Chapter 4 - Appropriations process and the WorkChoices campaign
Budgeting for government advertising
4.1
Appropriations for government communications are not
necessarily fully specified in advance in the budget papers.[104] Senator Abetz
told the Committee that while some campaigns are planned in advance as part of
a department's and minister's overall priorities, some arise in response to
need. For example, he said: 'You ... have, let us say, a national security
priority. All of a sudden, more money is made available for that because there
is deemed to be a community need for that'.[105]
4.2
Mr Greg
Williams, First Assistant Secretary,
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, clarified the budgeting process
for government advertising in the following terms, saying:
in some cases a program will be foreshadowed in the budget and
moneys will be appropriated to the department which will include the
implementation of a program with an associated communications activity. In some
cases it is not that clear cut. Issues might arise during the year where a
department might, in looking at the priorities and the minister's and the
government's priorities, identify that a communications campaign may be
required.[106]
4.3
Mr Williams
also said that, where additional funds are required for an advertising
campaign,
The minister, depending on the timing of a budget cycle, may
write to the Prime Minister seeking additional funding to be provided through
additional estimates, the budget process or through other processes. A decision
is taken as to whether the moneys should be provided and, if they are, they are
provided through a budgetary process.[107]
4.4
The Committee acknowledges that it is appropriate for
the government to have the flexibility to respond to urgent and unanticipated
information needs of the community. However, it is of concern that a government,
under this system, is able to use public funds to pay for politically motivated
communications campaigns on an ad hoc basis, without being required to provide
a rigorous justification of their public benefit relative to other possible
uses of the funds.
4.5
Concerns about this issue raise questions, not simply
about expenditure on government advertising, but about the whole appropriations
process and Parliament's role in monitoring and approving government
expenditure.
4.6
The Committee considers it important in the context of
this inquiry to indicate where the appropriations process might contribute to
the overall weakness in the accountability framework for government
advertising. The consequences of this weakness are particularly evident in the
recent WorkChoices advertising campaign.
4.7
Accordingly, this chapter discusses these issues, with
particular reference to the government's WorkChoices advertising campaign and
the High Court challenge to its legality.
WorkChoices advertising campaign
4.8
On 26 May 2005,
the Prime Minister, the Hon. John
Howard MP,
announced to the House of Representatives that the Government intended to
propose amendments to federal legislation on industrial relations.[108] According to the Prime Minister, the
proposed legislative changes would include: changes to arrangements for setting
minimum wages and conditions; changes to processes for making both individual
and collective workplace agreements; changes to the role of the Australian Industrial
Relations Commission; amendment of unfair dismissal laws; and, progress towards
'a national industrial relations system' in place of the mixture of federal and
State legislation now applicable in most parts of Australia.[109]
4.9
At the time of the announcement, no bill had been
introduced into the Parliament to give effect to the legislative changes
foreshadowed by the Prime Minister.
4.10
In response to the Prime Minister's announcement, the
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) organised a national campaign
opposing the proposed legislation. This campaign included public rallies, as
well as advertisements in the print media and on television, radio and the
internet. These advertisements were funded privately, by the ACTU, private
organisations and individuals.[110]
4.11
The government responded to this campaign in public
speeches and statements in defence of the proposals. Then, from 9 July 2005 in the print media and
from 23 July in radio broadcasts, government advertisements began to appear
supporting the proposals.[111] These
advertisements were funded, not by employers' industrial organisations
equivalent to the ACTU nor by private businesses or political parties, but from
taxpayer funds.
4.12
The ACTU and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) brought
proceedings against the Commonwealth Government in the High Court challenging
the lawfulness of the government's use of public money to fund its
advertisements.
High Court challenge
4.13
In the action they brought against the Commonwealth
government in the High Court, the ACTU and the ALP (the plaintiffs) asserted
that the withdrawal of money from the Treasury of the Commonwealth to pay for
advertisements promoting proposed future changes to federal industrial
relations laws was unlawful, because it was not specifically authorised by the Appropriation Act (No.1) 2005-2006.
4.14
Chief Justice Gleeson
outlined the essence of the issue before the High Court in the following terms:
The advertisements have been, and will be, paid for by moneys
drawn from the Treasury. The appropriation by law relied upon is that made by
the Appropriation Act (No.1)
2005-2006 (Cth) ('the Appropriation Act'). The plaintiffs contend that the
Appropriation Act does not cover such drawings. The defendants contend that it
does. That is the principal issue to be decided. The question is one of the
construction of the Appropriation Act.[112]
4.15
The High Court found by majority judgement that the
expenditure was authorised by the
Appropriation Act, and therefore that it was lawful.[113] Two of the High Court judges,
Justices Kirby and McHugh dissented from the majority judgement, finding
instead in favour of the plaintiffs.
Appropriation Act (No.1) 2005-2006
4.16
The Appropriation Act allocates money to different
government departments and agencies to fund 'matters that are considered to be
the ordinary annual services of the government and hence cannot be amended by
the Senate under section 53 of the Constitution'.[114]
4.17
In 2005-06, under the Act, the Department of Employment
and Workplace Relations (DEWR) was allocated a total of $4,069,153,000. That
total sum is divided into 'departmental outputs' ($1,447,552,000) which
represent the cost of all the outputs the agency plans to deliver, and into
'administered expenses' ($2,621,601,000) which are expenses administered by the
agency on behalf of the Government.
4.18
In other words, departmental outputs or expenses are
expenses over which an agency has control and represent the cost to the
department of doing its work of policy development and implementation, and
advising government. They include salaries, accruing employee entitlements and
operational expenses.[115] Administered
expenses, on the other hand, are expenditures which agencies simply administer on behalf of the government
and over which they have no discretion. They are normally related to activities
governed by eligibility rules and conditions established by the government or
Parliament, such as grants, subsidies and benefit payments.[116] They would include, for example, the
cost of paying unemployment benefits or youth allowance.
4.19
Section 81 of the Constitution requires that
appropriations be made for particular purposes, and it is for Parliament to
determine 'the degree of specificity with which such purposes are expressed'.[117] Since 1999-2000, appropriations have
been made against overall outcomes rather than against specific goods or
services to be provided by government. Chief Justice Gleeson
summarised this shift in the following terms:
A recent development in the theory and practice of public
administration is the trend towards 'outcome appropriations' as a means of
stating the purposes for which governments spend public money ... "Outcomes
are the intended effects of government programmes, whereas outputs – the goods
and services delivered by government – are the means of achieving those outcomes".
A suggested benefit of changing the focus of appropriations from outputs to
outcomes is the placing of greater emphasis on performance in the public
sector.[118]
4.20
Chief Justice Gleeson
went on to note that:
Typically, outcomes are stated at a high level of generality.
Furthermore, they are commonly expressed in value-laden terms which import
political judgement. Parliament is appropriating funds for use by a government,
and the outcomes pursued may involve controversial policy judgements.[119]
4.21
In the case of the 2005-06 appropriations for DEWR, the
total allocated sum of $4,069,153,000 was made against three broad outcomes.
They were: Outcome 1 – Efficient and effective labour market assistance;
Outcome 2 – Higher productivity, higher pay workplaces; and Outcome 3 – Increased
workforce participation. The specification of activities to be undertaken by
the department in relation to each outcome is provided in the Portfolio Budget
Statements (PBS) 2005-06.
4.22
The expenditure for the WorkChoices advertising
campaign has been charged as departmental expenditure against Outcome 2 –
Higher productivity, higher pay workplaces.[120]
No provision for this expenditure was identified in the department's PBS.[121]
Reasoning in the High Court's
decision
4.23
As noted earlier, the High Court found by majority
judgement that the expenditure was
authorised by the Appropriation Act, and therefore that it was lawful.[122] There were two strands of reasoning
in the majority judgement, detailed respectively by Chief Justice Murray
Gleeson and by the joint reasons of Justices Gummow, Hayne,
Callinan and Heydon.
4.24
Chief Justice Gleeson
held that the expenditure was authorised, because in his view Outcome 2 is
stated with such breadth that it does encompass the advertising activity. He
said:
Persuading the public of the merits of policy and legislation
may be vital to the achievement of the desired policy objective. There may be
many grounds of political objection to the advertising in question, such as
that the proposed changes will not result in 'higher productivity, higher pay
workplaces', or that a publicly funded advertising campaign is an inappropriate
means of advocating such changes. The legal question, however, is whether the
drawings in question are covered by the appropriation. The relevant outcome is
stated with such breadth as to require an answer to that question adverse to
the plaintiffs.[123]
4.25
The other four justices also held that the expenditure
was authorised, but on different grounds. In their joint reasons, they found that
differences in the wording of the text of s 7 and s 8 of the Appropriation Act
mean that, whereas appropriations for administered expenses must be expended
under their designated Outcomes, appropriations for departmental outputs need
not be expended against Outcomes but need only be 'departmental expenditure'.[124]
4.26
That means that the argument about whether the
advertising expenditure can be considered to further the achievement of Outcome
2 is simply irrelevant.[125] The key
question is whether the expenditure is departmental expenditure, not whether it
happens to fit under one of the specified outcomes. The joint reasons said
that:
Contrary to the plaintiffs' case, the question for decision is
not whether the advertising expenditure answers one or more of the stipulated
outcomes but whether it is applied for departmental expenditure. Satisfaction
of that criterion is not challenged by the plaintiffs.[126]
4.27
Justices Kirby and McHugh dissented. Both determined that
the expenditure was not authorised,
because it could not reasonably be said to further the achievement of Outcome 2
and because nothing in the Portfolio Budget Statement 2005-06 indicated that
money would be spent on such an advertising campaign.
4.28
In his reasons, Justice McHugh
said that although he accepted that the Portfolio Budget Statements do not
exhaust the expenditures that an agency may incur to achieve an outcome, 'I
find it impossible to conclude that there is any rational connection between
the advertisements and Outcome 2 – which was the Outcome upon which the
defendants relied'. He continued:
There is simply nothing in the advertisements that could result
in an increase in productivity or wages. On their face, the advertisements are
concerned to reassure members of the public – and workers in particular – that,
under the reform package, workers will not be worse off and that there will be
more jobs and higher wages for Australian workers and their families. The
defendants tendered no expert evidence that 'feel good' advertisements of this
kind will increase the number of units of goods or services produced per worker
or will induce employers to pay higher wages. In the absence of such evidence,
I can see no connection – rational or otherwise – between the advertisements
and higher productivity or higher wages.[127]
4.29
He concluded that:
The advertisements appear to be political in nature. They appear
designed to win support for government policy or, at least, to negate the
impact of criticism of that policy. Nothing in them provides any support for
the conclusion that somehow by some means the advertisements will contribute to
achieving higher productivity or higher pay workplaces. In my opinion, there is
no rational connection between the advertisements and Outcome 2. It follows
that the defendants had no lawful authority to draw funds from the Treasury of
the Commonwealth to finance the advertisements in question.[128]
4.30
Justice Kirby
likewise noted the absence of any indication in the Department's PBS that the
money appropriated for Outcome 2 would be expended on advertising. He said:
In Australia,
to this time, the provision of policy advice and the development of legislation
by a Department of State has not normally involved an advertising campaign
directed at the public in advance of the enactment, or even the introduction,
of such legislation.[129]
4.31
He remarked that occasionally the public might be
invited to make submissions about proposed public policy changes or on the
contents of proposed legislation. However:
No such invitations appeared in the advertisements complained of
by the plaintiffs. The provision of policy and the development of legislation
are governmental activities different in kind from publicly funded advertising
campaigns for the purpose of public persuasion and to respond to a privately
funded campaign by political opponents.[130]
4.32
In criticising the joint reasons, Justice
Kirby noted several difficulties with the
approach adopted. In particular, he said:
...it is not consistent with the scheme of the Appropriation Act
itself, the accompanying budget papers and the explanatory material. As outlined
earlier, these materials all indicate that the federal parliamentary
appropriations system is designed to revolve around outcomes and outputs. No
distinction is made in this regard between departmental items and administered
expenses ... It would be an astonishing result if the Parliament, having gone to
all the trouble of designing and implementing the complicated appropriations
system which operates by reference to departmental outcomes, then proceeded to
appropriate a great part of federal revenue in a manner falling outside that
system that it had so painstakingly adopted.[131]
Implications of the High Court judgement
4.33
The implications of the judgement by the High Court are
twofold.
4.34
The first is that the outcome of the challenge in the
High Court supports the contention made in evidence to the Committee by the
Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry
Evans. His view is that under the financial
management framework erected since 1997, the Parliament has limited ability to
determine how much money is available for particular purposes or the purposes
for which money is to be spent.[132]
4.35
According to Mr Evans,
this state of affairs has arisen for a number of reasons. They include: that
'special appropriations' rather than 'annual appropriations made by Parliament'
now account for most government expenditure; that there are a number of other
sources of money available to government apart from appropriations; that the
outcomes for which money is appropriated by departments are so 'nebulous and
vaguely expressed that the purposes of expenditure are unknown until the
expenditure occurs'; and that new programs and expenditures are increasingly
being funded out of 'ordinary annual services money'.[133] He commented:
This system has made it much easier for government to find large
amounts of money for unanticipated advertising campaigns, or indeed anything
else, without parliamentary approval...[134]
4.36
As outlined earlier, there are two arguments made in
the High Court's judgement for the government's freedom specifically in
relation to the expenditure of appropriated monies. The first is that a
department's broad statement of outcomes can cover expenditure that is not
contemplated in the PBS; the second is that the expenditure need not even fall
under a stated outcome as long as it falls into the (even broader) category of
'departmental expenditure'. This suggests that Mr
Evans is correct in saying that:
Parliament, in making appropriations, is giving government a
blank cheque to spend money for any purpose.[135]
4.37
As Mr Evans
has noted, this issue goes much wider than simply the issue of expenditure on
government advertising.[136] It
concerns the whole financial accountability framework and Parliament's role in
monitoring and approving government expenditure. In commenting upon the
implications of the High Court judgement, Mr
Evans said that:
The separate judgement of Chief Justice Gleeson
explicitly puts the responsibility for control of expenditure back on to the
Parliament:
If Parliament formulates the purposes
of appropriation in broad, general terms, then those terms must be applied with
the breadth and generality they bear (at 27).[137]
4.38
Mr Evans
noted that: 'The fact that the High Court has, by a majority, vacated the field
makes the requirement for parliamentary accountability mechanisms more pressing'.[138] Accordingly, he concluded: 'It is
now clear that control of expenditure must be undertaken by Parliament or it
will not be undertaken at all'.[139]
4.39
The second, and consequent, implication of the High
Court's judgement is that because of the government's freedom in relation to
the expenditure of its appropriations, there is almost nothing in the
appropriations process itself that will provide any restraint on government
expenditure on politically contentious advertising activities.
Aftermath of High Court decision
4.40
The High Court brought down its decision on 29 September 2005. On 9 October the government resumed its WorkChoices
advertising campaign on television, print media, radio and the internet. The
campaign concluded on 30 October 2005.[140]
4.41
The relevant legislation, the Workplace Relations
Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, was finally introduced to the Parliament on
2 November 2005 and passed
by the House of Representatives on 10
November 2005. The bill itself is 687 pages in length, and its
accompanying Explanatory Memorandum runs to 565 pages.
4.42
Four features of the WorkChoices advertising campaign
are of particular concern. They are:
-
the contempt for Parliament;
-
likely inaccuracies in advertisements;
-
the wastefulness of the campaign expenditure;
and
-
lack of real information in the advertisements.
Contempt for Parliament and likely inaccuracies in
advertisements
4.43
Two major tranches of advertising for the WorkChoices
'reforms' were conducted before the legislation was introduced into the
parliament. As noted earlier, advertisements were published and broadcast in
July 2005 and from 9 October to 30
October 2005. The relevant legislation was introduced into
Parliament on 2 November 2005.
4.44
In fact, the advertisements were aired even before the
legislation had been fully drafted. In evidence to a Senate Estimates hearing
on 31 October 2005, Senator
Robert Hill,
Leader of the Government in the Senate, confirmed that 'information was
provided in principle whilst the detail of the drafting was progressing'.[141]
4.45
This advertising summarising major policy detail prior
to the detail being publicly available and the legislation being passed
demonstrates contempt for the Parliament. The changes may not be passed by the
Parliament, or they may be significantly amended. In either of these cases, the
advertisements may turn out to have contained substantial inaccuracies or to
have been a large waste of taxpayer funds.
4.46
As Senator Andrew
Murray (Australian Democrats) said in the
Estimates hearing:
I would be absolutely amazed if the initial advertisements that
came out exactly matched the final legislation passed by the Senate. I would be
absolutely amazed. You should not, as a government, be advertising prior to
legislation passing the Senate. It is immoral.[142]
Wastefulness of campaign
expenditure
4.47
The wastefulness of the government's expenditure on the
WorkChoices campaign is demonstrated not only by the total amount spent, but
also by the saturation coverage at which the campaign aimed. The Committee will
look at these aspects in turn.
4.48
There was some confusion in the evidence provided about
the total cost of the advertising campaign. Initially, Mr
Williams told an Estimates hearing that the
'indicative budget' of the advertising campaign itself was $44.3 million and
that an additional $10.7 million was budgeted for the costs of the information
booklet and the call centre.[143] Mr
Williams disaggregated those costs as
follows:
-
$44.3 million – Total advertising budget
-
$2.9 million – July advertising tranche (media
buy)
-
$36.8 million – October advertising tranche
(media buy)
-
$21.4 million – television advertising
-
$8.7 million – newspaper advertising
-
$3.7 million – radio advertising
-
$2.5 million – other (including non-English
language newspapers, indigenous newspapers, radio for the print handicapped and
internet advertising)
-
$4.6 million – research, public relations and
evaluation costs
-
$2.6 million – printing and distribution costs
for 16-page information booklet
-
$8.1 million – call centre[144]
4.49
On this account, the total cost associated with the WorkChoices
advertising campaign is $55 million.
4.50
Later in evidence to the Estimates hearing, however, Mr
Williams gave revised estimates for the cost
of the advertising campaign. He said that the actual cost of the advertising
component was $6 million less than budgeted, and accordingly was reduced from
$44.3 million to $38.3 million. Similarly, the actual cost of the call centre
has been revised down from the budgeted figure of $8.1 million to $4.7 million.
Mr Williams
said: 'So we are not looking at $55.1 million, we are looking at $45.7 million
...[That] is the likely cost of the campaign, the advertising and the call centre
arrangements'.[145]
4.51
On the next day, the Prime Minister, the Hon.
Mr John Howard
MP, reiterated that the 'real figure' for
the government's expenditure on the campaign is $45.7 million.[146] However, later on the same day, Senator
Abetz was reported as saying that the higher
figure of $55 million was 'as accurate as you can get', and that it takes into
account 'ongoing costs yet to be spent'.[147]
4.52
The exorbitant cost of the campaign was a function, in
part, of the saturation coverage aimed at by the government.
4.53
For example, Mr Williams
described for an Estimates hearing the intended 'reach and frequency' of the
television components of the campaign. He said: 'we were targeting 95 per cent
of the viewing audience seeing a commercial at least once during the campaign
and 82 per cent of the viewing audience seeing the commercials three-plus times
over the three-week period'. This meant, he noted, that the 'average viewer –
which is the 50th percentile – would see it 29 times'.[148]
4.54
In addition to the television advertisements, an
Estimates hearing was told that six million information booklets were produced
for distribution. At 3 November 2005,
157,500 of the six million booklets had been ordered and just over 178,000 had
been dispatched.[149] This meant that about
5.8 million booklets were left in the warehouse.
4.55
When asked whether there were prospects for using the
remainder of the booklets, Mr Finn Pratt, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Employment and Workplace Relations said that 'our education campaign will
extend over a number of years, and that material will still be useful in future
years when we go out and do seminars and things like that'.[150]
4.56
Mr John Kovacic, Group Manager, Workplace Relations
Policy Group, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, informed the
Estimates hearing that in addition to the six million booklets produced, a
further 458,000 booklets had been pulped at a cost of $152,944.[151] The pulping of the booklets occurred
as a result of a 'government decision',[152]
so that the word 'fairer' could be inserted into the title, 'A simpler, fairer,
national Workplace Relations System for Australia'.
4.57
The Committee considers the wastefulness evident in
this campaign to be very disturbing. Did the government seriously think that
six million households would seek an information booklet about legislation yet
to be introduced to the Parliament? Did the government seriously think that it
was necessary to expose the average viewer to 29 television advertisements in
order to convey the information that reforms were proposed?
4.58
The extravagance of the advertising campaign suggests
that the government has developed a disregard for the principles of accountability
and stewardship in its expenditure of taxpayer funds.
Lack of information in
advertisements
4.59
The lack of real information in the WorkChoices
campaign advertisements becomes obvious when they are compared to certain other
government advertising campaigns.
4.60
In a submission to the inquiry, Mr
Chris Monnox
compared the WorkChoices campaign to the Super Choice campaign which was run
earlier in the year. He wrote:
Take for example the section of the Superchoices website dealing
with advice to employees:
'Some funds may not offer insurance, or you may have to pass a
medical examination or undergo a waiting period before they will cover you.
There may also be restrictions for age, dangerous jobs, part-time or casual
work, and maternity leave. Some funds make some insurance cover compulsory.
Some allow you to opt out and not be charged, while others allow you to opt in.
'Decide how much insurance you want and compare the costs. These
can vary significantly between different superannuation funds.'
What we have here is a simple statement of fact advising
employees as to what superannuation funds may or may not cover.[153]
4.61
In a similar vein, the advertising campaign, Keeping
the System Fair, advises people who are receiving government benefits in a
straightforward manner of their obligations to report changed circumstances to
the relevant agencies.[154]
4.62
These are cases of government advertising campaigns
which advise people of information on which they need to act or of which they
should be aware in relation to new arrangements.
4.63
By contrast, the WorkChoices advertising campaign does
not provide information about new entitlements or specific obligations. Nor
does it provide information about which people may need to be aware when
negotiating a workplace agreement under the new arrangements.
4.64
For example, in a two-page newspaper advertisement that
was run three times in the national papers, The
Australian and Australian Financial
Review, twice in the metropolitan newspapers and once in the regional,
suburban, and rural newspapers, one entire page is taken up with the slogan,
'Australia can't afford to stand still'. On the second page, the major heading
reads 'If we're serious about an even stronger economy, more jobs and higher
wages we need a new workplace relations system'.
4.65
Under the heading, there follows a series of assertions
such as:
-
'The current system is too complex, inflexible
and outdated. It's costing Australians precious new employment opportunities'.
-
'Countries have the choices of either going
forwards or backwards. Marking time is not an option'.
-
'Nations which have reformed their workplace
systems have benefited from stronger economies, higher job growth and lower
unemployment. Those that have been reluctant to reform their labour market
systems continue to suffer from sluggish economic growth and high unemployment.
The lesson for us all is simple'.
-
'The creation of WorkChoices will move us
towards one simpler, national workplace relations system. It will improve
productivity, encourage more investment, provide a real boost to the economy
and lead to more jobs and higher wages'.[155]
4.66
The advertisements state opinions as facts. They
provide no evidence which supports their assertions and no information about
when the legislation will be introduced or what concrete effect it will have on
individuals.
4.67
The purpose of the advertisements therefore seems
primarily to persuade people of the need for reform of the workplace relations
system, and secondly to counter certain fears about the reforms that the
government believes may be current.
4.68
The puzzling aspect of the campaign is that it is hard
to see what the government will achieve by undertaking it, and therefore hard
to see what has been purchased with $55 million of taxpayer funds.
4.69
If, for example, the campaigns on Super Choices or
Keeping the System Fair achieve their purposes, then presumably more people
will make responsible superannuation arrangements and more people on government
benefits will claim only what they are entitled to. The campaigns will change
people's behaviour.
4.70
However, in the absence of enacted legislation and detailed
information, what can the WorkChoices campaign achieve? The real purpose of the
campaign seems to be to try to persuade the public, in advance of any scrutiny
or debate on the substance of the reforms, that whatever the legislation
contains it must be supported. Such a campaign is properly called propaganda.
Conclusion
4.71
In this chapter, the Committee has examined what the
High Court judgement in Combet v
Commonwealth of Australia has revealed about the
legislature's control of government expenditure. This is a very serious issue
which should greatly concern the Parliament. It raises questions and matters
which are broader in scope than can be considered in detail by this inquiry.
4.72
The Committee therefore suggests that consideration
should be given to referring the question of the impact of outcome budgeting
for appropriations on the accountability of, and Parliamentary control over,
government expenditure to a Senate Committee for inquiry and report. The
inquiry should consider ways in which Parliamentary scrutiny of government
expenditure can be enhanced before and after such expenditure has occurred.
4.73
In relation to the inquiry at hand, however, the High
Court's judgement demonstrates that, as things stand, the appropriations
process itself exercises almost no restraint on government expenditure on
advertising activities.
4.74
The consequences of this lack of restraint are illustrated
by the government's extravagant and irresponsible expenditure on the WorkChoices
campaign.
4.75
In this context, it is all the more essential that a
rigorous set of processes and guidelines govern departmental and government
decision-making on proposed advertising campaigns, and that full disclosure of
all elements of that expenditure is made. In the next chapter, the procedures
that govern the decision-making process for government advertising are
discussed. The adequacy of current guidelines and disclosure provisions are
considered in Chapters 6 and 7.
Recommendation 1
4.76
The Committee recommends that the Senate refer to the
Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report
the matter of the impact of outcome budgeting for appropriations on
Parliamentary consideration and approval of government expenditure, and the
accountability of government for such expenditure.
Navigation: Previous page | Contents | Next Page