Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

DSEWPaC! The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has a $462,000 contract to deck out just two offices with indoor plants. That is just fantastic! It's a cracker. Just listen to this one: Labor has handed out $72,000 to the Auburn Community Development Network—in the member for Reid's marginal electorate—to host an 'enviro tea salon'. Thanks to the funding—this is the worst!—participants can now take part in a weaving workshop using native lomandra grass. I wonder what they are doing with that lomandra grass! Listen to this: participants 'will be encouraged to share their energy efficiency tips in exchange for a free seedling, re-potted into a recycled coffee cup sourced from local businesses'. That is taxpayers' money, $72,000 worth. Every taxpayer out there has been wondering where their taxes go under Labor.

And, just in case the wrong impression is given, Labor currently spends $150 million a year on an army of spin doctors. There are 1,600 people employed in the Public Service in media, communications, marketing and public affairs. The Australian Taxation Office has 271 spin doctors—I would say that is 271 who have failed at their jobs—while Defence has 175 and Human Services 124. This is Labor.

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

You might say, 'Come on, Joe, you're being a little tough here. You're being a little tough when you're down to talking about $72,000 or even $467,000.' But do you know what the cracker is? The federal government paid $1 billion, no strings attached, to electricity generators before 31 June this year for nothing—for nothing. They were going to close down some of those power stations, or they were going to keep them open; they cannot quite tell. But it was $1 billion. Remember the flood levy? The flood levy upset so many Australians who had given so generously privately to try and help Queenslanders in particular but also Victorians affected by floods. The government said, 'No, we've got to be responsible with our budget. We've got to have a limit on the deficit. The deficit will be $22 billion, therefore we're going to have a $1.7 billion flood levy.' That had a real impact on consumer confidence. It had a real impact on the discretionary spend of consumers. You know what happened? The government did not care about the budget, because what they promised was a $22 billion deficit and it has now turned out to be a $44 billion deficit.

See this speech in context