A parliamentary inquiry into the role of the Auditor-General in scrutinising government advertising has found that such involvement was inappropriate as it blurs the boundary between executive decision-making and audit review.

 

The involvement of the Auditor-General in scrutinizing government advertising was proposed by the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, during the campaign for the 2007 federal election, when he stated:

 

“There should be, both at a federal level and a state level, a process involving the auditor-general . . . who should scrutinise all proposals for government-funded advertising . . . Otherwise you are just scooping your hand ever deeper into the taxpayers' pocket and throwing out effectively political propaganda.”

 

However, the Auditor-General at the time expressed concern over the possibility of the Auditor-General performing an administration role to say that a campaign should not proceed.

 

“Given the sometimes controversial history of Government advertising, there is a real risk that whoever administers the guidelines could be drawn into the policy and political debate as an active participant in, and possible defender of, the processes of executive government.”

 

Chair of the House of Representatives Public Accounts and Audit Committee,

Rob Oakeshott  (Member for Lyne) said that by the end of the inquiry, all Committee members had agreed that it was not an appropriate role for the Auditor-General to be involved in the scrutiny of proposed advertising campaigns.

 

Instead, he said, the Committee will continue to work with the Auditor-General to scrutinise government advertising via on-going audits.

 

“The Auditor-General has already confirmed he will be performing ‘spot audits’ of government advertising this year and we look forward to completion of that work.

 

The Committee’s report is at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jcpaa/govtad/index.htm