The handling of government advertising and information campaigns sees divergent practice amongst Australian jurisdictions. All agree on the need to be able to continue to disseminate material in the public interest and to stop communications that represent a political interest. Campaigns cited as addressing the public interest include defence recruitment, health promotion, road safety or material of an operational nature. There is general agreement that material can be classified as political if it highlights government achievements and policies, features the minister or is a matter of contention between parties. Decisions on advertising and information campaigns need urgent attention at the beginning of an election campaign.

Jurisdictions have developed different mechanisms to handle decision-making on the continuation of advertising and marketing campaigns. The Commonwealth, Queensland and Western Australian governments all identify the head of a communications or purchasing unit as the responsible officer to make the decision on behalf of the Government on what campaigns should be discontinued. South Australia and Tasmania leave the decision at the political level with the Premier deciding on which campaigns to curtail. The ACT has no central mechanism and leaves it to the discretion of each department. Victoria has a mixed model where campaigns that promote government policies are sent to ministers for review but, if an agency has concerns, it is recommended it consult the Strategic Communications Unit in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

This mixture of approaches demonstrates the dual nature of caretaker conventions. Is it a guide for ministerial behaviour or a guide for departments to manage within the intense atmosphere of an election campaign? The divide is explicit in the handling of advertising campaigns where some departments take back the decision-making as a check on the power of incumbency while others leave the management of the decision to the head of the government, the Premier. The Commonwealth guidance makes explicit that bipartisan agreement should be sought for campaigns that are to continue.

Government advertising has proved highly contentious in recent years. It has been described as ‘the single most significant benefit of incumbency’ (Young 2005). In her submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 election, Melbourne University academic, Sally Young, identified a number of instances where the government’s use of advertising might have been questionable. These included what Young (2005, p. 3) describes as an extensive ‘warm up’ period in the lead-up to the election campaign, during which there was a very large increase in government spending on advertising. Although she notes it is not unusual to see ‘spikes’ in government advertising expenditure immediately prior to an election, ‘what was unusual in 2004 was the extent of pre-election spending and the sheer variety of government ads that were run. The Federal Government spent somewhere between $32 and $40 million between May and June alone’.

‘Even more startling’, according to Young (2005, p. 3), ‘was the government’s reluctance to forgo government advertising even during the election campaign’. The ‘Help Protect Australia against Terrorism’ campaign ran extensively on TV, radio and in newspapers during the election period. Under caretaker conventions, this campaign had to be approved by Labor. Media reports suggest that the Government ‘had Labor over a barrel’ with the anti-terrorism campaign. If it refused it could be ‘accused of preventing the community from being warned about the dangers of terrorism’ (Canberra Times, 24 October 2004). Labor agreed to the ads continuing on terms negotiated with the Government, including the stipulation that the ads specify they were authorised by the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

In supplementary remarks to the Committee’s report, Australian Democrat Senator Andrew Murray recommended that, given the potential for incumbents to exploit government advertising for political benefit:

But it seems the Government is unpersuaded of the need for reform. In its response to the Committee’s report, the Special Minister of State, Gary Nairn, stated:

The management of government advertising during an election campaign is further complicated by being covered by electoral legislation. The basis of the Commonwealth and State Acts revolves around the need for authorisation of any material which may affect voting patterns with the concern of attracting a penalty if the legislation is breached.

There is less concern about managing printed material during a campaign. The guidelines around printed material generally leave the decision to the discretion of the department based on the previous criteria—does the material promote the policies of the Government, contain photos of ministers or focus on government achievements? The key word in the guidance documents is to avoid active distribution of material which could be seen to promote party political content. The passive distribution of material through responding to requests or making it available in public places is considered acceptable.