Darryl Betts
darryllrbetts.wordpress.com
In February I submitted an official information act (OIA) request for details of expenditure on Covid-19 advertising and messaging by the New Zealand Government.
I received a response on 15 March and not surprisingly it was incomplete. The full response, with my request embedded within it, is included at the end of this article. Note that their response omitted a key explanatory paragraph from my request, which defined what I meant by the term “advertising”:
“In the following I am using the term “advertising” to refer to any messaging directed at the public and which was either initiated or facilitated or paid for (directly or indirectly) by the NZ government or government agency (or by any other organisation acting on behalf of the NZ Government or government agency).”
Official information request: Expenditure on advertising and messaging for Covid-19 response, 14th February 2022
One thing which stands out very clearly is that the response from the government is very light on financial facts and heavy on promotional spin, and overall it comes across as quite defensive.
The political commentary in the response is clearly just the same government narrative that we have been on the receiving end of for the past 2 years. The defensive tone almost makes me feel sorry for the author – until I remember what this Labour Government has done to the people of New Zealand.
To Ms Barnes, I say, “Thanks, but I am not interested in your opinion about what a fine job you think you did – I want you to provide me with the financial information I requested.”
In my request, I asked for a single multi-dimensional breakdown of expenditure according to 4 dimensions. I tried to make it clear what I was expecting (on the assumption that government staff would have an adequate understanding of how to present data), but unfortunately, rather than a multi-dimensional breakdown, I received just two numbers.
By “multi-dimensional” I meant that I should receive not simply a series of separate breakdowns, but a single breakdown that contained within it multiple sub-breakdowns – which I could then analyse in various ways. It is difficult to visualise a 4-dimensional data set; however, there are ways to extract and communicate the data involved, and I did offer to provide additional clarification if they were unclear what I was asking.
So those who prepared the response either did not understand my request or chose not to provide what I requested. That said, their response was so short on financial information that it is a moot point whether they understood the type of breakdown I was requesting.
The first dimension of breakdown I requested was primary subject matter, according to the following specified categories:
1. Covid-19 vaccines or boosters.
2. Restrictions, rules, mandates, guidelines, laws etc. which relate to Covid-19, including but not limited to masks, social distancing, hygiene, lockdowns, and testing.
3. Alternative Covid-19 prevention strategies, including but not limited to exercise, exposure to sunshine, healthy diet, weight control, immune system fortification.
4. Non-vaccine GP and out-patient treatments for Covid-19.
5. Other
The response stated $92 million as the total expenditure to date, of which $32 million was for the vaccine campaign (presumably corresponding to my category 1). What was the difference of $60 million? Your guess is as good as mine. No figures were provided for the other categories requested and no reason was given for the omission.
My suspicion is that the government spent no money under categories 3 (“Alternative Covid-19 prevention strategies”) and 4 (“Non-vaccine GP and out-patient treatments”). This is a significant point – since an absence of money spent under these categories would provide further evidence that the government effectively ignored alternative prevention strategies and GP/out-patient treatment options.
It’s a safe bet that the government specifically doesn’t want people to ask about this, so it was no surprise to me that they ignored the question.
Dimension 2 was a breakdown by advertising medium (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, mainstream media, etc.). The government explicitly refused to provide a breakdown by this dimension. The reason given was that they subcontracted the campaign to a third party and supposedly did not possess that information. I don’t consider their response satisfactory at all. This is information they either should have or should be able to obtain from the agency they contracted. My interpretation is that they simply don’t want to reveal this information.
But their reason for refusal suggests they have missed out some very important categories of cost such as state broadcaster air-time for “public announcements” – which by all appearances could have been a substantial cost. Their failure to properly respond to this part of the request gives me little confidence that the costs given represent the full costs incurred.
Dimension 3 was simply a categorisation by time period (i.e. pre-2020, 2020-present, projected). No breakdown was provided and the only figures given were presumably past expenditure – meaning that they failed to provide any projected expenditure information. Whether this was simply a failure to understand my request properly or an intentional omission is unclear. Whatever the reason, we are none the wiser as to what further expenditure the government has either planned or committed to.
Dimension 4 was source of funding – i.e. how much is being paid for by us taxpayers and how much (if any) is funded from other sources, such as commercial organisations. No breakdown was provided and no reason was given for the omission.
So to summarise, they provided only dimension 1 – which was incomplete to the point it could not even be described as a breakdown. Dimension 2 was refused. Dimensions 3 and 4 simply weren’t mentioned, with no reason given. In fact, the information they did provide was so vague and so poorly connected to my request that I cannot have faith in anything that was provided.
My request had a second part: information about the advertising methods and strategies that were agreed to and employed. None of this information was provided (except for a vague comment about reaching all people in New Zealand) and no reason was given. This information might have provided interesting insight into how the mainstream media and big tech collaborated with the government on the Covid-19 narrative – and again it is no surprise that the government would not want to reveal this information.
In conclusion, the government’s response was woefully inadequate, and I have no confidence that the two amounts that were provided are even accurate. The government appear either to be intentionally withholding information, or not to have understood what was requested (and not to have sought clarification from me), or both.
Does Ms Barnes really believe that political rhetoric would satisfy my request for specific and detailed financial information? From one perspective it’s an insult to the intelligence of anyone that reads the response, and to the people of New Zealand to whom this government is accountable – but I think it also says something about the attitude and intelligence of the people behind this OIA response and by extension the Covid-19 response itself.
As a school homework assignment, I would give this work a D, although I might comment to the student that their talent for spin and for failing to answer questions makes them ideally suited for a career in contemporary politics. This attempt at humour aside, the government response to my request is depressingly consistent with every other aspect of the government’s conduct and attitude to the people of New Zealand over the past 2 years or more.
I intend to request the missing information, and I will write a second part to this article when I get a response.
covid_advertising_and_messaging_OIA_response_RedactedDownload
