State Government Advertising: Taxpayer-Funded Promotion Disguised as Public Information
By Direct Democracy
Every year, without your permission, Australian state governments raid the public purse to run advertising campaigns that look a lot less like public information and a lot more like party political promotion. It's one of the most persistent, bipartisan rorts in Australian politics - and because it benefits whoever happens to be in power, neither Labor nor the Coalition has any real incentive to stop it.
What Is Government Advertising?
Government advertising refers to campaigns funded by taxpayers and run by state or federal governments - ostensibly to inform the public about services, programs, health initiatives, or policy changes. Think: road safety campaigns, COVID vaccination drives, or notices about changes to public transport.
That kind of advertising has a legitimate purpose. Nobody objects to a government telling people about a new mental health hotline or a bushfire preparedness campaign.
The problem is that a large and growing slice of government advertising spending goes toward something else entirely: making the government look good. Campaigns that announce infrastructure projects before a single shovel hits the ground. Glossy television spots promoting a budget before it's passed parliament. Ministerial media blitzes timed suspiciously close to election cycles.
This is taxpayer-funded political promotion - and it happens at scale.
The Numbers Are Staggering
Government advertising in Australia is a massive industry. While federal figures get more scrutiny, the states are where some of the most egregious spending occurs.
- New South Wales routinely ranks among the country's biggest government advertisers. In the 2021–22 financial year, the NSW government spent over $90 million on advertising, making it one of the top advertisers in the country by spend.
- Victoria under the Andrews Labor government became notorious for large-scale government advertising. In 2020–21, the Victorian government spent approximately $176 million on advertising and communications - an extraordinary figure even accounting for COVID-related public health messaging.
- Queensland spent over $70 million in 2021–22, with significant portions directed toward brand and infrastructure promotion.
- Across all states and territories combined, total government advertising regularly exceeds $500 million per year.
To put that in perspective: $500 million could fund hundreds of additional nurses, thousands of social housing units, or significant upgrades to public school infrastructure. Instead, a large portion of it funds campaigns designed primarily to make ministers look competent.
Who Benefits - And Who Pays?
The beneficiaries are obvious: incumbent governments and their ministers. Research consistently shows that government advertising increases name recognition and approval for the party in power, particularly in the months before an election. It's essentially free political advertising - paid for by taxpayers, including those who would never vote for the government running it.
The advertising and media industries also benefit significantly. Government contracts are lucrative, stable, and often awarded without the same competitive rigour applied to private sector clients. Major agencies across Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane depend on government accounts for a substantial share of their revenue.
The people who pay are ordinary Australians - through their taxes - with no meaningful say in whether this spending is appropriate, necessary, or honest.
The Rules Exist. They're Just Ignored.
It's not as though there are no guidelines. Most Australian jurisdictions have rules prohibiting the use of public money for partisan political advertising. The Commonwealth has its own framework, and states have similar policies on the books.
But here's the catch: the rules are largely self-enforced. Governments review their own advertising for compliance. Auditors-general occasionally scrutinise campaigns after the fact, but by then the election has come and gone and the money has been spent.
Audits and reviews have repeatedly found problems:
| State | Finding | Year |
|---|---|---|
| NSW | Auditor-General found multiple campaigns lacked clear public benefit justification | 2020 |
| Victoria | VAGO criticised insufficient record-keeping and poor value-for-money assessment | 2019 |
| Queensland | CCC raised concerns about campaign timing relative to elections | 2018 |
| Federal | ANAO found recurring non-compliance with advertising guidelines across departments | Multiple years |
The pattern is clear. The rules exist, the violations are documented, and nothing substantive changes - because the people writing the rules are the same people benefiting from breaking them.
Why This Policy Persists
Government advertising persists because it works, and because no government wants to disarm unilaterally. If Labor cuts advertising spending in opposition, they worry the Coalition will outspend them when in government. When the Coalition gets into power, they make the same calculation in reverse. Both sides have used this spending aggressively, and both sides have criticised it when in opposition.
It's also deeply embedded in the machinery of government. Ministerial offices, communications departments, and agency PR teams all have professional incentives to justify and expand advertising budgets. The system is self-reinforcing.
Media outlets, particularly commercial television and radio, have historically been reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. Government advertising is a significant revenue source for Australian media. That creates a structural disincentive to scrutinise these campaigns too aggressively.
What Would Voters Choose?
Here's the question that never gets asked: if you had a direct vote on whether the government should spend $90 million on self-promotional advertising, would you approve it?
The answer, almost certainly, is no. Polling consistently shows that Australians distrust political advertising in general and are deeply sceptical of government self-promotion. In a participatory democracy - where citizens vote directly on policy priorities - this kind of spending would face real accountability.
That's exactly the problem with how our system currently works. Elected representatives campaign on transparency and accountability, then quietly authorise millions in promotional spending the moment they take office. Voters have no direct mechanism to stop it.
Direct democracy changes that dynamic. When members vote on policy, the people authorising the spending are the same people paying for it. The incentives shift entirely.
What Should Change?
A genuinely accountable government advertising framework would include:
- Independent pre-approval of all campaigns over a threshold amount (say, $500,000) by a body with no ties to the government of the day
- Mandatory disclosure of campaign objectives, target audiences, and measurable outcomes - published before the campaign runs, not after
- Advertising blackout periods in the six months before a scheduled election
- Real consequences for non-compliance, including the ability to recover costs from party funds rather than the public purse
None of these ideas are radical. Several have been proposed by parliamentary committees, auditors-general, and integrity bodies over the past two decades. None have been implemented in any meaningful, durable way - because neither major party wants to give up the advantage.
That tells you everything you need to know about who this system is designed to serve.
---
Think voters should have a direct say on how their taxes are spent? So do we. Direct Democracy gives members a real vote on real policy - and elected representatives follow those instructions. [Take our policy quiz](https://directdemocracy.com.au/quiz) to see where you stand, or [join the party](https://directdemocracy.com.au/join) and help build a system that actually works for the people paying for it.