Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister or any of his ministers fail to reveal in parliament, and in Senate estimates last week, that the government had given itself an exemption from its own advertising rules? Given that the government was considering this campaign for months and exempted itself last Monday, why did the government conceal it until Friday?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question. First and foremost, unlike the previous government, this government has had clearly published guidelines concerning public advertising. I would say to those opposite when they ask their questions about this that they should bear in mind not just the absence of effective guidelines but also the quantums that they expended—$420 million on the GST and $120 million on telling Australians that they would be better off under Work Choices, having their basic pay and conditions ripped away.

In response to the honourable member’s question, I would simply draw her attention to this fact: first, consistent with the development of any major new policy initiative of the government, it is inevitable and probable that you would be dealing with a consideration within government about a public advertising framework to work with it. That is the first point. That has gone back quite a number of months. Secondly, in terms of the budget provision for it, the honourable member will be aware that amounts for this and other campaigns associated with policy change by the government were clearly outlined in the budget papers. Thirdly, in terms of the use of the specific exemption clauses which she refers to, these were activated once the government, through correspondence between the Special Minister of State and the Treasurer, concluded that the misinformation campaign in which both her party and people like Clive Palmer were engaging—and other associated misinformation campaigns—represented, therefore, a risk to various aspects of economic confidence in the economy. For those reasons, the decisions were taken in the order in which they were taken.