Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I want to raise concerns that Labor have about the way in which the federal government has chosen to spend taxpayers’ money. In particular I want to emphasise the concerns we have about the way in which the government has expended money to tell the public a lie in effectively saying that the Work Choices legislation introduced into this House in March last year would ensure that major provisions of employment conditions would be protected by law. In fact, the government spent $55 million of taxpayers’ money to indicate through the electronic and print media that employees in this country would be safe from their legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth with respect to that claim, which was asserted through every outlet possible with taxpayers’ own money. Of course, after spending $55 million of taxpayers’ money, the government is now looking to spend millions more to suggest that this time they really mean it.

We do not believe the government has in any way acted properly with respect to this particular matter. We think that that $55 million campaign on Work Choices was an outrageous abuse of the responsibility that the government of the day holds in being entrusted with the wealth of this nation—certainly the wealth that is accumulated by government at the federal level—in its hands. In fact, I contend that there has been $111 million spent since 1 July last year on government advertising, $472,000 of which was spent in two days on IR newspaper advertisements on the fourth and the fifth of this month. We had a situation where the Prime Minister and the minister announced a policy that is still to be understood by the parliament, let alone the people of Australia. We have a situation where a law which was operative from three weeks ago next Monday has not been introduced into this parliament, is not understood by employers of the land and is certainly not understood by employees, but the government is willing to spend taxpayers’ money in an abusive manner to further the government’s interests—indeed, to protect one job only in this country, the Prime Minister’s, and a few others on the other side of this chamber. It is an outrageous abuse of taxpayers’ money and it should not be accepted.

With the Senate estimates committee disclosing to the public via the media that the Prime Minister was willing to spend $540,000 to create a larger dining room, you would have to wonder where the government’s priorities are. Indeed, what is the Prime Minister thinking if he thinks he can spend half a million dollars, which of course is more than the average cost of a house in the city in which I reside, to ensure that he has a better dining room when people in Australia are having trouble buying their first house? He spends the same sum on his dining room. Yes, we know now that, as a result of the media attention that has been brought to bear on this particular issue, he has now refused to go ahead with this. But I think it is indicative of a government that has been around for 11 years that the Prime Minister is willing to indulge himself with a half-a-million-dollar table. I can remember when they attacked Prime Minister Keating for a $25,000 table. Even with indexation, that was nothing near the amount of money that was being proposed by this Prime Minister.

I would suggest to the government that, if they want to spend taxpayers’ money, they might want to start informing the voters of this country that they had better get on the rolls when the election is announced. There is no expenditure there—looking after people who may find themselves disenfranchised as potential voters in this country because the government has changed the electoral laws of this land to prevent young people, in particular, voting. That is where money should be spent. (Time expired)