Key Takeaways
- The Tasmanian government spent over $13,000 on media advertising to promote its budget after a motion of no-confidence in Premier Jeremy Rockliff passed state parliament.
- The advertising spend was made in two separate payments to media organisation Pulse Tasmania, totaling $13,431.
- The payments were made on June 6 and June 11, with the latter being made on the same day Governor Barbara Baker agreed to dissolve parliament and call an election.
- The opposition has raised concerns about the taxpayer-funded advertising, questioning its justification given the imminent election.
- The total advertising spend with Pulse Tasmania, including a previous payment of almost $39,000, totals over $52,000.
Introduction to the Controversy
The Tasmanian government has come under fire for spending over $13,000 on media advertising to promote its budget after a motion of no-confidence in Premier Jeremy Rockliff passed state parliament. The documents, released under right to information laws, show that the Department of Premier and Cabinet purchased two separate "full digital takeovers" with media organisation Pulse Tasmania to advertise the budget. The first payment of $8,954 was made on June 6, a day after the no-confidence motion passed, and the second payment of $4,477 was made on June 11, the same day Governor Barbara Baker agreed to dissolve parliament and call an election.
The Advertising Spend
The advertising spend was part of a larger deal with Pulse Tasmania, which included an advertorial on Pulse’s social media pages to promote the budget, plus a "full digital takeover" giving the government a "100 per cent share of voice" on Pulse’s website. The total spend with Pulse Tasmania, including a previous payment of almost $39,000, totals over $52,000. The opposition has raised concerns about the taxpayer-funded advertising, questioning its justification given the imminent election. The no-confidence motion meant that the May budget never passed parliament, and it has since been scrubbed from the Department of Treasury website.
Justification for the Spend
Premier Jeremy Rockliff has defended the advertising spend, stating that it was the government’s responsibility to inform the community about the budget and its measures to ease the cost of living. However, the opposition has argued that the spend was unjustified, given that the government had already asked for an election to be called. Shadow Attorney-General Ella Haddad said that the premier had serious questions to answer about the two later advertising spends, particularly the June 11 payment, claiming that the premier and his office knew that Tasmanians were heading to an election when it was authorized.
Opposition Reaction
The opposition has been vocal in their criticism of the advertising spend, with Greens MP Vica Bayley describing the payments as "pretty smelly". Bayley argued that the payments looked like a misuse of taxpayer funds and that it was utterly inappropriate to be taking out advertorials when it came to promoting the government at a time when it was collapsing or when an election campaign was beginning. The opposition has also questioned the timing of the payments, given that the budget was clearly destined to fail and parliament was prorogued and an election was held.
Conclusion and Implications
The controversy surrounding the advertising spend has raised questions about the use of taxpayer funds for political purposes. The opposition has argued that the spend was a waste of taxpayer money and that it could have been used in other ways. The incident has also highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in government advertising. As the Tasmanian government moves forward, it will be important for them to address the concerns raised by the opposition and to ensure that taxpayer funds are used in a responsible and transparent manner. The total spend of over $52,000 has sparked a debate about the role of government advertising in promoting policy and the need for greater scrutiny of government expenditure.
