Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 20:30 to 35:59
Discussion shifts to departmental reorganization and the budget for social media regulation advertising campaigns. Senators question the allocation of $20 million for public communication and discrepancies in program funding figures.
Topics: Government advertising, Procurement
Speakers: Hon Sarah Henderson, Jim Betts, Cathie Kennedy, Sarah Vandenbroek, Anthea Fell, Susan Charles
look, I've got some other questions. I just wanted to ask just to check with you. Mr. Betts, you mentioned in your evidence that you reorganiz determined to reorganize the executive of your department. What was the basis for your decision? What prompted you to make that decision?
>> Um, from time to time it's appropriate to um to refresh responsibilities. I've described the extremely busy period that Mr. Chisum had been through um as deputy secretary um delivering some major reforms including most recently the social media minimum age. Um I think it's a good thing for um public servants to move between positions uh and um uh to occasion reshuffles just to keep things fresh. And it was just a judgment call um that I made, but there was no um disciplinary or other matter associated with any of that decision-making.
>> Well, it was some freshening up because it was not just moving positions. Mr. Chisum was placed on extended leave and it looked like he was moved out of the department.
>> Well, he wasn't moved out of the department. So, what it looked like is kind of irrelevant. Senator, um I made that choice. He was on extended leave. He's on uh he's on the department's payroll. Um, I moved an established deputy secretary, Mr. McCay, who you'll meet um, very shortly into the communications and media role. Um, whilst Mr. Chisum was on leave, um, I was available to have conversations with him when he was ready and refreshed about, uh, the next opportunity within the department. It happens that he landed, uh, the job as chief of staff to the attorney general, and that's a that's a good outcome for him and for
>> I just want to return to the minister's travel expenses. we've already obviously there's been quite a scandal about her various travel expenses, but I wanted to particularly ask about the business class return fair between Australia and New York for nearly $35,000. That's well above the the going rate for a business class fair. Why was it so expensive?
>> Uh well, that is something that the uh Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority can scrutinize. Um I should also add that procurement, my understanding is that procurement of um international travel is undertaken at arms length through an organization or provider called CTM uh which as part of its contract has an obligation to seek out the cheapest available fair. when you um are traveling into New York, as I've said, for major uh when major functions, including United Nations functions are underway, tickets are in high demand and therefore airlines tend to jack up the prices. Um uh and the minister obviously had to rearrange her travel at the last minute to um ensure that appropriate arrangements in place to handle the Optus Bridge. So those may have been contributing factors. Um but there is certainly no question that the minister would have sought to pay anything more than um what whatever the stipulated going rate was um as specified by the um by the travel agent engaged by the government
>> by CTM. So she changed her flight. What was the original flight on which she was booked and what was the cost of that flight?
>> Uh I would have to take that on notice and but as I say this is all subject to um uh scrutiny by the independent parliamentary expenses. So I'm a bit reluctant to provide running commentary on something which is already under investigation at the minister's instigation.
>> Well Secretary that's immaterial to the work of this committee as you know we under the rules of estimates. I'm asking and seeking these answers. So could you on notice provide
>> yes
>> the details and if you could bring them back maybe in the outcome that would be appreciated. So you're saying did did the minister fly quantis? Do you
>> I I I'm not sure. So I have to check.
>> So in relation to that nearly $35,000 return business class fair, that was the cheapest fair available given she changed her flight what within a couple of days. Was is that was that the issue?
>> My understanding was it was actually on the record um that the minister had um deferred her travel in order to um ensure that there was an appropriate response to the um Optus outage. Um but uh I will check what her original travel arrangements were. >> Um but as I say this is all subject to independent investigation. So you can rest assured that um it will all come to light um subject to independent
>> scrutiny. The role of our committee is to interrogate the expenditure of the department.
>> The role of the independent parliamentary expenses authority is to do precisely that and it was referred by
the minister herself. As I say, secretary, from the perspective of our committee, that's immaterial. So, if you could provide the details of the original flight when you say yes, it is on the record that it was deferred, but do you know how many days it was deferred by?
>> I think it was by no more than um 36 hours, but I would have to check. I I'll come back to you with those details.
>> Has there been any other changes in processes within the department, including approval processes concerning international travel?
uh since that
>> since that whole incident?
>> I don't I don't believe so. Um but I'll
>> So no other changes?
>> Not that I'm aware
>> to internal processes.
>> No, we already have um quite stringent processes for approval of travel um both domestic and um international already
I know Senator Smith has got some question. No, you >> Okay. All right. Uh could I also um sorry if I could just turn to um we want to ask about the spending given the government has already spent a significant amount of ads for television, radio and social media um on the social media minimum age advertising campaign. >> Yeah. So in my EO the government allocated an additional $10 million to extend the social media age minimum advertising campaign through to April 2026.
>> Yeah.
>> Could could I ask how much was initially allocated for the advertising campaign and over what period?
>> Sure. So um my understanding and Miss Charles will be able to answer this is that an initial 10 million uh was allocated and a further 10 million after that bringing the total to $20 million. And as
>> sorry I just can't hear very well. maybe broadcasting could
>> so an initial 10 million then subsequent uh supplemented by another 10 million bringing the total to 20 million uh that uh social media minimum age um expenditure uh uh or campaign will roll through I think till April uh and as at the 30th of November my understanding is that 8.26 $26 million had been spent, but I will turn Miss Charles to correct anything if I got it wrong.
>> Susan Charles, first assistant secretary, the secretary is correcting in the numbers.
>> Um, Secretary, was there any analysis done of the success or otherwise of that advertising campaign?
>> The advertising campaign is ongoing, but um, uh, I'll turn to Miss Charles um, and Miss Kennedy to talk about the standard evaluation processes that
follow. Um the campaign is currently still in market and it was a continuation. So the additional money um continued the um campaign. Um we have ongoing tracking and evaluation and that's still in progress. Um but we can provide some early indications and I'll I'll pass to my colleague who can provide some early indications of what the performance of the campaign is. Um
>> Kathy Kennedy, assistant secretary communication branch. So as with all government campaigns, we undertake benchmark tracking and evaluation. Uh that final evaluation report won't be available until after the conclusion of the campaign. The campaign is running through until the 11th of April, but we do have some early tracking results of that and that's showing that um it has been very successful in raising awareness of the social media minimum age. So our early tracking shows that there's 96% awareness with all audiences of the introduction of the social media minimum age and we're also seeing a a significant increase uh so the campaign drives people to the website the e safety website to find out more information and we've had a significant increase of traffic to the website. So we've had about 12 uh 1.2 million people
notice if you could provide the the details that you have in relation to the performance to date of the advertising campaign. I'm just conscious of time. Uh the additional 10 million, what would that be spent on?
So that's an extension of uh our media buy. Uh so we invested more into the media buy so that we
>> Have you got a breakdown?
>> I do. Yes. Uh well, I've got a breakdown of the complete media buy. Uh, I don't have a breakdown of what portion of that 10 million went to the media by. Would you like
>> So, you've got a breakdown of the $20 million spending.
>> Uh, so television, would you like the percentage of the budget or the actual figures?
>> The figures would be fine.
>> Okay. So, television uh 3 million uh $3,12,000. Digital video $3,127,000. I'm rounding these up a little bit. Uh, social video 1,46,000 radio 2,36,000 digital audio $867,000 integrated partnerships 350,000 regional newspapers 530,892 out of home. So that's things like um uh school buses and bus stops and in retail centers 2,267,000 cinema $346,000 and then there's some um government advertising uh placement fees $144,000.
>> And is there any new content being developed for this advertising campaign or the extension of it?
>> So the content did change slightly. So up until the um the introduction of the new laws and on December 10, the messaging was around the new laws are coming into into place and then after December 10, the messaging changed to let people know that the new laws were now in place and then the information on the website changed.
>> I just want to move to uh the last estimates. There was uh an election commitment of $450,000 to smack talk for educating teens and parents about sex tortion scams. At the time, the commitment had not yet progressed. Uh however, I just want to ask about what's been allocated in Mayo. So, the myo funding is for $500,000 rather than $450,000 committed at the election. I just want to understand the change in funding.
>> Okay. So, there's a risk we're moving out of corporate and into online safety as a policy matter here. But, um,
>> thanks for being flexible secretary.
>> so good morning Sarah Vandenbroek, first assistant secretary online safety and classification division. >> I'm not sure what you're looking at in the additional estimates. The funding for smack talk through um my info was 450,000 over two years was 300,000 in the current year and 150,000 next year.
>> Sorry, I just can't hear you very well.
>> Sorry, it's the funding was 450,000. It's 300 this year and 150,000 next
year. Well, I'm having a look at the uh my EFO extract which states it's 500,000 total to 2829 100,000 and 2526 through uh until 2728 the total being 500,000. I'm just wondering why there's been the variation.
>> Those aren't the correct figures. I'm not sure where that's coming from.
>> The Parliamentary Budget Office.
Uh we'll need to check with them. My copy of additional estimates says 300,000 this year and 150,000.
>> Okay. All right. Well, we we might come back to you on that and uh we can just uh we'll come back to you on that. Uh do you have any uh secretary understand your point about corporate versus being in the outcome? But is there any are you able to discuss how this funding is being used for this campaign?
>> Uh Miss Phil might have some details on that. We are at the point of the grant guidelines have been approved. The um round was opened in January. The application was received and the team is currently assessing the application to determine whether it meets failure for money requirements. So there isn't a contract in place yet.
>> Um Anthony, assistant secretary um online safety branch. So in relation to the smack talk grant um that is a grant to deliver information sessions about the dangers of online sexation um smack talk offers free educational presentations to groups on recognizing the signs of distress listening skills and how to have difficult conversations. Um SMAT partners with schools, sporting clubs and other organizations to deliver this information to people aged over 16. Um the organization has been it um established since April 2024 and there's been over 10,000 people reached already.
Okay. So look, I've just gone back and found that my info extract. So it's on page uh 273 and 275 274. And so the extract out of my EO the budget 2526 papers midyear economic and fiscal outlook 2526 is 0.5 million over two years from 2526 for smack talk. So that's been confirmed in myo just wondering what the variation the reason for the variation is.
>> We'll need to come back to you on that.
>> Thank you. if you could uh if you could that would be that would be appreciated. I just want to
>> sorry Senator the the 0.5 million is um it's been rounded up. It's 450,000 rounded to the nearest one decimal place.
>> So that's just normal practice that you would do that.
>> Yes, it is. Everything's reported to one decimal place.
>> Okay. All right. And so is there uh any reason why that wasn't the commitment in
>> I'm virtual information on that.
>> Right. It's a rounding issue. still a lot of money for some people. $50,000.
>> Yeah. It's it's that's the way it's reported in the financial tables. It is $450,000. So the funding that's available through the appropriation bills is 450,000. It's just the way it's written in the narrative is rounded to one decimal place.