Click here to go back to issues list

Echo Issue Outline(... appearing in 1999 print edition 36

TITLE: Politics and media 'gags': should the Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett, have prevented Liberal election candidates speaking to mainstream media?
Copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`This campaign is not about satisfying the media'
The Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett

'...we have an obligation to put your colleagues to the test so that voters can make informed choices'
Herald Sun editorial of September 1, 1999, responding to the Victorian premier's criticisms of the role of the media in an election

During the 1999 Victorian election campaign Liberal candidates were prohibited from speaking to mainstream media outlets. During the same campaign the Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, refused to debate the Labor Opposition leader, Mr Steve Bracks.
The Government's policy releases in all key areas were made by the Premier, accompanied by the relevant minister.
This tightly controlled election campaign was viewed by some as a disciplined and effective strategy to prevent the media distorting the message the Government wanted to present to voters. Others, including the major media outlets, saw the limitations placed on Liberal candidates' access to the mainstream media as a significant restriction of the democratic process.

Background
The sort of control exerted over Liberal candidates during the 1999 election was essentially the same as the limitations imposed on them in the 1992 and 1996 campaigns. For the last seven years Coalition election campaigns, and especially Liberal campaigns, have been marked by a high degree of centralised control and a focus on the person of the leader.
What appeared to be different during this campaign was that the media publicised its limited access to Liberal candidates and the question of whether candidates should be gagged became an issue during at least the early stages of the election.
What also marked this campaign as different was that the Nationals, the minor party in the Coalition, disassociated themselves from the gag strategy and declared that their candidates would not be 'debarked'.
At least from the perspective of the Nationals what appeared to be at issue here was the relatively minor role the party felt had been ascribed to it by the Liberals during the Government's two terms in office. It would appear that the Nationals believed that the interests of their natural constituents could best be appealed to by National Party candidates and that unfettered media access was a part of this.
From the point of view of the wider campaign, the gag strategy was claimed by critics to be part of a wider set of strategies aimed at restricting public access to the workings of Government, thus allowing the Government not to be placed under proper scrutiny.


There is a large number of Internet sites which deal with aspects of this issue.

* The ABC's 7.30 Report of August 24, 1999, contained a segment which looked at the impending Victorian election and the electorate's probable reaction to Mr Kennett's leadership style.
The segment was titled, Kennett at unbackable odds as Victoria goes to the polls. It can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s46319.htm
A week later on August 31, 1999, the 7.30 Report included a segment titled, Kennett pioneers silent election campaign.
This dealt explicitly with the Premier and the Coalition's attitude to whether candidates should be able to speak with mainstream media or debate their political opponents during the election campaign.
It includes comments from the Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett; the Nationals' leader, Mr Pat McNamara; the leader of the Labor Opposition, Mr Steve Bracks; and a number of Liberal backbenchers.
It can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s48236.htm

* An ABC Four Corners' report titled Kennett's Culture gives interesting background on the Kennett Government's supposed sensitivity to media criticism.
The Four Corners' report was televised on September 22, 1997 and dealt with the difficulties surrounding the production and screening of a Channel 7, Today Tonight, critique of Mr Kennett's share dealings. It can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/features/four_corners/default.htm

* A Radio National Media Report feature titled Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett's relationship with the media in the lead up to an election also gives interesting background on the Kennett Government's relationship with the media.
This transcript is particularly useful as it has various commentators speculating about the manner in which the Kennett Government would handle the media in the lead-up to the 1996 election.
The report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/mstories/mr071202.htm

* An Internet site which gives valuable information on various aspects of politics in Australia is Malcolm Farnsworth's VCEpolitics.com It can be found at http://vcepolitics.com/
The site includes useful information on the parties and the relationship between parties and the media.
* It supplies a very interesting critical analysis of the manner in which the media have treated the Labor Opposition leader, John Brumby, compared to the treatment received by the Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett.
The analysis was written in 1997 by Sarah Pinto and is titled, The Importance of Jeff - A Media Study. It can be found at http://vcepolitics.com/states/vic/pinto.htm

* Another interesting background site is Basil Smith's A Chariot of Fire - Secret Ballots IN Parliament.
This is a six chapter publication, fully available on the Internet.
Its author is highly critical of the party system and the sort of discipline that this imposes on party members. He argues that party discipline means that elected representatives are unable to respond adequately to the needs of their electorates.
Chariots of Fire's index can be found at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~basils/asc1.htm
* Chapter Two, treating the current role of parties, can be found at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~basils/asc4.htm Though the book focuses on federal politics many of its observations are relevant to state parliaments. It also comments on the effect of party politics on the media and its tendency to focus on party leaders.


Arguments in favour of the Premier's gag on Liberal candidates speaking to mainstream media
The principal argument offered in favour of the gag the Premier imposed on candidates, preventing them speaking to mainstream media outlets, is that it indicated a lack of confidence in the media, not a lack of confidence in Liberal candidates.
Premier Kennett has argued in favour of his decision, claiming 'This campaign is not about satisfying the media.'
He has further said of the media, 'You get your rocks off very quickly and easily on minutiae.'
According to this line of argument, the media cannot be given easy access to political candidates because it tends to distort their comments, taking election campaigns in directions which party leaders regard as trivial or damaging.
This position has also been put by Geoff Schaller, in a letter published in The Australian.
Mr Schaller has argued, 'Kennett is right. The media do not play their role in a constructive way and this is one way to deal with it ...
Mr Kennett's edict that candidates do not speak to mainstream media will force journalists to react to news and not "create" it. They will have to react to public announcements.'
It has also been argued that Premier Kennett's decision was a sensible one from a strategic point of view as it gave him and his campaign team almost total control of the Liberal message which is presented in the media each day.
According to this line of argument, if the only sources of information about Government policy and campaign initiatives are official party statements and if the Premier is the primary source of comment on these statements then the Government has a large measure of control over the image it projects to the electorate.
The Government's media control strategy through the election campaign has been described by Ewin Hannan, a political commentator for The Age.
Mr Hannan has stated, 'As in 1996, the Liberal strategy is to make the campaign a one-man band and minimise the prospect of leaks. Kennett and only Kennett will be the focus. Scrutiny of individual MPs will be minimised.
Kennett will launch the Coalition's individual policies, accompanied by the relevant minister. The press conferences are tightly controlled with the written policy documents handed out only after the event is over ...'
This strategy has been summed up by the Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett.
Mr Kennett has stated, 'I have said to my colleagues ... I don't want you all out there like Brown's cows talking to the media.'
The technique has been explained by Bob Hogg, former Victorian and national secretary for the ALP.
Mr Hogg has written, 'Strategically it is understandable that ... [the Premier] wishes to run a cautious, no-errors campaign. All parties strive to achieve that - hence the battle to control the political agenda ...'
The Premier has also explained his position in terms of party discipline and respect for the party's leadership.
According to this line of argument, all party members have to accept the agreed policy positions arrived at by the party.
Party discipline is normally referred to with regard to MPs' behaviour in Parliament, where they are expected to vote according to the party's agreed position on a particular question. However, the attitude taken by the Premier toward candidates' comments during election campaigns suggests that such discipline also needs to be applied to candidates' interactions with the media.
Mr Kennett has compared his position to that of a team coach and suggested that Liberal candidates and backbenchers are in the position of team players.
Mr Kennett has been quoted as saying, 'We're not a football team where 18 players are out there saying different things to different media on different dates. No coach would allow that.'
Another defence offered of the Premier's decision to limit candidates' access to the media was that the ban was not total. It prohibited candidates speaking to the mainstream media but not to local media outlets within their electorates.
From this point of view, it has been argued, candidates were still able to campaign effectively on a local level.
This point has been made by the Premier, Jeff Kennett.
Mr Kennett has stated, 'I have said to my colleagues that where you are not associated with delivering policy, work hard in your own electorate ...'
Geoff Schaller, in a letter published in The Australian, has claimed that candidates did not need to use Melbourne-based or national media outlets to get information out to their electorates.
Mr Schaller has written, 'I do not need the press to find out what my local candidates stand for because we have received their brochures in the mail and can hear them speak around town. ... Mr Kennett's action will not stop scrutiny'.
It has also been noted that some MPs were allowed to make comments to mainstream media outlets once they have been approved by the campaign office.
This point has been made by Ewin Hannan, a political commentator for The Age.
Mr Hannan has written, 'Kennett, despite the widespread perception, has not imposed a blanket ban on his MPs talking to the Melbourne media. Selected MPs can talk, they just require approval first from Kennett's central control base at Treasury Place. During the campaign, The Age has been "allowed" to interview at length a number of Liberal MPs for campaign notebook-cum-marginal seat profiles.'
Finally, it has been noted, the style of election campaign that Premier Kennett orchestrated has actually been encouraged by the media.
According to this line of argument, the 'sound bite' mentality that mass media elections promote encourages parties to send out short, simplistic messages.
This point has been made by Herald Sun commentator, Andrew Bolt, who has noted, 'In practice ... elections are increasingly run on presidential lines, with each leader needing to get out one clear message a day.'
It has also been argued that mass media election campaigns lead to the politics of personality and a focus on the political leader as the sole spokesperson for the party.
This point has been made by Mark Ford, in a 50/50 comment published in The Herald Sun.
Mr Ford has claimed, 'The media created the pop-star persona of Jeff Kennett and should therefore not be surprised when he refuses to share the stage with anyone.'

Arguments against the Premier's gag on Liberal candidates speaking to the mainstream media
The main argument offered against Premier Kennett's ban on Liberal candidates speaking to the mainstream media is that it was likely to impede the democratic process.
According to this line of argument, the media plays an important role in any election campaign.
It is claimed that media comment and analysis helps the electorate become aware of party policies and also become aware of the strengths and weaknesses of individual candidates.
Therefore, it is argued, any attempt to reduce the media's access to political candidates reduces its capacity to inform the electorate.
This position has been put by The Herald Sun in an editorial published on September 1, 1999. The editorial was defending the newspaper against the Premier's accusation that the media likes to 'play games' during election campaigns.
The editorial stated, 'We don't want to play games, Mr Kennett ... we have an obligation to put your colleagues to the test so that voters can make informed choices.'
A similar point has been made in an editorial in The Australian, also published on September 1.
The editorial claims, 'The ban ... shows an outrageous disdain for the principles of democracy.'
It has further been argued that when information about party policies is static, that is, presented without adequate opportunity for questions, comment and analysis, then political debate is reduced to the level of advertising.
This point was also made in The Australian editorial of September 1, 1999.
The editorial states, '... campaigning has moved away from any form of direct interaction with the voters to the presentation of a great volume of unchallenged statements ... The less capacity for critical analysis and comment, particularly in the newspapers, the better for political spin masters ...'
A similar point was made in a letter from Deidre Lowery, published in The Herald Sun on September 2, 1999.
Ms Lowery stated, 'Jeff Kennett, like all politicians in a democracy, must present and openly debate all the policies he plans to implement, so voters can decide.
If Jeff supports the basic principles of democracy ... he must acknowledge that alternative views exist and that his party is expected to put some credible counter arguments.
Does Jeff believe that advertising has taken the place of democratic process in this state?'
Bob Hogg, a former Victorian and national secretary of the ALP has summed up what he claims is Premier Kennett's attitude to the media and the democratic process.
Mr Hogg claims, 'Kennett's sense of civic duty is ... so diminished that he ignores the right for the public to know and debate why he should be re-elected.
He understands that the media is the vehicle by which the public becomes involved, so he does all he can to thwart it.'
Another argument offered against the media ban imposed by Premier Kennett is that it suggested that he had little confidence in his Liberal colleagues contesting the election.
This point was made in The Australian editorial of September 1, 1999.
The editorial claims that Mr Kennett's ban implies 'a vote of no-confidence in his ministers, backbenchers and candidates'.
A similar point has been made in The Age editorial of September 3, 1999.
The editorial states, 'If a leader has to impose a gag to be sure of maintaining party unity, it suggests he has little confidence in the calibre of the candidates he leads.'
This point has also been made by Mr Pat McNamara, the leader of the National Party in the Victorian Coalition Government.
Unlike the Liberal Party, the Nationals allowed their candidates the freedom to speak to the mainstream media during the election campaign.
Mr McNamara has stated, 'We have confidence in the calibre of our members and our candidates.'
Another argument offered against the Premier's ban on candidates speaking with major media outlets is that it was part of an excessive focus on the Premier as leader of the Government.
According to this line of argument a government cannot and should not be the product of one man, the party leader.
Those who hold this view argue that ministers, backbenchers, and candidates for election need the capacity to contribute to the political debate.
They must, it is argued, be able to bring their particular talents and the interests of their electorate to bear when policy is being formulated.
This point has been made by Cecilia Clark in a letter published in The Herald Sun on September 2, 1999.
Ms Clark wrote, 'Gagging Liberal MPs is tantamount to gagging the voters. These people were elected to speak on behalf of the voters they represent, not to sit by silently while their leader tells them what to do.'
A number of Victorian National Party candidates who spoke to mainstream media through the election campaign stressed that they believed it was important that they be able to speak for the country electorates they represent.
Mr Hugh Delahunty, the National's candidate for the seat of Wimmera has stated, 'I don't think they [the Government] are doing enough for country people and that's why I've put my hand up.'
It has also been suggested that policies formulated largely according to the agenda of the leader of the government may not be the best policies.
This point has been made by Andrew Bolt, a commentator for The Herald Sun.
Mr Bolt has written, '... the Liberal Party is increasingly a reflection of the Premier himself, pushing his pet policies.'
It has further been argued that focusing exclusively on the leader may have electoral disadvantages.
This point was made in The Age editorial of September 3, 1999.
The editorial claims, '... in democracies candidates win elections by persuading voters that they understand public issues and have the best policies for resolving them. To do that candidates must be free to speak ...'
A similar point was made by Karen Degenhardt in a letter also published in The Herald Sun on September 2, 1999.
Ms Degenhardt wrote, 'Why on earth would I ever vote for a local candidate whose voice can be gagged so easily.'
It has also been suggested that when a party is largely the product of one man it is unlikely to survive his leaving the political scene.
According to this line of argument Premier Kennett may have undermined the political initiative of his colleagues so that there is no one who is likely to be an effective successor to him.
It has also been suggested that the public may have come to identify the Victorian Liberal Party so closely with Jeff Kennett that they would either reject the party because they rejected its leader, or, if they supported Mr Kennett, be reluctant to vote for his successor.
This last point has also been made by Andrew Bolt, writing in The Herald Sun.
Mr Bolt notes, 'So what happens when [Jeff Kennett] finally goes? It will be hard enough to find a new leader for the Liberals. But finding someone to take over the Jeff Party will be near impossible.'

Further implications
At the time of going to press the result of the 1999 election had not yet been finalised. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the dramatic loss of seats by the Liberal Party is likely to be at least in part attributed to the focus through the election on the premier, Mr Kennett. It is difficult to say whether this is a just conclusion to draw.
It also seems that regional and country voters were dissatisfied with the extent to which their needs were being addressed. It was also suggested that the generally predicted Coalition victory made some Coalition voters feel they could safely cast a protest vote for the Labor Party and still see the Coalition returned.
Whatever motivated those voters who switched allegiance in the 1999 election, the Liberal Party's lack of electoral success is likely to ensure that media limitations will not soon be applied to political candidates.
It also seems likely that the evenly balanced state of Parliament will ensure that whichever party forms government will have its policies and procedures subjected to careful scrutiny both in Parliament and the media.
If it is true that Mr Kennett has enjoyed a period of unchallenged leadership and relatively little media investigation this is unlikely to be the case should he retain office. His party's reduced numbers is likely to see backbenchers, in particular, demanding a greater say. Should this happen it will be interesting to note whether a less centralised party is an electoral asset of a liability.

Sources
The Age
2/9/99 page 7 news item by Ben Mitchell and Meaghan Shaw, 'Nats defiant on gag order'
2/9/99 page 18 letter from Seth Seiderman, 'Stop the Americanisation of our politics'
2/9/99 page 18 cartoon by Tandberg
2/9/99 page 18 letter from Lesley Hardcastle, 'Let the dogs bark, Premier'
3/9/99 page 14 editorial, 'The sounds of silence'
3/9/99 page 15 comment by Bob Hogg, 'The total power of one'
4/9/99 page 15 comment by Lee Burton, 'Be wary of political games'
4/9/99 page 5 (News Extra) comment by Ewin Hannan, 'What Bracks must do'

The Australian
1/9/99 page 12 editorial, `Kennett gag no joke for democracy'
2/9/99 page 10 letter from Geoff Schaller, 'Don't laugh at Kennett's gag'
3/9/99 page 12 letter from Rex Condon, 'Need to hide candidates'

The Herald Sun
1/9/99 page 11 news item by Rick Wallace, 'Coalition split on de-barking'
1/9/99 page 18 editorial, 'Silence of the lambs'
2/9/99 page 16 letters from Joseph Schembri, Cecilia Clark, John Eren, Jill Duck, Keith Donovan, Karen Degenhardt, Deidre Lowery, Angela Helleren, Cath Fisher Mark Sweeney and Mark Ford, some under the heading, 'Remove the muzzle or suffer voters' ire'
2/9/99 page 18 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'The trouble with a Just Jeff party'
3/9/99 page 18 comment by Jill Singer, 'The one-man band has struck a bum note'
4/9/99 page 20 comment by Damon Johnston, 'Choking on gag'
4/9/99 page 20 comment from six voters in marginal seats, 'Voters' forum: What do you think of the gag on Liberal MPs and candidates ...?'