At least a quarter of the Commonwealth's yearly spend on taxpayer-funded advertising is highly political and biased towards the government of the day, according to new research.
The Grattan Institute has analysed spending between 2008 and 2021 and found governments across the political spectrum have taken advantage of loose advertising rules, "weaponising" taxpayer funds for electoral gain.
The report found nearly $50 million of the $200 million spent yearly by the federal government on advertising during the period was questionable.
"Some advertising campaigns look politicised — this is because they include, for example, party slogans or colour schemes, commonly they spruik government achievements or policies, and they're often timed to run in the lead up to elections," the report author Anika Stobart said.
"Nearly $50 million each year was spent on campaigns that that gave the government of the day a political advantage — which is about a quarter of the total annual spending by the federal government."
The Institute said that over the last five years, the Australian federal government had spent $7 per person, per year on advertising — compared with the UK government's spend of $4.50 per person, and the Canadian Government's $2 per person.
Data from the Department of Finance and the AusTender website showed daily spending on federal government advertising spiked just before Australians were due to head to the polls, further underlining the concerns.
"In the lead-up to the 2019 election, the federal government spent about $85 million of taxpayers' money on politicised campaigns," Ms Stobart said.
"This is on par with the combined spend by political parties on TV, print and radio advertising over that same period.
"The Opposition, minor parties and independents have no such opportunity to exploit public money for saturation coverage."
Tighter rules recommended
The Grattan Institute report recommended strict legislative requirements for taxpayer-funded advertising.
"Most state governments, and also the federal government, have rules in place to prevent politicisation of taxpayer-funded advertising," Ms Stobart said.
"But while they look good on paper, they're not very effective at stopping politicisation — particularly spruiking of government achievements."
The report also recommended an independent panel be established to check whether advertising complied with the rules before any campaign began.
"I think there's probably public outrage when we see government advertising that's being paid for by the public purse spruiking what the government is doing, even particularly when they're adding their party logo or the colour scheme to it," Ms Stobart said.
"We see this all the time on our screens, for example promoting the next big transport project or promoting what the government is doing to reduce the cost of living.
"We want to see advertising that is actually going to confer a real public benefit or encourage change in the community, or ask for specific action from members of the community."
