Recent comments

There are five key points I'd like to respond to in Rod Bruem's post about the extract from Inside Spin 1. He claims that he initially refused to provide information on Telstra’s sponsorship of think tanks because I refused to say who I was or what I wanted the information for. The facts are these. In mid-December 2004 I contacted Telstra's Warwick Ponder by phone and stated that I was a freelance journalist researching the issue of think tanks. I indicated that I was interested in getting details on which think tanks Telstra funded and the specific amounts of data for 2003/04 and 2004/05 financial years. I followed up the same day with an email in which I again specified that I was a freelance journalist and indicated that I wrote for a range of media outlets. I also indicated that I was interested in details on how much Telstra provided, if anything, to think tanks including the Institute of Public Affairs, the Center for Independent Studies and the Sydney Institute. A week went by and there was no response . I e-mailed Ponder again and got an e-mail from Rod Bruem stating that the information had been tabled in response to Senate Estimates hearings and that's where such information would be provided in future. If Bruem was uncertain about who I was or why I was asking for the information all he had to do was read the e-mail that he responded to. And if he was still uncertain, he could easily have e-mailed or phoned me but he didn't . Indeed, after I interviewed Bruem for Inside Spin in September, 2006 -- twenty months after the email exchange -- he wrote in an e-mail "please accept my apology if appeared dismissive last year when you first made contact." Notably, he did not claim that he had been "dismissive" because I refused to say who I was or what the information was for. 2. In his post Bruem states that "however I did explain that the information was on the public record (in Hansard) and told him where he could find it". It is worth pointing out that my original inquiry was prompted by reading the February 2004 Hansard (the record of parliamentary proceedings) [http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/senate/dailys/ds100204.pdf response] to a question in the Australian parliament by Senator Kerry O’Brien, who had asked for information on Telstra’s funding of the IPA alone between 1996/97 and 2003/04. My request was for funding data for all think tanks, not just the IPA. I also wanted the data up to 2004/05. So referring me to the answer to O'Brien's narrower question which was based on older data was, at best, a misunderstanding of the specific information I was asking for or, at worst, "dismissive". 3. Bruem claims that "later, when I learned about who he was and what he was working on (through my own research), I was very forthcoming with comments and information, even going so far as to advise him to use the Freedom Of Information Act to get up to date details. You won't read that in his book." Bruem has the timetable of events all mixed up. On November 11, 2005 I filed a Freedom of Information request with Telstra along the lines of my original inquiry, though specifying that I was interested in all records between 1999 and November 2005. (Again, I set out who I was and the range of media outlets that I worked for). After some exchange of correspondence and appeals, I received the final tranche of documents from Telstra in April 2006. (As I wrote in the acknowledgments for Inside Spin, I appreciate the professional handling of my Freedom of Information request by Telstra staff). In September 2006, I phoned Bruem to ask about the issue of think tanks public advocacy without the disclosure of funders. His statement that he suggested at this point that I seek the information under the freedom of information act is mistaken. And even if he had made the suggestion, it would have been irrelevant as I had completed my request four months earlier. So he's right that "you won’t read that" in <em>Inside Spin</em> because if I had written that, it would have been wrong. 4. Bruem writes that "I also recall asking him whether he'd be applying the same scrutinty [sic] to some of the more left-leaning think tanks, as he was clearly applying to the pro-business Institute of Public Affairs." Bruem did ask whether I was looking at all think tanks in my book but the answer was no. By the time I called him in September 2006 the focus of the "Battle Tanks" chapter was on the role of the IPA in a number of public debates. (As it was, I didn't have space to include material I had I had obtained on other think tanks that Telstra fund, such as the Center for Independent Studies and the Sydney Institute). It is worth pointing out that one of the reasons that I focused on the IPA was their enthusiastic advocacy of other groups being transparent, accountable and well-governed. It's worth noting that he indicated in September 2006 that Telstra don’t fund "left leaning think tanks" such as the Australia Institute. And he’s very generous in describing the IPA is "pro-business". I doubt that Telstra's corporate competitors, who are used to seeing the IPA run a Telstra-friendly agenda, would describe them that way. 5. Bruem also wrote that "as you can see from my comments in the book, I believe we should be open about this. Let's have a public debate about think tanks and how they are funded." As I note in the book, Bruem stated his support for think tanks being transparent about the sources of funding. But in the year since I interviewed him, Telstra still haven’t publicly disclosed -- aside from the information obtained from my FOI application -- which thinks tanks they fund, the amount they contribute or the purpose of the funding. So, in the interests of advancing the debate beyond point and counterpoint, let's agree that Telstra has the potential to be a leader in ensuring that think tanks are transparent about the funding. Here are some specific, cheap and easy steps that are within Telstra's power to ensure greater transparency now. * In another post on this thread, Bruem could disclose the amount of Telstra grants and other payments to the IPA and other think tanks in the 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 financial years. (Or he could do it on Telstra's own website). This is not really such a big ask. If the greenhouse dinosaur, Exxon, can disclose in the U.S. which think tanks it funds, then surely Telstra can manage it. * Telstra could include the amount of funding and purpose of payments to think tanks in its annual corporate social responsibility report. * Telstra could detail in its annual report the amount and purpose of funding for think tanks so that shareholders are given the option of expressing an opinion. After all, it is their money. * Telstra could make it a contractual obligation that think tanks they fund must disclose the company's funding in all media interviews, opinion columns, submissions to parliamentary inquiries and public comments on topics where a conflict of interest exists or could be perceived to exist. A breach of that condition could made the basis of termination of funding. After all, it is Telstra's reputation that is on the line if a think tank is exposed engaging in stealth advocacy. * If a think tank does make a public comment on Telstra-related topics without disclosing its funding from the company, Telstra should promptly disclose the funding connection to the media outlet, parliamentary committee or whoever is most relevant in the specific context. For example, on October 2 ABC Online posted a [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048953.htm column], "Telco industry's 'red tape' burden unfair" by the IPA’s Chris Berg. In it, Berg objected to government regulation of Telstra. "For Telstra, this constitutes nearly 500 regulatory reports to government agencies a year," he complained. So if Telstra is still funding the IPA, Bruem could write to the editor of <em>ABC Online</em> requesting that a brief statement be added to Berg's bio note stating that the IPA is funded by Telstra. That way readers of that column can make up their own mind about the weight they should give to his Telstra-friendly views. I look forward to Rod Bruem's response.