Tue Dec 20

The Morrison government spent a record amount on taxpayer-funded advertising, new data reveal

Written by Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute

Graph showing annual federal government spending on advertising campaigns

The federal government is a big spender in the advertising world, regularly spending more than major companies such as McDonald’s, Telstra and Coles. New data released on Friday by the Department of Finance ^[1] shows that in the lead-up to the May 2022 election, the Coalition government’s advertising spend skyrocketed yet again.

The past financial year was the biggest year on record for taxpayer-funded advertising. The previous federal government spent A$339 million on taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns in 2021-22, well above the 25-year average ^[2] of about $200 million a year.

In the first six months of 2022, the previous government was the biggest advertising spender ^[3] in the country.

The Morrison government ran 28 separate advertising campaigns last financial year – the most on record. Many were for legitimate purposes, such as an $89 million campaign encouraging take-up of the COVID-19 vaccine, and a $25 million campaign urging people to fill out the Census. But sometimes, taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns seek to confer a political advantage. This is often achieved by including party slogans or colours, and/or spruiking government achievements – often in the lead-up to elections.

Chart showing the top 20 most expensive taxpayer-funded campaigns for 2021-22

Author provided Why does government advertising spike before elections? Taxpayer-funded advertising typically spikes in election years, and 2022 was no exception. In the six months leading up to the 2022 election, the Coalition government spent about $180 million ^[4], compared with about $120 million in the six months leading up to the 2019 election.

Chart showing federal government advertising spend spikes just before federal elections

Author provided An otherwise legitimate campaign might be strategically run pre-election to encourage a positive impression of the government. For example, an $18 million federal government campaign on recycling was called out by the then-Labor opposition as “ridiculous and self-serving greenwash ^[5]”. But usually, pre-election advertising also contains messages that look politically motivated – promoting the government’s policy platform on key election issues. For example, the $28.5 million Emissions Reduction campaign – the third most expensive campaign of the year – ran from September 2021 to April 2022, and sought to promote the government’s “good progress ^[6]” on reducing greenhouse emissions and switching to renewable energy. The campaign clearly used messaging that created a positive image of the government’s performance, and lacked a call to action that might justify it on public interest grounds. Grattan Institute analysis ^[7] shows that typically, about a quarter of government spending on advertising is politicised in some way, by both sides of politics. Historically, about $50 million on average each year has been spent on campaigns that are politicised. The former government’s “COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan ^[8]” fell into this category, because it blatantly spruiked the government of the day, without requiring any action or behaviour change from citizens. Officially, the campaign sought “to inform Australians about the government response to the recurring challenges being faced and reassure [us] there was an adaptable and future-focused plan in place for the economy”. This was criticised by Labor Senator Tim Ayres in early 2022, who asked ^[9]: What possible public purpose is there in ‘Australia’s Economic Plan – we’re taking the next step’? […] What is it asking people to do apart from vote Liberal? Why is politicisation of taxpayer-funded advertising harmful? Politicisation of taxpayer-funded advertising is wasteful and creates an uneven playing field in elections. Government advertising budgets are well above the expenditure of individual political parties, even in election years. We won’t know until February 2023 how much political parties spent in the 2022 federal election. But in the lead-up to the 2019 election, the Coalition spent $178 million, Labor $122 million, and Clive Palmer $89 million ^[10], with advertising only a portion of their expenses. Read more: How big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system ^[11] How things should change The new federal government has announced it will cut taxpayer-funded advertising, although by how much is not yet clear. Labor has promised to tackle advertising ^[12] as part of its broader “rorts and waste” audit. That promise to cut wasteful spending will be best tested by whether Labor tightens the rules and oversight for government advertising. Public money should not be used to spruik government policies. It should be used only on public-interest advertising campaigns that have a clear “need to know” message and a call to action. An independent panel should be established to check compliance. The panel should have the power to knock back campaigns that aren’t compliant – whether they are politicised, or more generally don’t offer value for money. And if the rules are broken, then the political party – not the taxpayer – should foot the bill for the entire advertising campaign. Establishing a proper process is the only way to truly reduce waste and restore public confidence in genuinely important government messages. Kate Griffiths and Anika Stobart are coauthors of New politics: Depoliticising taxpayer-funded advertising ^[13], Grattan Institute, 2022. References^{^} released on Friday by the Department of Finance (www.finance.gov.au)^{^} 25-year average (grattan.edu.au)^{^} biggest advertising spender (www.mediaweek.com.au)^{^} $180 million (www.finance.gov.au)^{^} ridiculous and self-serving greenwash (www.joshwilson.org.au)^{^} good progress (www.theguardian.com)^{^} Grattan Institute analysis (grattan.edu.au)^{^} COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan (www.finance.gov.au)^{^} who asked (www.theaustralian.com.au)^{^} the Coalition spent $178 million, Labor $122 million, and Clive Palmer $89 million (transparency.aec.gov.au)^{^} How big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system (theconversation.com)^{^} advertising (www.adnews.com.au)^{^} New politics: Depoliticising taxpayer-funded advertising (grattan.edu.au)

The Morrison government spent a record amount on taxpayer-funded advertising, new data reveal

Tech companies are blaming massive layoffs on AI. What’s really going on?

Insolvencies have spiked – would a law change let more businesses trade their way out of trouble?

Australia’s gender pay gap is narrowing – and the public spotlight seems to be helping

New $10 Million Volunteer Grants to Break Down Barriers to Giving Back

Climate change is drying out the ‘forgotten rivers’ that keep the Murray-Darling alive. We need a new plan

A third of Aussies turning to social media to help make financial decisions, new Compare the Market report finds

Times Magazine

Why Car Enthusiasts Are Turning to Container Shipping for Interstate Moves

What to know if you’re considering an EV

Epson launches ELPCS01 mobile projector cart

Governance Models for Headless CMS in Large Organizations

Narwal Freo Z10 Robotic Vacuum and Mop Cleaner

Shark launches SteamSpot - the shortcut for everyday floor mess

The Times Features

56 OF YOUR FAVORITE DISNEY STARS SHINE BRIGHT IN DISNEY ON ICE PRESENTS MAGIC IN THE STARS!

How much do you really need to retire? It’s probably a lot less than $1 million

South Australian Nationals to open up local oil from Great Australian Bight

How does your super balance compare to other people your age?

Why Farrer is a key test for One Nation vs the Coalition

Leader of The Nationals Senator Matt Canavan Rockhampton press conference

Chester to elevate food security issue in Canberra

Interior Design Ideas for Open Plan Living Spaces

Matt Canavan is keen on income splitting. Here’s what it would mean for couples