|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 3 Issues raised by the Auditor-General’s role in compliance
Introduction
3.1
The Committee was interested to see the impact of the introduction of
the Guidelines and the involvement of the Auditor-General in scrutinising
government advertising on the ANAO’s role and functions, and if there were any resultant
effects on agencies and their advertising campaigns.
Agencies
3.2
With the introduction of the Guidelines in July 2008, there was an
immediate effect on agencies that were planning to run an information or
advertising campaign. As well as the usual campaign arrangements, they now
needed to ensure that their campaign fulfilled the conditions of the Guidelines
and was able to be reviewed by the Auditor-General.[1]
3.3
The Committee wished to gain an idea whether there was any impact from
the introduction of the Guidelines, so canvassed the view of a number of agencies
who had been subject to the review process to better gain an understanding of
their perspectives.
3.4
The Committee considered four campaigns in some depth to gain an idea of
the impact of the review by the Auditor-General. These were:
- National Binge
Drinking Campaign (November 2008 – June 2009): Department of Health and Ageing
- Child Care Tax Rebate
Campaign (June – October 2008): Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations
- Small Business and
General Business Tax Break Campaign (July – December 2009): Australian Taxation
Office
- Climate Change
Household Action Advertising Campaign Phase One. (July 2008): Department of
Climate Change.
Effect of the ANAO review on agencies
3.5
Mr Lewis of Finance confirmed that the ANAO review was a demanding
process. It was rigorous and involved significant effort on the part of all the
stakeholders.[2]
3.6
Dr Parkinson, Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, observed
that the process:
...definitely puts a series of hoops which are quite serious
to meet and which require considerable effort from staff from Departments to
meet.[3]
3.7
Dr Parkinson also clarified that he considered that there was a great deal
of integrity to the process, and that he was very impressed with the
professionalism of the Auditor-General and his officers and the assistance of
Finance.[4]
3.8
The Department of Health and Ageing explained to the Committee that they
engaged with audit staff as they worked through the development of its
campaign. The agency provided more detail of the form of this interaction:
It is not my understanding that the ANAO request us to make
changes as we go through that. It is more about ensuring that they are completely
across what we have been doing and how we have come to the decisions we have
come to with the campaign. So when it comes to them formally, after
certification, they are completely across how we have got to where we are at.[5]
3.9
The ANAO advised in their initial submission that while agencies still had
some work to do to align their business processes to support effective
compliance with the core requirements of the Guidelines, there was an
expectation that this would improve over time.[6]
3.10
The Auditor-General informed the Committee on 22 February 2010 that he
considered that agency processes were becoming better and more disciplined.[7]
The Committee was told that some larger agencies, such as the ATO and the Department
of Health and Ageing had their business processes and administrative processes
in place to a very high level of efficiency.[8]
Time taken to complete the review
3.11
The Committee was curious as to whether the detailed ANAO review process
had an impact on the release of advertising campaigns.
3.12
The ANAO advised agencies to allow five working days from the submission
of final documentation to the issue of a review report.[9]
3.13
The ANAO explained that they worked with each agency during the
development of the campaign to ensure they were well placed to undertake a
final assessment of the campaign at the appropriate time.[10]
The ANAO described the review as:
... an iterative process undertaken with the agencies over a
period of weeks or months, prior to the receipt of the final certification.[11]
3.14
The Department of Health and Ageing provided the Committee with a
timeline from the certification of their campaign to its launch:
The secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing
certified the campaign on 14 November 2008. The ANAO review report was provided
to the minister on 18 November 2008. The ministerial launch of the campaign
occurred on 21 November. And the material started to appear in the media on 23
November.[12]
3.15
The Committee expressed concerns about the length of time between the
certification of the campaign by the Department’s Secretary and the release of
the ANAO compliance report. The ANAO assured the Committee:
We work in parallel with the department, so we have obviously
been involved much earlier than 14 November.[13]
3.16
The Department of Health and Ageing supported this assertion from the
ANAO.[14]
3.17
The ANAO reported that by February 2010 most agencies had developed
their processes to enable the desired five-day turnaround. Additionally most
agencies had also provided all documents in advance of that process enabling
the ANAO to complete their work within the five days.[15]
Scope of the ANAO review
3.18
The Auditor-General provided a report to the relevant Minister on the
proposed campaign’s compliance with the Guidelines. This report provided a
limited assurance opinion through inquiry, observation and analysis of key
documents and information that the Guidelines had been adhered to.[16]
3.19
The ANAO review did not extend to an assessment of the general system
controls and supporting procedures that agencies have in place to manage advertising
activities, but focused on matters relating specifically to the proposed
campaign.[17]
3.20
Agencies were advised by the ANAO that undertaking these reviews did not
limit the Auditor-General’s discretion to include matters relating to the
information and advertising campaigns which may have been reviewed against the
Guidelines within the scope of other audit activity at another time.[18]
3.21
The ANAO stated that if there were issues with aspects of a campaign
they would ask the agency to clarify how those aspects meet the Guidelines.
3.22
The Committee asked the Auditor-General if he had experienced a
situation where the ANAO was concerned with content after receiving the
advertising material from an agency. The Auditor-General indicated:
We have quite an involved process with departments, Senator,
and on occasions we raise issues with them about the campaigns and the basis
for the decisions relating to those campaigns. So the answer is yes.[19]
Issues identified by the ANAO
The need for a campaign
3.23
The Guidelines on Campaign Advertising by Australian Government Departments
and Agencies stated that:
...campaigns should not be instigated unless the need is
demonstrated, target recipients are clearly identified and the campaign is
based on appropriate research.[20]
3.24
Finance clarified the scope of campaign advertising:
In terms of campaign advertising, it is all Australian
government advertising that informs the community and/or specific target
audiences about their rights, entitlements and obligations, and may encourage
consideration of particular issues; for example, giving up smoking.[21]
3.25
The ANAO identified the blurring of the distinction between ordinary
business activities and advertising as being a possible issue.[22]
3.26
In terms of identifying the need for a campaign, the Guidelines required
that campaigns should not be instigated unless the need is demonstrated, target
recipients are clearly identified and the campaign is based on appropriate
research.[23]
Reviewing a campaign for compliance with the Guidelines
3.27
The Committee was interested in gaining an understanding of the level of
evidence the ANAO used when reviewing a campaign for compliance with the
Guidelines.
3.28
The ANAO stated that they would review the process from the briefing
documentation, through the research report, the conceptual research and market
testing, to consider whether there was any disconnect with the initial
research. They would also check to see if any elements of the campaign were
unexplained.[24]
3.29
The ANAO was asked what action it would take where the purpose of the
campaign is to provide information about a policy change which required no
action from recipients.
3.30
An example is the increase in the Age Pension announced in the 2009
Federal Budget. This resulted in increased payments being made automatically
and did not require the recipient to inform relevant agencies of any further or
new information. Mr Holbert from the ANAO explained:
Levels of awareness are critical. If everybody is aware of
the program and the detail that is entailed we would be looking for where the
knowledge gap and the lack of understanding were that warrant the campaigns.
The research goes to both the shape of campaign and the need for the campaign.[25]
3.31
Some Committee members questioned the need for a campaign on the
increase to the Child Care Tax Rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent which
also required no action from recipients.
3.32
The Auditor-General replied that it is considered an underlying
principle that all members of the public have equal rights to access
comprehensive information about government policies, programs and services
which affect their entitlements, rights and obligations.[26]
Review of NESB and Indigenous materials
3.33
The Guidelines clearly outlined that attention needs to be paid to
communicating with any disadvantaged individuals or groups who were identified
as being within the designated target audience. It states:
- Particular attention
should be given to the communication needs of ...those for whom English is not
a convenient language in which to receive information.
- There should be
recognition of the full participation of women, ethnic and Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander communities in Australian society by realistically
portraying their interests, lifestyles and contributions to Australian society.
Care should be taken that this is not done in a stereotypic way. [27]
3.34
The Committee is aware of the fact that many campaigns have provision
for the development of targeted advertising to inform those of non‑English
speaking (NESB) and Indigenous backgrounds. Often these materials are
developed after the main campaign materials have been finalised and can be
released long after the initial release of the main campaign materials.
3.35
The ANAO provided a separate compliance review for these materials.
3.36
The ANAO commented on this process:
We have taken the view that we have to weigh up, I guess, the
timeliness of the advertisements going out, and we have accepted agencies
splitting out the English-speaking from the non-English-speaking and in some cases
Indigenous campaigns. So we have accepted that. Otherwise, it would have
resulted in campaigns being considerably delayed before they commenced.[28]
3.37
The Committee asked about the efficiency of splitting the main campaign
and the materials for minority groups in the community. The ANAO replied:
There is no question that we would dearly like agencies to
present us with the complete package of material at the one time. We encourage
that. The question we face, though, is if agencies are not prepared, should the
whole campaign be delayed and the benefits of the campaign be delayed for that
reason alone? From an audit perspective we make it very clear what it is we
have covered and so a reader of our certificate will clearly understand what we
have and have not looked at.[29]
3.38
Some Committee members expressed a concern that if NESB and Indigenous
materials for a campaign are not released at the same time as the main campaign
material that this could be perceived as an accessibility issue.
Cost-benefit analysis
3.39
The ANAO identified the issue of the cost-benefit analysis as being an
area of the Guidelines where more detail would have been helpful.
3.40
On 30 January 2009, the Auditor-General wrote to the then Special
Minister of State seeking amongst other things, greater clarity of the goal of
the cost-benefit analysis:
...ie: whether the goal is to balance the effectiveness of a
campaign with its estimated cost; or whether the goal is to maximise the
effectiveness of a campaign, with cost being a secondary factor. While accepting
that cost-benefit in this context is not a matter for precise measurement, it
is an area where significant additional costs can be incurred to improve the
marginal effectiveness of a campaign, and it is not clear this is necessarily
in the interests of the efficient use of public monies.[30]
3.41
Mr Michael White told the Committee that Finance would provide advice on
how the cost of campaigns would be calculated.[31]
3.42
The ANAO told the Committee about the processes that they used when
considering the cost-benefit analysis of a specific campaign:
I think it is important to also observe that there was no
television and no radio. The first question we ask with some of these
arrangements is: why won’t direct mail in itself do the job? It is a reasonable
question. As the department has explained, nevertheless that will get to
existing recipients of the benefits but there will always be potential
receivers of the benefit and others who need to know. So you need to get to
them. Again, the whole campaign has to be based on a cost-benefit analysis. The
assessment was that magazine and newspaper articles would do the job in this
case, with no radio and no television. That is quite powerful, because the
thing that we particularly focus on in the Audit Office, apart from the general
adherence to the guidelines, is television, then radio and then other media. We
have had none of that in these campaigns.[32]
3.43
Ms Sally Webster from the University of Canberra told the Committee that
it was important that in any cost benefit analysis, value for money was more
than just procedures and keeping the number of campaigns to a minimum. She
considered that the advertising focus should be more than just money spent, it
should:
...reach the target audience in a creative way that informs
and persuades.[33]
3.44
This was echoed by Mr Scott McClellan from the Australian Association of
National Advertisers who informed the Committee that he considered that there
was tension between the need to evaluate and be accountable and the need to be
creative.[34] He considered that the
pendulum had perhaps swung too far back towards being accountable.[35]
Websites
3.45
The Auditor-General informed the Committee that linkages to websites and
defining the boundaries was very much a contemporary issue.[36]
3.46
The ANAO had had discussions with Finance around the identification of a
boundary around materials for campaigns. Mr Michael White told the Committee
that much of that discussion was focused on the depth of review for websites
where links are attached. He stated:
Certainly there is a rule that all of the government
campaigns refer to either an agency or the .gov.au website, and that is the
only website that the campaign materials go directly to. We do look at the
prime websites of agencies, if they are included with those materials, to
ensure that those requirements have been followed.[37]
3.47
The ANAO were careful to ensure that they did not go outside the bounds
of the campaign advertising reviews.[38] The Auditor-General also
informed the Committee that it would not be possible to look at a campaign with
a link to another website and review that entire website for adherence to
government policy due to the time factor.[39]
3.48
The ANAO noted that the primary guide for websites is the Web
Publishing Guide, issued by the Australian Government Information
Management Office, to assist agencies to manage their websites, and to identify
their legal and policy obligations.[40]
Impact of the Guidelines on creativity
3.49
As mentioned above, there was concern expressed during the inquiry as to
whether the accountability processes allow for more creative decisions in
government advertising.[41] Ms Webster raised the
concern that the introduction of the Guidelines may have caused a risk averse
approach from public servants:
... afraid to be bold and innovative in their choice of
creative campaigns due to the range of auditing and approval processes that are
now in place.[42]
3.50
The ANAO maintained that they were not involved during the creative
process at all and would excuse themselves if asked questions during the
creative process.[43] They did look at the
creative material as part of the review but only once it had been finalised.[44]
3.51
When questioned by the Committee as to whether the ANAO considered
campaigns were becoming less creative, the ANAO were clear that they felt this
was not happening.[45]
The Auditor-General’s role in compliance
Auditor-General’s involvement in decision-making
3.52
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Auditor-General wrote to the Prime
Minister in 2007, expressing his concern about the possibility of the person reviewing
government advertising being placed in an unenviable position.[46]
3.53
Additionally some Committee members expressed concerns that scrutinising
government advertising was placing the Auditor-General and ANAO in a decision-making
role, rather than just an auditing or review role. This was based on the
observation that some campaigns did not proceed or were changed following
discussions with the ANAO.
3.54
The ANAO advised the Committee that there were campaigns that were
modified as a result of enquiries and concerns from the ANAO.[47]
Additionally campaign materials had been altered following a campaign launch
requiring a second Auditor-General’s report.[48]
3.55
The ANAO further advised the Committee that there was one campaign that
did not proceed after the ANAO had outlined the additional evidence required to
enable the agency to demonstrate compliance.[49] The proposal was in the
early stage of the review process and had not reached the stage where the ANAO
had received certification from the agency.[50]
3.56
The Auditor-General told the Committee that the ANAO tried to be
constructive in its approach to working with agencies. If an agency had a
campaign which did not comply with the Guidelines, but subsequently modified
their approach, the ANAO would provide another view as to whether that would be
acceptable.[51]
3.57
Mr Holbert specified that the advice provided to agencies was to outline
the additional evidence and documentation that the agency would need to provide
in order to demonstrate compliance.[52]
3.58
The ANAO advised the Committee that there were 11 campaigns that were
issued an opening letter but did not proceed to finalisation.[53]
3.59
The Auditor-General made the point to the Committee that the ANAO was
not involved in the administration of campaigns and to conduct the review, they
required a certain level of evidence and support from the agency.[54]
3.60
When challenged as to whether the ANAO was involved in co-decision
making with agencies during the review process, the Auditor-General stated that
they were obliged to raise any concerns regarding compliance with agencies. The
Auditor-General clarified that the ANAO provided feedback but that agencies were
not obliged to respond to that feedback.[55]
3.61
The Auditor-General provided an analogy with the financial statements
audit:
It is unheard of for an auditor not to give early warning on
significant matters that affect the audit opinion. It is part of the standards
that the auditors work with and it is absolutely the right way to go.[56]
Weight of the review opinion
3.62
The Committee raised the question of the influence of the review by the
Auditor-General.
3.63
The Guidelines stated that the Auditor-General was required to provide a
report to the Minister responsible for the agency undertaking the campaign on
the proposed campaign’s compliance with the Guidelines.
3.64
The Guidelines also provided for the situation where a campaign could be
exempted from compliance with the Guidelines on the basis of national
emergency, extreme urgency or other extraordinary reasons the Cabinet Secretary
considered appropriate.[57]
3.65
For example, the Department of Health and Ageing’s H1N1 Influenza (Human
Swine Flu) Vaccination and Prevention Program was granted an exemption from the
Guidelines based on the threat of a potential pandemic in Australia, which
required urgent information activities to support public health and safety.[58]
3.66
The Committee asked the Auditor-General to clarify if agencies were
required to comply with ANAO review reports. The Auditor-General informed the
Committee that the review process performed by the ANAO provided a review
opinion rather than an executive function.[59] The Auditor-General
explained:
The reality is that it is like any audit report. I put them
up and there are my recommendations. At the end of the day it is up to the
executive to decide whether to accept them or not.[60]
3.67
However, some Committee members felt that there was a perception amongst
agencies that the ANAO had the power of veto when it came to campaigns
proceeding.
3.68
Conversely, some Committee members were concerned that if the
Auditor-General had reported that the campaign did not comply with the
Guidelines, there was nothing in the Guidelines to actually prevent a campaign
going ahead.
Other issues
Partisanship/Guideline 3
3.69
There was particular interest from Committee members about the process
of the Auditor-General assessing the compliance of campaigns against Guideline
3.
3.70
Guideline 3 stated that material should not be directed at promoting
party political interests.
19. Material should be presented in a manner free from
partisan promotion of government policy and political argument, and in
objective language. The dissemination of information using public funds should
not be directed at fostering a positive impression of a particular political
party or promoting party political interests. Dissemination of information may
be perceived as being party-political because of any one of a number of
factors, including:
- the
content of the material - what is communicated;
- the
source of the campaign - who communicates it;
- the
reason for the campaign - why it is communicated;
- the
purpose of the campaign - what it is meant to do;
- the
choice of media - how, when and where it is communicated;
- the timing, geographic and demographic targeting of the campaign;
- the
environment in which it is communicated; or
- the
effect it is designed to have.
20. The information and material presented in a campaign
should not:
- mention
the party in government by name;
- directly
attack or scorn the views, policies or actions of others such as the policies
and opinions of opposition parties or groups;
- include
party-political slogans or images;
- be
designed to influence public support for a political party, a candidate for
election, a Minister or a Member of Parliament; or
- refer
or link to the websites of politicians or political parties.[61]
3.71
Some Committee members contended that if a government is promoting its
policies by advertising using public money when the opposing party disagrees
with the policies, this could be seen as partisan promotion of government
policy. Members also expressed concern that in a competitive political system,
practically any expenditure on advertising by governments is liable to be
interpreted in some quarters as “partisan promotion.” This could place the
Auditor-General, whose primary client is the Parliament, not the Executive, in
a difficult position where a positive review report could be seen as publicly
endorsing controversial promotion of government policy. It was this concern in
large part that led to the Committee’s inquiry.
3.72
The Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA) had the
following view in their submission to the Committee’s inquiry into the
Auditor-General’s Act:
...declaring whether something being advertised is political
or ‘non-political’ is a minefield for the Auditor-General.
It involves a subjective determination, nuanced in the contours of the day-to-day politics. We may
all be able to spot blatant political advertising, but so much of what a
government advertises is not in this category and would be subject to various
legitimate explanations. Was the terrorism alert advertising political or not?
Was the industrial relations advertising political or not? These are not
matters to be decided by the Auditor-General.[62]
3.73
Following a request from the Committee, the ANAO obtained legal advice
on the meaning of a manner free from partisan promotion of government policy
and political argument, and in objective language which they provided to
the Committee. The advice stated that:
...it would be possible for there to be an information
program conducted by the Government about a particular government policy that
did not within the meaning of the Guidelines amount to an ‘excessive dedication
to’ that policy and did not display ‘bias’ or ‘prejudice’ in favour of that
policy, notwithstanding that competing political parties did not support that
policy.[63]
3.74
Mr Grant of Finance told the Committee that the legal advice indicated
that a campaign did not need to have bipartisan support to satisfy the
Guidelines.[64] He stated that the
Guidelines do not specify that the government policy is supported or not by the
rest of the parliament.[65]
3.75
The Auditor-General informed the Committee that he considered that there
was capacity to expand the Guidelines around the issue of what might be
partisan, including the level of research support required to make a decision.[66]
Involvement of Ministers
3.76
The Campaign Advertising Review 2008-09 stated that clearly
defining the role of Ministers and that of agencies in advertising campaigns
was a challenge. The ANAO maintained that:
The involvement of Ministers and their offices under former
arrangements in making key decisions in approving strategies and briefs, in
selecting certain consultants, and in the approval of final creative material
and media plans meant that the basis for decisions and the accountability for
decisions were not always clear[67]
3.77
Upon the release of the Guidelines in July 2008, the Government’s media
release stated:
Ministers will be briefed on the progress of campaign
development, but responsibility for that development will be wholly undertaken
by the commissioning department, with assistance from the Department of Finance
and Deregulation.[68]
3.78
The Business Planning Processes for Campaign Information and
Advertising Activities (February 2009) provided the following guidance on
the role of Ministers:
Ministers are responsible for authorising campaign
development in their portfolios, consistent with normal financial management
processes, and for authorising the launch of a campaign. While Ministers do not
have responsibility for campaign development, they have a legitimate interest
in the development of campaigns in their portfolios. It is reasonable that
Ministers be briefed at strategic stages of campaign development.
3.79
The Auditor-General told the Committee that he considered that the
review process was necessary to allow agencies to follow the Guidelines as set
out and to be independent of any other views that Ministers or their offices
may have in the details of the campaign.[69]
3.80
The Auditor-General made the point that:
The issue that we have been promoting strongly is that the
decisions on the implementation of these campaigns are the decisions of the
department. For instance, we did not want ministers deciding to run television
before the research had been done. The case as to whether the guidelines have
been satisfied or not has to be made on its merits not on the basis of
government decisions. That is the point we have been making. We have never said
it is inappropriate for ministers’ offices to be consulted on campaigns. The
important factor from our perspective is who has the decision making
responsibilities. The guidelines are very clear about the secretary’s
responsibilities in terms of campaign design and implementation. We have been
very clear all the way through about that matter.[70]
3.81
Additionally, the Committee was informed that as part of the review
process, the ANAO sought representation from chief executives that their
certification was based on their opinions and that they had not been directed
by Ministers or their officers in relation to any aspects of a campaign.[71]
3.82
In practice, the distinction between Ministers being ‘consulted’, as
distinct from having decision-making powers was not always clear-cut, in the
evidence to the inquiry.[72] For example, evidence
was provided to the Committee that during the development of the climate change
advertising campaign, the Minister’s office provided feedback on an aspect of
the campaign which was subsequently changed. When asked to clarify this impact
of this feedback, Dr Parkinson affirmed that he was not directed by the
Minister or the Minister’s office and the decision was his alone.
I was not given any directives by the minister or the
minister’s office. More importantly, were I given directives, I would not have
accepted them because of these guidelines, which I think are very valuable.[73]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy
Statement
|
