Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not walking out of the chamber on his own censure motion, because, if he were, you might get the idea that this is a political stunt rather than something he feels very deeply about. I think the last speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, said that a censure motion is a very serious motion—and the censure of a Prime Minister is a very, very serious parliamentary tactic. For the Leader of the Opposition to walk out before the censure motion is even fully debated is, I think, almost unprecedented. He spends most of his time here in question time with his back turned, and the moment his censure motion comes up for debate—and, may I say, total repudiation—he leaves the chamber. Let us just record that for the sake of Hansard: so outraged is the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister’s conduct that he moves to censure him and then leaves the chamber—an indication of the bona fides.

Let us come to this censure motion that has been moved. The Leader of the Opposition believes that the House should censure the Prime Minister for his refusal to tell the House and the Australian people how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on the Climate Clever campaign, blah, blah, blah. The essence of the charge is that there is a campaign that the government is going to engage in, that the government refuses to come clean in relation to how much this is going to cost and that, by doing so, the Prime Minister has refused to tell either the House or the Australian people. This falls apart on day one because, far from the government refusing to tell the Australian people about this campaign, when I brought down the budget on 8 May, when I tabled Budget Paper No. 2 in this House, this supposedly secret campaign was described as follows:

The Government will provide $52.8 million over five years to increase community understanding of climate change …

That is how secret it was. It was in black and white in a prepared document tabled in this House as part of the budget and forming part of the appropriation. This will be in the appropriation bills, as disclosed in this document, Budget Paper No. 2. The Labor Party may well have trouble understanding Budget Paper No. 2, the measures document, because when Labor was in government there was no Budget Paper No. 2. Labor never had a measures document. This is something which I introduced. It puts every decision that the government has made since the MYEFO into a measures document so that nobody can be under any misapprehension as to what we are appropriating money for. This is a secret campaign, but there it is, on 8 May, on page 147 of Budget Paper No. 2. But if you know how to read a measures document you would read not only the description of how much is being spent but also the following:

Further information can be found in the press release of 4 March 2007 issued by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.

So we have a secret campaign which has now been disclosed in the budget papers. Then we go back to the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull’s press release of 4 March 2007—and have a listen to this big secret:

The Australian Government will help households and small businesses become more energy efficient and potentially carbon neutral, through a $52.8 million Small Business and Household Climate Change Action initiative.

There it is, in a press release issued on 4 March 2007. By the way, if you had read the press release you would know that it says:

All Australian households will receive information explaining climate change and giving them tips on how to become more energy efficient in their homes and their workplaces.

So there it is, on 4 March 2007—the first big leak on the secret campaign! On 8 May we had the next big leak on the secret campaign. And then in the House of Representatives on 21 May—before the Prime Minister had been asked any questions in relation to this—Mr Georganas, the member for Hindmarsh, said:

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. How much taxpayers’ money will the government spend on a climate change and water advertising campaign between now and the next federal election?

In answer, Mr Turnbull said:

I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. I do not believe there is any secret about that … there is a $52 million information campaign to promote awareness of energy efficiency.

That was on 21 May 2007—this big, secret campaign. Poor old Malcolm was probably wondering to himself, ‘How do I get this reported?’—and he is being accused of having a secret campaign. His is putting out press releases, he is coming to the dispatch box and he is putting it in the budget—and it has been a secret campaign all along. Give me a break! I say this to the member for Kingsford Smith: if you come to this dispatch box, move a censure motion and allege there is a secret campaign, you need a fact to back it up. The fact that it has been disclosed in a press release, in the budget papers and at this dispatch box means that the whole censure motion collapses. What the Prime Minister was in fact asked in relation to this—have a listen to this—was whether there was a full-colour brochure with a personal covering letter from the Prime Minister. He said:

No such decision has been made—

that is, on the full-colour brochure with personal covering letter—

But I do reserve the right to engage in a public information campaign …. I do reserve that right.

Of course he reserves the right. He had disclosed it in the budget papers, Malcolm had talked about it in his press release and Malcolm had said it to the House. The only question at this stage was whether it was going to be in full colour with a covering letter. That is the only question in relation to which the Prime Minister was reserving his right.

This is a pathetic censure. We could not have been more up-front about this campaign, including appropriating the money for it, than we were in relation to the budget. So not only has the government disclosed it but the Prime Minister has been entirely honest and entirely factual in his answers to these questions. It may well be that the opposition did not like the answers, but they cannot complain that he neither answered the question nor disclosed the campaign or that the appropriation for it would be made.

See this speech in context