Government Advertising

Expenditure on government advertising rose over the life of the 41^st Parliament, from $137.7 million in 2004–05 to $281.3 million in 2006–07. Over its 11 years in office, the Howard Government spent nearly $2 billion on government advertising. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) condemned much of this expenditure as partisan policy promotion at taxpayer expense. It was especially concerned with:

• the amount spent on some campaigns—for example, more than $100 million on Work Choices and its amendments, and $53 million on climate change, and
• the promotion of Work Choices before the legislation was passed.

The Howard Government defended the expenditure as legitimate on the grounds that the advertising campaigns informed the Australian public of their rights and responsibilities, especially when laws had changed.

The ALP has pledged to stop the perceived ‘abuse’ of public funding. Specifically, it proposes to:

• ban taxpayer-funded advertising of government programs within three months of the due date of a federal election
• have the Auditor-General (or designate) vet all government advertising campaigns costing more than $250 000 to ensure that the advertisements are objective, factual, non-partisan and essential for public information, and
• ensure that government advertising campaigns occur only after parliament has passed the legislation for the policies being advertised.

In addition to these measures, the ALP has said it would:

• abolish the Government Communications Unit, which coordinates government advertising from within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and
• urge state governments, through the Council of Australian Governments, to agree to a common set of national principles on government advertising in order to curb advertising expenditure at all levels of government.

Details of the assessment criteria that the Auditor-General will apply are not yet known, despite the ALP stating in May 2007 that it would release these before the election. However, many of the above proposals reflect the recommendations of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee’s inquiry into government advertising and accountability in 2005. In addition to Auditor-General oversight of advertising campaigns, the inquiry recommended the adoption of an amended version of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit’s draft guidelines for government advertising, proposed in a report in 2000.

For additional inspiration, the Rudd Government might also usefully look overseas to Canada’s Communications Policy of the Government of Canada or to the United Kingdom’s Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service. Both countries publish annual reports on government advertising activity.