Spending your money to 'inform' you

"The Australian government is building a better tax system for hard-working Australians, so that over 95 per cent of Australian taxpayers will pay less tax."

Thank you, Treasury staff, for spending my taxes crafting that political message.

Yes, with an election just over two months away, we're well into government advertising season; that time when usually parsimonious public servants sign off on multimillion-dollar "information campaigns" that do very little informing.

Yet the "building a better tax system" ads (that's what they're called) are only mildly offensive compared with several others broadcast recently.

For example, the Department of the Environment and Energy's "powering forward" ad blitz – which began last year and is continuing – put a brave face on the hodgepodge that is Australian energy policy.

"We've turned the corner on energy prices," the ads extol. "We're powering forward, making energy more affordable."

Not only are these slogans nebulous and hence useless when it comes to informing the public, their claims simply don't stack up. There is no evidence that the policies being spruiked have reduced electricity prices. Indeed, international businesses have consistently chided the Australia's government's lack of leadership and consistency on energy policy, saying the resulting uncertainy has crippled investment in the market.

The Defence Department chipped in, too, spending $16 million last financial year to tell us it will spend $200 billion on some submarines and other weapons, which will create jobs for some Australians. Thanks, guys, but Christopher Pyne no longer needs your help.

Auditor-General Grant Hehir is now investigating the energy ads, along with two other campaigns, to ensure they complied with government advertising rules. Those rules say public servants must not authorise campaigns that are "conducted for party-political purposes". Nonetheless, ads can "explain government policies, programs or services ... to encourage informed consideration of issues or to change behaviour".

Unfortunately, Hehir is unlikely to release his findings before the election. Nor will the public be told, before they vote, how much of their money bureaucrats spent on these campaigns this financial year (that data will be published later in 2019).

A suggestion for whomever wins office in May: as with political donations, there is no reasonable reason to delay publishing advertising campaign budgets.

This month, the Informant begins a regular watch of movements among the bureaucracy's leaders. I had planned to mention all comings and goings in the senior executive service at band 2 and above but, alas, many of the new band 2s are spooks who cannot be named. To those senior secret squirrels, congrats on your promotion.

Elsewhere:

Finally, I'd like to express how fortunate readers and I am to be able to learn each month from the Informant's resident philosopher, Richard Mulgan (read his 100th consecutive column here). He has written for every issue of this publication since early 2010.

Mulgan began his career as a classicist at Oxford, specialising in Aristotle. He switched to political science but now teaches public sector ethics and management at the ANU's Crawford school of public policy, where he is an emeritus professor. If you're in the business of government, you'd do well to enrol in one of his courses and absorb his wisdom. I know for a fact his writings for the Informant are debated, and appreciated, at the highest levels of government.

Mulgan also turns 79 today. Happy birthday – and please file another 100 columns.