The claim is **substantially accurate** with important clarifications about cost figures and timing precision [1][2][3].
**Verified Core Facts:**
1. **Government Spending - $3.7 Million:** The figure refers to the cost of "The Good Society" website developed by Liquid Interactive, confirmed via AusTender procurement records [1].
The broader "Respect Matters" program had a total budget of $7.8 million [1].
1 1 . . * * * * 政府 zhèng fǔ 支出 zhī chū — — — — 370 370 万澳元 wàn ào yuán : : * * * * 该 gāi 数字 shù zì 指 zhǐ 的 de 是 shì Liquid Liquid Interactive Interactive 开发 kāi fā 的 de " " The The Good Good Society Society " " 网站 wǎng zhàn 费用 fèi yòng , , 通过 tōng guò AusTender AusTender 采购 cǎi gòu 记录 jì lù 确认 què rèn [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
The $3.7 million figure accurately describes the website/campaign platform cost, though the total program context is worth noting.
2. **Milkshake Metaphor for Sexual Consent:** Confirmed - A video titled "Moving the Line" featured a young woman attempting to share a milkshake with her partner, and when he declined, she smeared it on his face without permission.
This was intended to illustrate consent violation [1][2]
3. **Video Did Not Use Direct Language About Sex:** Confirmed - The videos deliberately avoided using words like "sex," "sexual assault," or "rape," instead using metaphors (milkshakes, tacos, pizza, sharks) to communicate consent concepts [1][3]
4. **Video Was Pulled Rapidly:** Confirmed with timing precision - The video was released on April 19, 2021 (Monday) and removed on April 20, 2021 (Tuesday).
Technically this is "within a day" rather than "within days" (plural), but the removal was extraordinarily rapid [1][2]
5. **Ineffective and Poorly Targeted:** Confirmed - Multiple independent assessments support this characterization:
- **ABC News teenager reviews (April 25, 2021):** Teenagers aged 16-19 universally criticized the video as confusing, patronizing, and ineffective [2]
- **James (19-year-old):** "It is quite a confusing, almost immature video...
It makes a joke of something that shouldn't be a joke" [2]
- **Alexa (17-year-old):** "I think they really just didn't understand what they were trying to get across" [2]
- **State Education Ministers:** Victoria's James Merlino called it "a big fail" and "cringeworthy"; NSW's Sarah Mitchell called it "pretty woeful" [1]
6. **Budget Comparison to Films:** Confirmed - The $3.7-3.8 million website cost significantly exceeded both:
- Mad Max (1979): ~$350,000-400,000 AUD [4]
- Napoleon Dynamite (2004): ~$400,000 USD (~$550,000-620,000 AUD equivalent) [5]
- The Good Society website cost approximately 9-10 times more than Mad Max and 6-10 times more than Napoleon Dynamite [1]
**What the claim omits:**
1. **Program Context:** The $3.7 million was specifically for website development and content hosting for "The Good Society" platform, which was broader than just the controversial consent videos.
The website included educational resources, teacher guides, and other content [1]
2. **Cost Breakdown:** More than half of the Respect Matters program budget was spent on videos and supporting materials, not all on the milkshake video specifically.
Multiple videos were produced (milkshake, shark, taco, pizza metaphors) [3]
3. **Program Intent:** The "Respect Matters" program was designed to "support and promote positive attitudes, behaviours and equality in schools to help prevent domestic, family, and sexual violence" - a legitimate policy objective, even if execution failed [1]
4. **Broader Backlash Reasons:** The videos were criticized not just for being poorly targeted, but for:
- Trivializing sexual assault through metaphor [2]
- Being insulting to teenage intelligence [2]
- Failing to mention actual sexual assault or consent [1]
- Being inappropriately light-hearted about serious topic [2]
5. **Expert Opposition:** Removal was pushed for by rape prevention advocates (Fair Agenda, End Rape on Campus Australia), not just public backlash [1].
Grace Tame (Australian of the Year) called the approach "insulting to the intelligence of everyone" and "problematic in so many ways" [1]
6. **Timing Precision:** "Within days" technically occurred "within one day" (April 19-20), which is faster but different from the plural phrasing
**Original Sources Provided:**
1. **MTV Australia** - Lifestyle/entertainment publication, secondary reporting but accurate on core facts [6]
2. **ABC News** - Public broadcaster with strong reputation for factual accuracy; the teenager review article provides primary source perspectives [2]
3. **9News** - Commercial news outlet, standard reporting quality
4. **Band+T** - Professional media publication with good track record
5. **Schwartz Media** - Australian independent media outlet with generally reputable analysis
**Primary Sources Consulted for This Analysis:**
- **SBS News** - Public broadcaster, detailed reporting with AusTender documentation [1]
- **Crikey** - Investigative journalism outlet, detailed budget breakdown [3]
- **News.com.au** - Major newspaper, accurate citation of figures [7]
- **Government sources** - AusTender procurement records, Department of Education statements
- **Direct teenager interviews** - ABC News primary source material [2]
**Credibility Assessment:** The original sources are reliable, and the core claims are corroborated by mainstream media outlets and government procurement records.
**Did Labor government spend comparable amounts on education campaigns with similar issues?**
**Finding:** Different approach, but significantly higher total spending identified [8].
**Labor's Approach:**
- **Albanese Government (2023 onwards):** Committed "$77.6 million to states and territories and the non-government school sector to deliver evidenced-based, age-appropriate and expert-developed respectful relationships education" [8]
- **"Consent Can't Wait" campaign:** Recent Labor initiative focusing on expert-developed content
- **Key difference:** Explicitly "evidence-based" and "expert-developed," addressing criticisms of the Coalition's approach
**Comparative Context:**
- Coalition "Respect Matters" program: $7.8 million total, criticized for poor design and ineffectiveness
- Labor "Consent Can't Wait" / Respectful Relationships program: $77.6 million, explicitly framed as evidence-based
- Labor's approach appeared to learn from Coalition's failures by emphasizing expert development
- Labor committed 10x more funding but positioned it as addressing the inadequacies identified in Coalition's effort
**Conclusion on Comparison:** No equivalent Labor program with similar design failures found.
* * * *
Labor's response to the Coalition's misstep was to fund a larger, more evidence-based alternative.
The cost ($3.7-7.8 million) for such a short-lived campaign represents inefficient government spending [1][2]
**The Context:**
However, the intent was legitimate - providing age-appropriate education about consent and respect is a genuine government responsibility, especially given Australia's sexual assault rates and consent culture issues [8].
The program was removed when problems became apparent, and Labor's subsequent approach suggests learning from the Coalition's mistakes rather than avoiding the problem entirely [8]
**Expert Perspectives:**
- Grace Tame and other consent advocates criticized the approach as inadequate but welcomed the intervention space [1]
- Educational experts noted the videos underestimated teenage understanding and maturity [2]
- Rape prevention organizations pushed for removal but acknowledged the need for some form of consent education [1]
**Key Context:** This represents a policy failure in execution rather than corrupt intent.
The rapid course correction when problems became apparent suggests accountability mechanisms worked, though the cost and waste remain valid criticisms.
The Coalition government did spend approximately $3.7 million on a campaign featuring a milkshake-based metaphor to teach consent to teenagers, without discussing sex explicitly.
The Coalition government did spend approximately $3.7 million on a campaign featuring a milkshake-based metaphor to teach consent to teenagers, without discussing sex explicitly.