furthered the objective of migration to improve the focus on Australia’s economic needs following the challenges of the Global Financial Crisis. A 2008-09 review sparked a change from “supply driven” migration policy to “demand driven”. 
 
This prioritised government and employer sponsored migration to address specific demand as well as migrants with skills in industries that had the most need for employee injections (Migration Occupations in Demand List). Highly desired skills at the time included medical, IT, and construction workers. 

In 2010 the Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL) was cancelled and an independent body created a more targeted replacement; the Skilled Occupations List (SOL), which came into effect in 2010. This list of 181 most demanded skilled professions is updated annually to take into account demand fluctuations and at the time the report was published, accountants, cooks and computer professions topped the list. 
 
The temporary skilled migrant program, an addition to the Migration Program for permanent migrants, has seen massive growth over the past decade. The largest component of this being the temporary business visa (457 visa) for employer sponsored short-term  employment (up to 4 years). This migration category is an important mechanism that impacts on the make-up and supply of the more transitory work, specifically fuelling seasonal or project-based work. Temporary migration to Australia is often the first step in moving to permanent migration; one third of the permanent Migration Program is made up of people who initially arrived via a temporary visa.  
 
The temporary skilled migrant stream constantly changes in size and composition, reflecting economic circumstances and needs. During the 2008 financial crisis the 457 visa category decreased considerably due to a lack of demand for temporary workers. Currently construction, health care and social assistance, and ‘other services’ have the highest number of primary visa holders. 

The 457 visa has come under some political heat with claims of exploitation and inadequate assistance in understanding worker rights. Both the Coalition and Labor governments have reviewed the visa class and made changes, including ensuring higher English language requirements, a market based minimum salary, non-discrimination practices and formal skills assessment. 
 
The Migration Program has also changed to reflect changes in Australia’s international economic relationships. The UK has historically, and up until 2009-10, been the largest contributor of permanent migrants to Australia, with 15.3% of 2009-10 migrants being from the UK. For the first time ever, 2010-11 saw China overtake the UK as the primary source country for permanent migrants. India was the largest provider in the total migration program in 2011-12 followed by China and thirdly the UK. 

- AH

One of the least remarked upon elements of the agreement that gave Julia Gillard the Prime Ministership in 2010 is likely to provide a central character in 2013, now that the election date is set.

Phil Bowen, who was appointed to the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in mid-2012 to head the small office that was created to independently assess the policy costings of all parties, and to assist all Members and Senators to scrutinise the budget.

Mr Bowen was the Australian Director of the Asia Development Bank (ADB) prior to taking up his present job. 

Photo: news.com.au 

Crucially, however, he was for five years head of the Budget Group in the Department of Finance prior to joining to ADB. The PBO has a budget of $24.9 million over four years from 2012, which Bowen told a conference last year was enough for 30-35 staff. As at December, it had 12. It also has scope to employ temporary experts and advisers.

Bowen’s experience at the heart of Budget preparation and the resources available to his office should mean that he has the skills to spot any egregious errors or attempts at woolly accounting, if not the ability to be dollar-perfect in his assessment of particular policies.

The office was created as part of the agreement by the Government and the Independents in the Lower House as part of the package of reforms negotiated during the period after the election when both major parties were seeking a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The PBO offers a circuit breaker in what has become a circular argument between Government and Opposition over the assessment of the cost of Opposition policy promises. The Government demands the Opposition allow Treasury to cost its policies, but the Opposition accuses Treasury of being biased and prefers to choose its own third party to validate its policy costs. The Government then rejects these endorsements as being biased in favour of the Opposition.
The PBO is a Department of the Parliament and answers to the Parliament, not the Government.
There is, however, one weakness in its design. Any member or Senator can refer a policy for costing during the life of the Parliament. The PBO advice is confidential. This should allow Opposition and other parties to present robustly costed policy proposals.

During a caretaker period, only publicly-announced policies can be referred by authorised members of Parliamentary parties or Independents. These costings must be made public.

In effect, this means that for the PBO to be able to properly assess the cost of Opposition policies, the Opposition itself will need to refer the policy and all its supporting material. If the Opposition has been availing itself of the services of the PBO to develop its policies, it should have no reason not to do this.

But if it thinks its costings might not bear scrutiny, it can still avoid being called out.

- DF

Summertime.

Swimming.  Sand.  Surfing. Spending  time with your family and friends.  Generally, taking it easy.  Oh, and cricket on the radio.

For me, the summer break means a chance to re-acquaint myself with an old and dear friend, the newspaper.  In this brave and bold new digital world, I venture to say that newsprint is far better equipped to cope with the rigours of the summer sojourn than any digital companion.

Hands up those of you who took your precious ipad or tablet to the beach, lake or river this year? For those in remote and rural holiday spots, how did your broadband coverage fare?

Seriously, can an ipad or tablet cope with that iconic combination of sand, sweaty fingers covered in sunscreen and grease from that perfect summer meal of fish and chips?

Your newspaper, however, is more than a match for the elements.   The summer holiday is when the newspaper not only rises to the challenge of informing you of the important events in the world (the weather, the surf report, the cricket scores) but it also brings families together.

Apart from the communal need to find out said weather and sporting information, who’s catching fish and where , the newspaper serves as a conversation starter, courtesy of a decent piece of news, a quirky photo or an issue that spans generations, like where the best post-Christmas deals were to be found.  There’s also those quizzes that, when undertaken in the right convivial way, filled in a good part of your day.

Thanks to the media’s needs to fill their pages with reviews of the year that was, this period is also the opportunity for parents to explain the intricacies of our democratic system of government, free from the distractions of “Julia” or “That man Abbott who is always on a bike or in Speedos” banging on about how no-one pays attention to opinion polls. 

Spare a thought for all the hard-working journos who bust their collective hump to inform and engage throughout the year.   Sport, work and school can be a distraction from the need to appreciate their commitment to the craft of journalism and the written word. 

Compare a well-written newspaper story to the electronic media  and their basdardisation of the English language, with their “Angry scenes today as workers . . .” or “Coming up tonight, how your washing powder can kill you.”  Daylight.

If you are lucky enough to still be on holidays, use the chance to avoid television and the internet to enjoy the experience of a newspaper while we still have them in our lives.  Even better. Get your kids to learn to love their newspapers, we need them.

Andrew Turner is former print journalist who still has ink in his veins despite working as a communications consultant for CPR Communications & Public Relations. 

Tony Abbott has left no doubt about his intention to scrap the carbon tax should he become prime minister. But it is not going to be easy, and there’s every chance carbon pricing will stay in place, writes David Forman. 

The issue of carbon pricing has one more electoral cycle to run, but it will be dead either by December 2013 or late 2015, depending on the result of this year’s election.

Either way, few politicians will lament its disappearance from the political front line.  

A return of the Government is not impossible, but with Labor needing to gain seats to achieve this, it is hard to see at this stage. Should the Coalition win, carbon pricing policy will be the first test of whether Tony Abbott chooses to model himself as a great political pragmatist, like his hero John Howard, or a crash-or-crash-through leader.

Abbott has left no doubt about his commitment to abolish the tax. But getting there will be a painful and scary path which might force him to question whether compromise is not only safer but also a better outcome for a reforming conservative in the long term.

His first problem is that despite the rhetoric of the past two and half years, the election will not be a referendum on carbon pricing.

Tony Abbott’s attack on the carbon tax has been focused, unrelenting and effective, but the dividend it has delivered has shifted. The swing back toward the Government supports the idea that the anger with the carbon tax has faded, as the Prime Minister insisted it would.

The lasting dividend the anti-carbon tax campaign has provided the Opposition is damage to the PM’s personal credibility. This is the payoff the Opposition sought to double up on with its personal attacks on Gillard’s past.

It is no coincidence that carbon pricing was barely mentioned as the spiteful 2012 parliamentary year reached its ugly nadir. Carbon was not the Opposition’s best lever against the PM’s credibility; her personal and professional past was.

Where does this place carbon post-election, and what political context will a Coalition government face in 2013-14?

Firstly, all decisions would be made in a very different frame to that of the present government, especially if Joe Hockey is treasurer.

For all the fuss about the politics of a budget surplus, there is bipartisan agreement – and market support, in theory if not in practice – for budget balance over the growth cycle.

When growth is at its present level of around 3 per cent, the deficit needs to be eliminated to deliver balance over the cycle. So, whoever wins the election will need to achieve a surplus in their first year of office while facing weak revenue as the resources boom subsides.

For Joe Hockey, this represents an opportunity to take a deeper look at government in the way UK prime minister David Cameron promoted his Big Society to make a virtue out of a fiscal crisis.

Hockey called for the end of the “age of entitlement” in a speech that deserved a lot more attention than it has received. Hockey contends governments can no longer afford the vanity of middle-class welfare.

But this is a vision of Government very different from what people have grown up with. Remaking expectations of government can only be bought at the cost of huge short-term political capital, as Cameron’s experience shows.

It is also a vision potentially at odds with Tony Abbott’s conservative political formula.

Abbott proudly declares himself a graduate of the John Howard school of political pragmatism, where governments keep an eye on electoral appeal and spend precious political capital on only a few big issues.

Is the repeal of the Carbon Tax in 2014 likely to meet the big issue criteria?

The Coalition has promised carbon pricing will be repealed in six months. This is predicated on a Labor opposition supporting such legislation, a likelihood environment spokesman Greg Hunt put at 80 per cent in speeches to business groups.

Actually, those chances are likely to be closer to zero. The Coalition promise serves a pragmatic purpose of getting them to the other side of the election because it provides an answer for when they are asked how the tax will be removed, but it will not be much value after that in the reality of a post-election Senate.

Consider what a prospective Coalition government will be facing in trying to abolish carbon pricing.

Firstly, the political dividend would be limited. The community appears no longer enraged by the tax itself, but all other parties in the Parliament are enraged by the prospect of removing it.

Supporters of carbon pricing, while inept, disunited and disorganised over the past five years, can surely be expected to be able to mount a competent campaign to have it retained.

Secondly, repealing the carbon tax comes at a cost to the budget – probably a very big cost if the present Government is to be believed – at a time when the incoming treasurer will be working desperately to get the budget in balance.

Thirdly, if the Treasurer framing the budgets at that time is Joe Hockey, he will come into office with an agenda of reforming government to correct the “chronic failure of the democratic process” represented by what he sees as citizens addiction to handouts from the public purse.

He will want to do some things that will be profoundly unpopular to wean people off the state teat. He will have to do that in his first two budgets, and it will hurt politically.

In this environment, an Abbott government would be moving to repeal the carbon pricing package and almost certainly have it rejected by a hostile Senate.

Tony Abbott has repeatedly said he will force the issue through a double dissolution if need be. It is easy to talk about double dissolution elections from the safety of opposition; it is rather a different prospect to bring one on from the government benches.

Any election is all about uncertainty. The received political wisdom since Bob Hawke had his nose bloodied in 1984 is that the electorate dislikes early polls.

Double dissolution elections are even scarier. Governments are left to live with a Senate make-up almost impossible to predict, and for six years or more the balance of power can be in the hands of a collection of odd bods thrust into positions of power and influence. (Though a Coalition government might see some upside in shaking up the Senate in the hope the Greens lose the balance of power.)

On top of that, the move from a carbon tax to the more widely supported cap and trade model will be less than a year away by the time the opportunity for a double dissolution election arises.

Throwing the switch to election mode with all of those volatile ingredients in play would not seem very appealing.

Some would argue that the Coalition risked throwing away the chance to make lasting policy the whole party room believed important, simply to deliver on a promise that served its political purpose two years earlier.

One the other hand, Tony Abbott will no doubt be acutely aware that his political opponents, fired by a deep animosity at what they regard as his hypocrisy, will be ready to climb all over him at the first chance to say he “lied” about his intentions before the election.

What then might be a graceful compromise that could get through the Parliament and be able to be spun as a repealing of the carbon tax?

One possibility would be, after trying and failing to repeal the carbon pricing regime, to bring forward the conversion of the tax to a cap and trade system, perhaps by six months or a year. Tony Abbott could argue that he has removed the toxic tax. The carbon price per tonne to business is likely to be lower.

The Senate would find it difficult to oppose the legislation and restless voices in the Coalition’s own party room, either because they are concerned about Direct Action’s efficacy or because they support a market-based approach, would be quietened.

On the other hand, the most powerful and vocal opponents of the tax in the Coalition are against any form of carbon price.

Tony Abbott has shown an ability to create and maintain unity in what was a deeply divided party room which preferred him as leader by just one vote in 2009. Whether he decides to try to massage carbon compromise through his party room or risks everything on the most politically volatile issue of our time will define his leadership style.

The September edition of Glen Frost’s PR report was just released and in it features the latest news from CPR and Hotwire. 

Top news:

Nathalie Sevim has been appointed to the CPR Sydney team (profile)
CPR Melbourne attributed to the ProtectTheAstor campaign
Suzanne Hewitt has been appointed Director of HotwirePR Australia (profile)

See below for the edited version of the PR report.

A skateboarding rhino dubbed Spike has become an unlikely and quirky poster beastie for tram safety in Melbourne. Part of a campaign for public transport company Yarra Trams, the skateboarding rhino reminds pedestrians and commuters to take care, because a tram weighs as much as 30 of Africa’s most famous horned megafauna, and you will come off second best in a collision. The idea is to deliver message cut through to an audience that is literally deaf to safety warnings – plugged in and wired Gen Ys who are so distracted by their iPods and phones that they are liable to wander in front of a tram, with catastrophic consequences.

Public transport advertising campaigns in Melbourne have a chequered history. Who could forget train company Connex’s “Dr Martin Merton”, a fictional etiquette expert who enlightened us on being nice to your fellow passenger by, amongst other things, not farting on the train? Or government authority The Met’s facile “BATBYGOBSTOPL” campaign, which featured a cheesy retro-styled jingle (watch here) about the great new acronym, short for “Buying A Ticket Before You Get On Board Saves Time Or Problems Later.” 

Unlike this advertising sludge, Spike the rhino is a genuinely clever campaign – engaging, creative, a little off the wall and effective, according to Yarra Trams. While we don’t know how the pedestrian-tram accident figures are trending, the company claims 80 per cent message recall six months out.

It’s won a number of awards, and the “Beware the Rhino” Facebook page has around 3000 fans –more, you would imagine, than a page entitled “Important Tram Safety Information” would garner.

All good. But recently Yarra Trams launched a new phase of the campaign using the slogan “In Anyone’s Language a Tram Weighs as Much as 30 Rhinos.” It features the same creative execution, but the word “Beware” is written in a variety of languages, including faux Braille dots, while the rest of the text is in English.

BEWARE: In anyone’s language, a tram weighs as much as 30 rhinos.

This is neither a genuine multicultural campaign extension nor an attempt to communicate with people with disabilities. Indeed there is nothing on Yarra Trams’ website to indicate that the campaign has any component aimed at people from non-English speaking backgrounds or those with disabilities (although Yarra Trams does have a series of videos on its website for wheelchair users).

Using “Braille” and non-English languages in this way is little more than an attempt to generate attention and perhaps a wry smile or laugh from people who are physically able to read the advertisement and are able to do so in English. To my way of thinking, this betrays a level of contempt for people in the community whose communication needs differ from the mainstream.

I’ve been gobsmacked to see trams bearing the latest “multicultural” Spike poster trundling through areas in Melbourne that have high concentrations of new arrivals, people from Africa, the Middle-East and Asia. People who actually need safety messages in their first language because they may not yet have had the opportunity to become proficient in English.

It’s equally incongruous seeing the faux braille version of the message plastered on the city’s new platform style stops, which are designed to be accessible for people with disabilities, and have features like tactile pavement edges, talking announcements and roll in-roll out access for passengers in wheelchairs or with mobility limitations.

CPR has been involved in a number of award-winning disability-focussed awareness campaigns, so we know of the myriad complex requirements involved in communicating effectively to these groups. From font sizes and contrast on websites and printed collateral to the language chosen for copy, getting it right when you communicate with people with disabilities is a serious undertaking.

Likewise, new arrivals to Melbourne, such as the African communities, who may not yet have acquired significant English language skills and whose background may afford them little experience of western traffic conditions, road rules and public transport modes like trains and trams, deserve better than tokenism or gags at their expense.

While a measure of humour is an effective way to generate message cut through, safety on public transport is no joke. An organisation that receives government funding has an obligation to deliver its safety messages in a way that can be received and understood by everyone in the community. In anyone’s language the latest incarnation of the skateboarding rhino fails this test. Yarra Trams should spike it.

-IS

There is something profoundly disturbing about what the furore surrounding US politician Todd Akin – but it’s not what he is being hammered for by other politicians and commentators.

Akin, an 11-year veteran of the US Congress and committed anti-abortion campaigner said in a live TV interview at the weekend that he believed women were unlikely to become pregnant after suffering legitimate rape.

The resulting shock and fury has continued unabated with everyone from the President down belting Akin. President Obama’s comments epitomised the popular angle of attack – that it was unacceptable for rape to be parsed into categories of legitimate and illegitimate.

Akin has explained his comments were a mistake; that in the heat of the interview he had used poorly judged words – “misspoke” – but that he does not legitimise rape in any circumstance. It is an explanation that at least should be considered feasible – that he added an adjective without particularly meaning anything by it. Anyone who has done a live media interview would be aware how easy it is to be imprecise in language, or how cringe-worthy an explanation sometimes sounds on playback.

But barely rating a mention is the extraordinary proposition that Akin DID mean to make – that raped women have some automatic physical mechanism that “turns off” their fertility. Akin has since withdrawn that proposition, but that an experienced, educated, long-standing politician made such a loony remark in the first place is surely astonishing in the extreme.

Akin’s explanation for making the comment was basically “someone told me”. Really! That’s the basis for policy making in the world’s most powerful democratic nation? And not on some minor issue, but on one that has been contentious and controversial for decades.

The truth is that a piece of fantasist nonsense it might be, but it was a convenient piece of absurdity, because it could be used as a phoney proof point to support his moral position on abortion.

The admonition of one of Akin predecessors in the Congress, Pat Moynihan, that “you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts” appears quaint and old-fashioned in modern American politics.

Yet, sadly, we can see the same phenomenon in modern Australian politics.

The cause of climate change is one of the most researched and settled of modern scientific issues. In fact, there is bipartisan support for the proposition that human activity is causing carbon to increase in the atmosphere, that this is causing climate change, and that carbon emissions must be reduced and/or captured to reverse this trend. The issue between the major parties goes to the appropriate policies to effect this.

But somehow that does not appear to be the impression abroad in the community. The public acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change has decreased rather than increased as a handful of extremist non-believers have achieved attention massively out of proportion to their qualifications or representativeness of the scientific community.

A group of senior politicians has contributed to the celebrity of these climate change deniers because they provide a convenient – if false – proof point for what they would like to believe. Sadly, as much as we want to say that we regard politicians as not to be trusted, when a senior politician declares that something is fact, it does carry a degree of authority for that person’s followers.

So, a politician uses a convenient untruth to justify a position they want to hold for ideological or faith-based reasons, and in so doing provides a veneer of credibility to the untruth itself. It’s a kind of reverse proof point

This creates another curious problem for observers of politics. This is fashionable for politicians to declare themselves advocates of “evidence-based policy”. But when it is apparent that politicians now regard themselves as being free to invent their own evidence, how do we tell the difference between made up evidence-based policy and factual evidence-based policy?

-DF

The immaculately dressed, middle-aged woman in seat 25J wasn’t enjoying the soundtrack to the Qantas flight safety message. She soon plugged her fingers into her ears and bunkered down to wait, grimacing, for the awful noise to end.

Getting passengers to listen to inflight safety information is, for all airlines, a challenge.

The reason is partly positive: passengers have confidence that they will arrive safely at their destination and, therefore, won’t need to know how to inflate their life jackets. And it’s partly to do with message fatigue: we’ve heard it all before.

Qantas, which appears to take seriously the challenge of getting audience cut through with this message, has chosen the clobber ’em approach: turn up the volume so loud that it is simply impossible for anyone on board to not hear that little lights will illuminate the path to the door if the plane crashes into the sea.

As we become more sophisticated in our understanding of how and why different forms of messaging and message delivery do or don’t work we appreciate more clearly that you can’t force an audience to listen. You can only compel it to do so.

We see also that it is increasingly difficult to achieve this outcome when there is so much message bombardment – so much noise – happening all the time. That’s why we talk about creating narratives, telling stories that resonate, engaging with our audiences. It is hard to see that Qantas’ approach does any of these.

Sometimes organisations have messages to share that they hold dearly. Sometimes regulation obliges them to provide information. Sometimes the message itself, and the way it is delivered, can be reconfigured, made relevant and delivered in new ways to connect with the people that matter and build respect for the brand at the same time.

The pertinent question here is: does it matter. Is there a business outcome attached to Qantas’ decision to temporarily deafen us before lift-off?

Yes. Facetiously, someone on a flight out of Canberra might hit the airline with an OH&S infringement notice. More likely, however, passengers will say and do nothing but be silently irritated as they plug their fingers into their ears, bunker down and wait, grimacing, for the awful noise to end.

Those little annoyances in service delivery (like, while we’re on the subject, the endless inflight reruns of Mythbusters) breed frustrations of the type that businesses typically don’t or can’t capture. But they aggregate, and solidify, and then a significant event unfolds to really test customer goodwill and the company wonders where all the venom came from.

The flight into Brisbane had begun its descent when the pilot interrupted an episode of Mythbusters to tell us that sharing our flight was a group of school students who had just returned from winning an international competition in the US run by NASA. The woman next to me sat up, listening intently to the pilot’s message. She beamed with pride. And when the pilot stopped speaking, we all burst into applause.

Now remind me again. In the case of an emergency, where’s my lifejacket stowed?

- JD