Opinion

The decision by the Minister for Tourism, the Hon Paul Papalia MLA, not to provide information to Parliament about the cost of each current Tourism Western Australia brand and marketing campaign was reasonable and therefore appropriate.

Background

In Parliament on 8 May 2018, Mr Peter Katsambanis MLA asked the Minister for Tourism for the following information in the Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 3048:

Regarding all current Tourism Western Australia brand and marketing campaigns, can the Minister please detail the following:

(a)       the name of each campaign;

(b)       the cost of each campaign;

(c)       which external agency was used for each campaign;

(d)       how these campaigns are measured for effectiveness;

(e)       the audience targeted for each campaign and why; and

(f)        feedback received from overseas markets for each campaign?

On 12 June 2018, the Minister provided an answer to all parts of the question except (b). In response to this the Minister declined to provide the information, replying:

The total cost to Tourism Western Australia of all campaigns running on 8 May 2018 was $2,265,284.

Information pertaining to the amount invested by Tourism Western Australia in individual campaigns has a commercial value and its disclosure could cause commercial harm to the State and the agency’s campaign partners. Disclosing the amount of Tourism Western Australia’s investment could provide a competitive advantage to other states and potential campaign partners. Accordingly, I will notify the Auditor General’s office and both houses of Parliament that part (b) of this question will not be answered as per section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006.

On 26 June 2018, the Auditor General received the Minister’s notification of the decision not to provide the requested information in accordance with section 82 of the FM Act.

Key findings

The decision by the Minister not to provide the requested information was reasonable and therefore appropriate.

The Minister properly sought advice from the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation (Department) before responding to the request. The Department recommended the Minister provide a total cost for all campaigns and decline to provide the cost of each campaign as it was commercially sensitive.

The Department’s recommendation was based on an assessment against its Release of Event Sponsorship Information and/or other Commercial Information policy and guidelines.

As we have previously determined, this document provides suitable criteria for assessing if information is commercially sensitive. The Department considered if the release of the information would compromise the State’s position by providing competitors with valuable financial information.

The Department concluded that the information had commercial value and its disclosure could compromise the ability to successfully negotiate favourable terms and conditions for future campaigns, causing commercial harm to the State.

We found the Department’s conclusion was sound, as:

• the amount of State government investment in each campaign is not publicly known
• all jurisdictions actively compete for visitors and travel partners to deliver campaigns. These jurisdictions could use the information to gain a competitive advantage in future negotiations, or campaigns could become more expensive.

In our view, the Minister’s decision not to disclose the cost of each campaign is consistent with the public interest of protecting and reducing the risk of damage to the financial and commercial affairs of the State.