DONE TWICE, SOZZLED AND SOBER

In October 1972, six weeks before the election which swept Gough
Whitlam to power, a relatively minor drug bust in Adelaide became a
national political story, and ultimately an international one.

Joe Cocker was caught by South Australian police with a small stash of
marijuana in his hotel room.

The Coalition government - then, as now, posturing that it was tough
on drugs - acted quickly to make an example of him, and he was deported.

The then immigration minister, Dr Jim Forbes, boasted: "I have done
this because this government takes a very serious view of such
offences - especially when committed by persons who are in a position
to have a profound influence on many young Australians."

Poor drug- and booze-addled Joe hardly knew what to make of what he
called, aptly in hindsight, the "chain of events" which led to his
deportation.

He had become an unwitting victim of a conservative propaganda
campaign.

Now, almost 30 years later, Joe has again found himself unwillingly
tangled up in a Coalition propaganda campaign. At least this time,
though, he has made money, not lost it, in the process.

His agents were paid $169,000 for the right to use his version of
Unchain My Heartfor those execrable GST ads.

Money notwithstanding, Joe is not happy. From Europe, where he is
touring, came a terse statement: "Joe does not endorse the GST. He is
simply licensing his music."

And Festival Records, which owns the rights to the song, are no
happier. They thought his voice would back a simple information
campaign, not, as they rightly called it, "a political exercise".

They want the Government to remove Cocker's name from the political
authorisation at the end of each ad. Good for them.

Festival argues that the watermark "spoken by" does not apply because
Cocker only sings. There seems, also, to be no previous example of
"watermarking" people who provide background music to
advertising.

But the Government insists the ads have to carry the authorisation
under the requirements of the Broadcasting Services Act, and they have
(dubious) legal advice that Cocker's name has to be there.

Labor says the Coalition "bought Joe Cocker's song, but stole his
name" to make it appear that he endorses the tax changes.

Dare one suggest both sides have been guilty of overestimating the
"profound influence" a former drunk and drug dabbler has on his audience?

You probably should not waste too much sympathy on Cocker. He has,
after all, profited from the $423 million GST propaganda campaign. You
could buy a lot of booze and dope for $169,000.

The irony is, Cocker is on the wagon these days, and has been for
years, after realising his substance abuse made it easy for shonks to
"manipulate me because I was always so out of it".

Alas for him, even the straight and sober can be suckered by the
world-class shonks of the Howard Government.