Labor and the Greens have asked the Liberal government to explain why it approved thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded advertising after losing a no-confidence vote, amid uncertainty over who would form the next government.
Right to Information (RTI) documents show the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC) signed off on extensions to a budget advertising campaign days after a no-confidence motion against Premier Jeremy Rockliff passed on June 5.
The initial $38,787 invoice, dated May 27, from Pulse Media Group – the publisher of this website – was approved within government on June 1, before the no-confidence motion.
Two further invoices totalling $13,431 were approved on June 10 and 11, after the government had lost the confidence of parliament.
An election was granted on the evening of June 11.
Invoices show the campaign secured a “100% share of voice” through “full digital takeovers” – a digital advertising term meaning all advertising space on the website was reserved.
The ads linked to government webpages outlining the budget, promoting measures such as a new $4.7 million surgical robot, “record investments” in health, education and public safety and a promise of “no new taxes”.
The same digital takeover products have also been purchased by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party.
Labor MP Ella Haddad said the timing of the spending raised serious questions about the government’s integrity.
“It is extraordinarily questionable for a government to be pouring tens of thousands of dollars of public money into political-style advertising when it knows an election is imminent,” she said.
“Tasmanians rightly expect government advertising to be used to convey essential information, not crowd out debate from a digital space at the very moment an election campaign begins.”
Deputy Greens leader Vica Bayley said the government should have pulled the plug on the campaign after losing confidence.
He said the money could have been used in a “myriad” of other ways.
“Initially purchased to advertise the budget, the two extensions of the deal with Pulse were bought after it became clear the passage of the Liberals’ budget was no longer a political reality,” he said.
“It raises serious questions as to why the Liberals thought it acceptable to use public money for party-political campaign purposes.”
Haddad said it was not the first time the Liberals had used public money for pre-election advertising, pointing to former premier Peter Gutwein’s $100,000 spend on party brochures before calling a snap election in 2021.
“There must be clear answers about who authorised this new spending revealed in the RTI, under what grounds it was authorised and whether the premier was involved,” she said.
Premier Rockliff has defended the spending, saying the government had done nothing wrong.
“It’s the government’s responsibility to inform the community after a budget on aspects of the budget,” he said, including its measures on tackling the cost of living.
“The governor made the decision to allow an election on June 11 and that’s when the advertising stopped. Government went into caretaker on June 12.”
