As the Bureau of Meteorology “rebrand that wasn’t” descends into farce, there seems to be one important missing player.
Most people probably didn’t even know that Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek held the meteorology portfolio, and her public response so far has thrown very little light on the issue.
Of the ordeal, she said: “I have asked for the information about the full cost of the whole rebrand project.”
And in a classic political deflection, added that “the rebrand commenced under the previous government for reasons I don’t quite understand”.
Which was an unfortunate statement for a minister whose job it is to understand. And if she doesn’t understand, to find out.
Meantime, despite the minister’s clear description, the Bureau itself then began to insist it wasn’t a rebrand at all. Speaking to 2GB, an unnamed spokesperson declared “the Bureau has not rebranded”, instead calling it “part of the Bureau’s brand refresh”.
And despite the Bureau’s own media statement proposing the opposite just days earlier, the spokesperson added: “The community is welcome to refer to the Bureau in any way they wish, including referring to us as the ‘BoM’. It is up to individual media outlets to determine their style guidelines.”
Of course, the backflip was hardly a surprise, coming just one day after the minister opined that “Australians should be free to call it whatever they like”.
In reality, a backflip was probably the only realistic option in view of the appalling timing and mismanagement of the whole announcement.
Instead of leaving it to some anonymous spokesperson to explain, the Bureau itself should have owned the situation, formally conceding that the timing had been a mistake and the rebranding would be suspended to be revisited at a later date. That would have been PR 101.
In fact, this was probably the most ill-timed announcement since Qantas‘ notorious PR fail in October 2011 when it launched a competition asking people to describe their “dream luxury in-flight experience” and possibly win a pair of first-class pyjamas and some toiletries. The announcement came just one day after the airline grounded its entire fleet over an industrial dispute, stranding thousands of angry passengers.
At least on that occasion — after predictable public outcry and hundreds of unhelpful online responses — Qantas owned the mistake and put on a brave face, taking to Twitter again to quip, “at this rate our #QantasLuxury competition is going to take years to judge”.
However, setting aside the Bureau’s terrible timing — and whether it’s a rebrand or a brand refresh and what may or may not have been its cost — what did the minister know and what is she doing about it?
Moreover, that question is now becoming increasingly important in light of revelations about an allegedly long-standing toxic culture within the Bureau.
According to The Saturday Paper, which reported at length on alleged mismanagement at the Bureau, neither Plibersek nor her office was aware it was about to launch the controversial new look in the middle of a flood crisis.
When she demanded an urgent briefing, the response from senior Bureau managers was reportedly “cagey” and “unsatisfactory”. But BoM staff were reportedly told that they were to move full steam ahead and that the minister’s office was happy.
Neither the rebranding nor long-standing staff unrest at the Bureau was new or unexpected. The rebrand idea began well before a consultant was brought on board in September 2021. The issues of debilitating staff turnover and investigations into toxic work culture were underway long before that.
To be fair, while Plibersek is a very experienced cabinet minister, she is new to the massive environment portfolio and was sworn in as recently as June 1 2022. So it may be that the Bureau was not seen as a high priority.
It may even be true that the minister and her office were not aware of the disastrous timing of the Bureau’s rebrand announcement. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t know, or shouldn’t have known, that the potentially risky exercise was underway.
As an incoming minister she would have received a portfolio briefing from the Bureau to make her aware of all current and upcoming issues. We can also assume that over the past five months she has received regular update briefings.
The minister initially said she had asked about the cost of the rebrand, though cost is perhaps the least important aspect.
Yesterday it was reported that Plibersek said she has “now received a brief on a range of issues at the BoM — including cultural issues” and would be “considering that carefully”.
However, the real questions remain. What was the minister told about the rebrand before the abortive announcement? When was she told, and what questions did she ask of her officials?
And if she wasn’t told, why not, and who made that decision? Even more importantly, what does the minister plan to do about the obvious dysfunction in her department?
In the absence of any explanation so far by the minister, these are the questions that need to be asked — and soon — in Parliament or at Senate estimates.
Dr Tony Jaques is managing director of Melbourne-based Issue Outcomes P/L and editor of the issue and crisis newsletter Managing Outcomes.
