Government self-promotion costs now $2 billion
I have previously written about the Howard government's extraordinary waste of taxpayer money on advertising itself. The most recent Sunday Age investigation reveals that Howard government has spent $2 billion of taxpayers money on political advertising. Two hundred million will be spent this year alone, before Howard calls an election. Since the previous election, Howard government is said to have spent an extraordinary $850 million of our money on self-promotion.
A government representative Peter Phelps denies these figures, but these denials ring hollow when you consider that the government goes to great lengths to conceal its advertising expenditure from any oversight. If the government won't let us know how much of our money it is spending, it forfeits the right to dispute figures uncovered by investigations. Mr Phelp's credibility falls into further doubt when he attempts to argue that the spending of $2 billion is "not excessive" because in "the final years of the Keating government" they spent $100 million per year "in real terms".
Phelp's statement is yet another example of government dishonesty. Spending $2 billion dollars of our money is not excessive because the Keating government spent a fraction of that?! The government tried to use a similar excuse with the Senate Committee in 2004. The argument was rejected by the Committee. The Committee stated:
Between 1991-92 and 1995-96, the average yearly advertising expenditure through the Central Advertising System was $85.6 million. Between 1996-97 and 2003-04, the average yearly expenditure on advertising was $126.75 million.1
The median expenditure over the whole period from 1991-92 to 2003-04 was $97 million. Expenditure by the Howard government since 1996-97 thus averages $29.75 million more than the median; expenditure by the Keating Labor government prior to 1996-97 averaged $11.4 million less than the median. Excluding the bi-partisan advertising campaigns for Defence Force Recruitment, the next nine most expensive advertising campaigns since 1991 have been conducted by the Howard government.1. The figures are in 2003-04 prices. They reflect only the cost of ’media placement’ over this period, and do not include the cost of the design and production of the advertisements, public relations, market research and evaluation costs, or publication and distribution costs.
Let's remember that this was before the increase in Howard government's advertising expenditure since the 2004 election (having a Senate majority and being able to avoid scrutiny obviously helps). Let's also recall that the Committee found that it in fact underestimated the advertising expenditure, thanks to the lack of transparency and the government's refusal to cooperate with the Committee. And of course let's not forget that, although the Keating government advertising expenditure of $85.6 million (in today's values) falls well short of Howard's extraordinary advertising splurge - $200 million per year on average, almost $300 million per year over the last three years, Howard, as the Leader of the Opposition, vociferously criticised the Keating government for spending taxpayer money on government advertising.
There is a press release that the government would like us to forget. In the release, titled "Auditor-General to examine Government advertising" on 5 September 1995, Howard stated:
"This soiled Government is to spend a massive $14 million of taxpayers’ money over the next two months as part of its pre-election panic. Judging by information coming from within the public service, if the full communication barrage runs its course it could reach $50 million. This Government has effectively allowed the Labor Party to get its fingers into the taxpayers’ till"
…
"there is clearly a massive difference between necessary Government information for the community and blatant Government electoral propaganda"
…
"[when] in Government, we will ask the Auditor-General to draw up new guidelines on what is an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money in this area".
Upon being elected, the government promptly forgot the difference between necessary information and government propaganda, as well as its promise of independent guidelines in this area. I guess it was a non-core commitment and the lure of billions of taxpayer dollars for self-promotion was just too much to resist.
Howard's hypocritical reaction to Labor's vastly smaller advertising spend is not something that Peter Phelps wants to remind us of. He would also like us to forget that the government presently has 18 campaigns on the go - there are the "don't know where you stand" Workchoices advertisements (to compliment the blatantly misleading big business ads), there are the "we are so good on superannuation reform" ads, there is supposed to be a massively expensive climate change campaign (no doubt designed to change the political climate rather than to forestall global warming), there are the "if you see or hear anything suspicious" security hotline ads (I wonder if seeing or hearing a dodge government ad counts as "suspicious"?) and many others. Peter Phelps wouldn't want us to know that the Howard government advertising spending is one of the highest in the world on a per capita basis or that it is the biggest advertiser in Australia.
And he wouldn't want us to remember that the $2 billion dollars he doesn't think is excessive, means $100 from the pocket of every man, woman and child in Australia. When someone puts their grubby hand into your pocket and, without your permission, helps himself to $100 for every member of your family, do you trust them to represent your interests? Do you trust them to run the country? Do you trust them enough to listen to their misleading advertisements and vote for them in the next election?
If you do, can I give you an address to send your $100 to?
RSS
