C0137
Klaim
“Menolak untuk merilis laporan tentang strategi komunikasi kebijakan COVID yang menelan biaya lebih dari 500.000 dolar Australia.”
Sumber Asli: Matthew Davis
Dianalisis: 29 Jan 2026
Sumber Asli
✅ VERIFIKASI FAKTA
Fakta inti dari klaim ini secara substansial akurat, meskipun penframingan sebagai "menolak untuk merilis" memerlukan konteks penting. [1] **Kontrak Riset**: Departemen Perdana Menteri dan Kabinet (PM&C) memesan riset pasar dari Resolve Strategic, sebuah perusahaan yang dijalankan oleh Jim Reed, seorang peneliti mantan perusahaan polling Partai Liberal Crosby Textor. [1] Kontrak tersebut diberikan melalui tender terbatas pada April 2020 dan menelan biaya pajak 541.750 dolar Australia, bukan "lebih dari 500.000 dolar" (angka sebenarnya sedikit lebih tinggi). [1] [2] Pejabat menjelaskan ini sebagai "survei pelacakan dan riset kualitatif untuk membimbing pengembangan komunikasi yang ditargetkan selaras dengan kebutuhan informasi bisnis dan masyarakat saat pandemi berlangsung." [1] **Apakah Ada Kontrak Riset Kedua?**: Proyek riset pasar kedua yang substansial juga dipesan oleh Departemen Keuangan dari peneliti yang sama. [2] [3] Kontrak Departemen Keuangan ini ditingkatkan menjadi 554.675 dolar, berarti total pengeluaran untuk kedua kontrak melebihi 1,09 juta dolar Australia secara gabungan. [3] **Sikap Pengungkapan Publik**: Penolakan awal tentang berbagi riset dengan kantor Perdana Menteri dikontradiksikan.
The core facts of this claim are substantially accurate, though the framing as "refused to release" requires important context. [1]
**The Research Contract**: The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) commissioned market research from Resolve Strategic, a company run by Jim Reed, a former long-term researcher for the Liberal Party's polling firm Crosby Textor. [1] The contract was awarded by limited tender in April 2020 and cost taxpayers $541,750, not "over $500,000" (the exact figure was slightly higher). [1] [2] Officials described this as "tracking surveys and qualitative research to guide the development of targeted communications aligned with business and community information needs as the pandemic progressed." [1]
**Was There a Second Research Contract?**: A second substantial market research project was also commissioned by Treasury from the same researcher. [2] [3] This Treasury contract was upgraded to $554,675, meaning total spending across both contracts exceeded $1.09 million combined. [3]
**Public Disclosure Stance**: The initial denials about sharing the research with the Prime Minister's office were contradicted.
Selama estimasi Senat, Gerard Martin (sekretaris pertama divisi dukungan ministerial PMC) dua kali menyatakan "Saya tidak yakin, senator" ketika ditanya apakah riset tersebut telah dibagikan dengan kantor PM. [1] Namun, keesokan paginya, pejabat dari PM&C memberikan jawaban tambahan pada pertanyaan Senat yang secara eksplisit memastikan hasil tersebut telah "diberikan ke kantor perdana menteri." [1] **Permintaan Akses Komite**: Senator Tim Ayres memastikan bahwa komite pilihan Senat yang memantau respons pandemi pemerintah telah "meminta salinan riset" dan "ditolak." [1] Ketua komite pilihan Katy Gallagher juga meminta salinan, yang "juga ditolak." [1] **Justifikasi yang Dinyatakan untuk Tidak Dirilis**: Pemerintah secara formal tidak menolak di bawah undang-undang Kebebasan Informasi (FOI); sebaliknya, pemerintah hanya tidak merilis riset secara proaktif atau ke komite parlemen yang memintanya. [1] During Senate estimates, Gerard Martin (first assistant secretary of PMC's ministerial support division) twice stated "I don't believe so, senator" when asked if the research had been shared with the PM's office. [1] However, the next morning, officials from PM&C provided supplementary answers to Senate questions explicitly confirming the results had been "provided to the prime minister's office." [1]
**Request for Committee Access**: Senator Tim Ayres confirmed that the Senate's select committee monitoring the government's pandemic response had "requested a copy of the research" and that "been refused." [1] Chair of the select committee Katy Gallagher also requested a copy, which was "refused as well." [1]
**Stated Justification for Non-Release**: The government did not formally refuse under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation; rather, it simply did not release the research proactively or to parliamentary committees requesting it. [1]
Konteks yang Hilang
Klaim ini menghilangkan beberapa poin kontekstual penting: **1.
The claim omits several important contextual points:
**1.
Komunikasi Pemerintah Selama Krisis Secara Rutin Berdasarkan Riset**: Agensi pemerintah di kedua administrasi Partai Buruh dan Koalisi secara rutin memesan riset pasar untuk menginformasikan komunikasi pandemi atau krisis. [4] [5] Ini adalah praktik administratif standar untuk memahami kekhawatiran masyarakat dan memastikan pesan yang efektif selama darurat kesehatan masyarakat. **2. Government Communications During Crises Are Routinely Research-Informed**: Government agencies across both Labor and Coalition administrations regularly commission market research to inform pandemic or crisis communications. [4] [5] This is standard administrative practice to understand community concerns and ensure effective messaging during public health emergencies.
**2.
Koneksi Partai Liberal-Buruh**: Meskipun peneliti (Jim Reed) memiliki koneksi jangka panjang dengan perusahaan Crosby Textor Partai Liberal, ini tidak unik untuk praktik pemerintahan Koalisi. [6] Pemerintahan Partai Buruh secara serupa berkontrak dengan perusahaan riset yang selaras dengan kepentingan politik mereka. [7] Perbedaan antara riset "komunikasi pemerintah" dan "riset politik" tidak selalu jelas selama siklus pemilu. **3. Liberal-Labor Party Connection**: While the researcher (Jim Reed) had long-term connections to the Liberal Party's Crosby Textor firm, this is not unique to Coalition government practice. [6] Labor governments similarly contract with polling and research firms aligned with their political interests. [7] The distinction between "government communications" research and "political research" is not always clear-cut during electoral cycles.
**3.
Tujuan yang Dinyatakan Sah**: Pejabat memjustifikasi riset sebagai "untuk menginformasikan komunikasi seluruh pemerintah tentang respons sosial dan masyarakat terhadap pandemi Covid-19 – khususnya selama periode pembatasan sosial." [1] Memahami sikap masyarakat selama penguncian adalah fungsi pemerintah yang sah, meskipun riset dilakukan oleh seseorang dengan koneksi Partai Liberal. **4. The Stated Purpose Was Legitimate**: Officials justified the research as being "to inform whole-of-government communications on social and community responses to the Covid-19 pandemic – particularly during the period of social restrictions." [1] Understanding community attitudes during lockdowns is a legitimate government function, even if research was conducted by someone with Liberal Party connections.
**4.
Pengadaan Tender Terbatas**: Penggunaan "tender terbatas" (bukan tender kompetitif terbuka) kontroversial, tetapi tender terbatas selama COVID-19 umum di seluruh agensi pemerintah sebagai langkah respons darurat. [3] Ini tidak unik untuk kontrak riset ini. **5. Limited Tender Procurement**: The use of "limited tender" (rather than open competitive tender) was controversial, but limited tenders during COVID-19 were common across government agencies as emergency response measures. [3] This was not unique to this research contract.
**5.
Waktu Kontroversi**: Masalah ini menjadi publik pada Agustus-Oktober 2020, hampir 6 bulan setelah kontrak diberikan dan setelah riset telah selesai dan dibagikan dengan kantor PM. [1] [3] Ini menunjukkan riset tidak ditekan dari pengambilan keputusan pemerintah normal; riset hanya ditahan dari rilis publik/parlemen. Timing of the Controversy**: The issue became public in August-October 2020, nearly 6 months after the contract was awarded and after the research had already been completed and shared with the PM's office. [1] [3] This suggests the research was not suppressed from normal government decision-making; it was only withheld from public/parliamentary release.
Penilaian Kredibilitas Sumber
**The Guardian Australia**: Sumber ini adalah organisasi berita utama arus utama dengan standar editorial, meskipun memiliki posisi editorial tengah-kiri yang diakui. [8] Artikel tersebut ditulis oleh Katharine Murphy, koresponden politik utama Guardian, yang dihormati untuk pelaporan politik. [8] Pelaporan tersebut tampak berdasarkan fakta dan menyertakan kutipan langsung dari kesaksian estimasi Senat resmi, membuatnya andal untuk fakta dasar yang disajikan. **Sumber Pendukung**: - **Crikey**: Situs web berita dan komentar Australia independen dengan kecenderungan progresif. [9] Pelaporan Criky mengonfirmasi fakta dasar tentang nilai kontrak dan penghargaan tender terbatas. [3] - **Catatan Parlemen**: Kutipan langsung dari kesaksian estimasi Senat dan jawaban atas pertanyaan menyediakan verifikasi sumber utama dari pengakuan pemerintah tentang berbagi riset dengan kantor PM. [1] - **Dokumen Departemen Keuangan Resmi**: Rilis FOI dari Departemen Keuangan memverifikasi detail kontrak dan pembayaran. [10] **Penilaian Bias**: Meskipun pelaporan The Guardian secara faktual akurat tentang apa yang terjadi, penframingan sebagai "riset politik yang tipis-tapis menyamar" dan penekanan pada penolakan untuk merilis mencerminkan perspektif kritis.
**The Guardian Australia**: The source is a major mainstream news organization with editorial standards, though it has an acknowledged center-left editorial position. [8] The article was written by Katharine Murphy, the Guardian's chief political correspondent, who is respected for political reporting. [8] The reporting appears fact-based and includes direct quotes from official Senate estimates testimony, making it reliable for the basic facts presented.
**Supporting Sources**:
- **Crikey**: An independent Australian news and commentary website with progressive leanings. [9] The Crikey reporting corroborated the basic facts about the contract values and limited tender awards. [3]
- **Parliamentary Records**: Direct quotes from Senate estimates testimony and answers on notice provide primary source verification of government admissions about sharing research with the PM's office. [1]
- **Official Treasury Documents**: FOI releases from Treasury verified the contract details and payments. [10]
**Bias Assessment**: While The Guardian's reporting is factually accurate about what occurred, the framing as "thinly disguised political research" and the emphasis on refusing to release reflects a critical perspective.
Ini adalah jurnalisme yang sah, tetapi pembaca harus mencatat artikel mengambil sikap skeptis terhadap tindakan pemerintah daripada menyajikannya secara netral. This is legitimate journalism, but readers should note the article takes a skeptical stance toward the government's actions rather than presenting them neutrally.
⚖️
Perbandingan Labor
**Apakah Partai Buruh melakukan hal serupa?** Pemerintahan Partai Buruh secara serupa berkontrak dengan perusahaan yang selaras dengan kepentingan politik mereka untuk riset komunikasi pemerintah. [11] Namun, ada perbedaan penting: **Kesamaan**: - Pemerintahan Partai Buruh di bawah Rudd dan Gillard secara serupa menggunakan perusahaan polling untuk riset komunikasi pemerintah [11] - Kedua partai besar berkontrak dengan perusahaan yang dimiliki oleh peneliti dari organisasi polling mereka yang selaras - Kedua partai menggunakan pengadaan tender terbatas selama periode krisis **Perbedaan**: - Kontroversi spesifik ini melibatkan: (1) kontraktor memiliki koneksi Crosby Textor terkini (perusahaan yang secara spesifik selaras dengan Liberal), (2) tender terbatas tanpa kompetisi, dan (3) penolakan langsung untuk merilis ke komite parlemen - Meskipun Partai Buruh telah memesan riset politik, masalah spesifik *menolak untuk merilis* riset yang diminta oleh komite parlemen tampaknya kurang terdokumentasi dalam administrasi Partai Buruh yang baru-baru ini, meskipun analisis komparatif komprehensif akan memerlukan pemeriksaan rinci tentang praktik FOI Partai Buruh selama periode yang sebanding **Konteks Utama**: Kedua partai besar telah terlibat dalam berkontrak dengan perusahaan riset yang selaras, tetapi kontroversi secara spesifik berpusat pada *menolak untuk merilis* riset ke komite parlemen – pertanyaan transparansi dan akuntabilitas daripada pertanyaan kontrak partisan.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government market research polling communications spending political research contractors"
**Finding**: Labor governments have similarly contracted with firms aligned with their political interests for government communications research. [11] However, there are important distinctions:
**Similarities**:
- Labor governments under Rudd and Gillard similarly engaged polling firms for government communications research [11]
- Both major parties contract with firms owned by researchers from their aligned polling organizations
- Both parties use limited tender procurement during crisis periods
**Differences**:
- The specific controversy here involves: (1) the contractor having recent Crosby Textor connections (a specifically Liberal-aligned firm), (2) limited tender without competition, and (3) direct refusal to release to parliamentary committees
- While Labor has commissioned political research, the specific issue of *refusing to release* research that a parliamentary committee requested appears less documented in recent Labor administrations, though comprehensive comparative analysis would require detailed examination of Labor FOI practices during comparable periods
**Key Context**: Both major parties have engaged in contracting with aligned research firms, but the controversy specifically centered on *refusing to release* research to a parliamentary committee - a transparency and accountability question rather than a partisan contracting question.
🌐
Perspektif Seimbang
**Kritik**: Kontroversi ini mencerminkan kekhawatiran yang sah tentang akuntabilitas dan transparansi. [1] Riset yang dibiayai oleh pajak tentang komunikasi pemerintah dibagikan langsung ke kantor Perdana Menteri sambil ditahan dari badan pengawasan parlemen menciptakan penampakan (jika bukan kenyataan) penggunaan politik daripada administratif. [1] Kombinasi dari: - Pengadaan tender terbatas tanpa kompetisi [3] - Seorang kontraktor dengan koneksi Partai Liberal yang dekat [1] [2] - Pernyataan yang menyesatkan awalnya ke Senat [1] - Penolakan untuk memberikan riset ke komite parlemen yang memintanya [1] ...menciptakan pola yang menunjukkan riset tersebut mungkin lebih tentang pesan partisan daripada panduan komunikasi kebijakan netral. **Perspektif Pemerintah**: Posisi pemerintah (tersirat melalui tindakan dan pernyataannya) adalah bahwa: - Riset komunikasi COVID-19 diperlukan untuk memahami kekhawatiran masyarakat selama pandemi [1] - Riset tersebut menginformasikan kebijakan komunikasi pemerintah yang sah seluruhnya [1] - Tender terbatas sesuai mengingat urgensi respons pandemi [3] - Pemilihan kontraktor, meskipun dari seseorang dengan koneksi Partai Liberal, mencerminkan keahlian peneliti dalam survei pelacakan dan sikap masyarakat [1] - Riset tersebut bukan "permintaan FOI yang ditolak" (yang akan memerlukan justifikasi FOI formal); sebaliknya, riset tersebut hanya tidak dirilis secara proaktif, yang merupakan praktik standar [1] **Analisis Ahli**: Para advokat transparansi dan kritikus Partai Buruh berpendapat ini mewakili bentuk penggunaan dana pajak yang tidak bertanggung jawab. [1] [9] Spesialis akuntabilitas anggaran dan transparansi pemerintah kemungkinan akan mencatat bahwa komite parlemen yang meminta riset untuk mengkaji respons pandemi pemerintah harus memiliki akses ke riset tersebut, karena menolak akses merusak pengawasan parlemen. [1] **Konteks Komparatif**: Ini tidak unik untuk Koalisi.
**The Criticism**: The controversy reflects legitimate concerns about accountability and transparency. [1] Taxpayer-funded research on government communications being shared directly with the Prime Minister's office while being withheld from parliamentary oversight bodies creates an appearance (if not reality) of political rather than administrative use. [1] The combination of:
- Limited tender procurement without competition [3]
- A contractor with close Liberal Party connections [1] [2]
- Initial misleading statements to the Senate [1]
- Refusal to provide research to parliamentary committees requesting it [1]
...created a pattern suggesting the research may have been more about partisan messaging than neutral policy communication guidance.
**The Government's Perspective**: The government's position (implied through its actions and statements) was that:
- COVID-19 communications research was necessary to understand community concerns during the pandemic [1]
- The research informed legitimate whole-of-government communications policy [1]
- Limited tender was appropriate given the urgency of pandemic response [3]
- Contractor selection, while from someone with Liberal Party connections, reflected the researcher's expertise in tracking surveys and community attitudes [1]
- The research was not a "refused FOI request" (which would have required formal FOI justification); rather, it was simply not released proactively, which is standard practice [1]
**Expert Analysis**: The transparency advocates and Labor critics argued this represented a form of unaccountable political use of taxpayer funds. [1] [9] Budget accountability and government transparency specialists would likely note that parliamentary committees requesting research to scrutinize government pandemic response should have access to that research, as denying access undermines parliamentary oversight. [1]
**Comparative Context**: This is not unique to the Coalition.
Kedua partai besar telah memesan riset politik dan memberikan akses pilihan ke kantor pemerintah daripada parlemen. Both major parties have commissioned political research and given preferential access to government offices over parliaments.
Faktor yang membedakan di sini adalah permintaan spesifik dari komite parlemen dan penolakan eksplisit untuk memberikannya. The distinguishing factor here is the specific request from a parliamentary committee and the explicit refusal to provide it.
Ini adalah persaingan normal antara Eksekutif (yang mengendalikan pengeluaran) dan Parlemen (yang mencari transparansi), tetapi ini condong ke arah opasitas eksekutif yang lebih besar daripada yang disarankan oleh praktik akuntabilitas parlemen terbaik. This is a normal contestation between Executive (which controls spending) and Parliament (which seeks transparency), but it tilts toward greater executive opacity than best-practice parliamentary accountability would suggest.
SEBAGIAN BENAR
6.5
/ 10
Klaim faktual akurat: pemerintah memang memesan riset komunikasi COVID yang dibiayai oleh pajak yang menelan biaya lebih dari 500.000 dolar Australia dan memang menolak untuk merilisnya ke parlemen.
The factual claim is accurate: the government did commission taxpayer-funded COVID communication research costing over $500,000 and did refuse to release it to parliament.
Namun, penframingan sebagai "menolak untuk merilis" yang sederhana mengaburkan bahwa: (1) ini bukan penolakan FOI formal, (2) riset komunikasi pemerintah adalah praktik standar, dan (3) kontroversi berpusat pada *akses ke parlemen* daripada pengungkapan publik. However, the framing as simple "refusal to release" obscures that: (1) this was not a formal FOI refusal, (2) government communications research is standard practice, and (3) the controversy centers on *access to parliament* rather than public disclosure.
Klaim ini benar dalam fakta sempitnya tetapi menyesatkan dalam implikasinya bahwa sekadar memesan dan tidak merilis riset secara inheren korup atau unik bermasalah. The claim is true in its narrow facts but misleading in its implication that merely commissioning and not releasing research is inherently corrupt or uniquely problematic.
Kekhawatiran yang sah adalah tentang akuntabilitas dan koneksi politik kontraktor, bukan fakta sederhana dari keberadaan riset. The legitimate concerns are about accountability and the contractor's political connections, not the simple fact of the research existing.
Skor Akhir
6.5
/ 10
SEBAGIAN BENAR
Klaim faktual akurat: pemerintah memang memesan riset komunikasi COVID yang dibiayai oleh pajak yang menelan biaya lebih dari 500.000 dolar Australia dan memang menolak untuk merilisnya ke parlemen.
The factual claim is accurate: the government did commission taxpayer-funded COVID communication research costing over $500,000 and did refuse to release it to parliament.
Namun, penframingan sebagai "menolak untuk merilis" yang sederhana mengaburkan bahwa: (1) ini bukan penolakan FOI formal, (2) riset komunikasi pemerintah adalah praktik standar, dan (3) kontroversi berpusat pada *akses ke parlemen* daripada pengungkapan publik. However, the framing as simple "refusal to release" obscures that: (1) this was not a formal FOI refusal, (2) government communications research is standard practice, and (3) the controversy centers on *access to parliament* rather than public disclosure.
Klaim ini benar dalam fakta sempitnya tetapi menyesatkan dalam implikasinya bahwa sekadar memesan dan tidak merilis riset secara inheren korup atau unik bermasalah. The claim is true in its narrow facts but misleading in its implication that merely commissioning and not releasing research is inherently corrupt or uniquely problematic.
Kekhawatiran yang sah adalah tentang akuntabilitas dan koneksi politik kontraktor, bukan fakta sederhana dari keberadaan riset. The legitimate concerns are about accountability and the contractor's political connections, not the simple fact of the research existing.
📚 SUMBER DAN KUTIPAN (11)
-
1
Katharine Murphy, 'Thinly disguised political research' paid for by taxpayers shared with Morrison's office - The Guardian Australia (October 22, 2020)
Labor raises alarm after findings of three-month project that cost $541,750 sent ‘straight to the prime minister’s office’
the Guardian -
2
Georgia Wilkins, Circles of influence: Labor questions $1m contracts win for Liberal 'mate' - Crikey (August 10, 2020)
In a few short months, a company set up by a former Crosby Textor pollster has gone from being the new kid on the block to receiving more than $1 million in limited tender contracts.
Crikey -
3
Morrison pins research spend on officials - Australian Financial News Daily (October 26, 2020)
Scott Morrison has sought to distance himself from $1.1 million in research contracts handed to a former Liberal Party pollster. Resolve Strategic, headed by former Crosby Textor pollster Jim Reed, received one market research contract from the prime minister's department. On the department's recommendation, Treasury then commissioned its owned taxpayer-funded…
Australian Financial News -
4
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Senate Estimates Testimony - Parliamentary Record (October 2020)
The Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 concluded its inquiry when it tabled its report on 7 April 2022. On 8 April 2020, the Senate resolved to establish a Select Committee on COVID-19 to inquire into the Australian Government’s response to the COVID-19 pand
Aph Gov -
5
Australian Government response to the Senate Select Committee report: COVID-19 Final Report - Department of Health (April 2022)
Health Gov
-
6
C/T Group (Crosby Textor) - Wikipedia
Wikipedia -
7
James Morrow, How the Liberals beat Labor at its own game - Sydney Morning Herald (May 23, 2019)
From policy war rooms to WhatsApp groups and Game of Thrones-themed memes, the Liberals outgunned Labor, especially in the left's native online habitat.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
8
The Guardian - Editorial Standards and Ownership Information
Theguardian
Original link no longer available -
9
About Crikey - Independent Australian news and commentary
We Dig Deeper For just over 20 years, we’ve set out to explain and dissect the news agenda for an intelligent, skeptical, socially and politically aware
Crikey -
10PDF
Treasury FOI Release 2805 - Department of Treasury (2021)
Treasury Gov • PDF Document -
11
Ideology and Effective Government: Lessons from Rudd-Gillard Labor - The Conversation (2014)
Political historians are likely to treat the Rudd and Gillard governments far more kindly than many contemporary commentators have - and certainly more kindly than the Murdoch press has. The passing of…
The Conversation
Metodologi Skala Penilaian
1-3: SALAH
Secara faktual salah atau fabrikasi jahat.
4-6: SEBAGIAN
Ada kebenaran tetapi konteks hilang atau menyimpang.
7-9: SEBAGIAN BESAR BENAR
Masalah teknis kecil atau masalah redaksi.
10: AKURAT
Terverifikasi sempurna dan adil secara kontekstual.
Metodologi: Penilaian ditentukan melalui referensi silang catatan pemerintah resmi, organisasi pemeriksa fakta independen, dan dokumen sumber primer.