Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The government have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The Labor Party have used taxpayers’ money to fund their blatantly political advertising efforts. The first paragraph, as Senator Colbeck has correctly noted, of the Australian Electoral Commission media release put out today headed ‘National Building—Economic Stimulus Plan school signage’ says:

The AEC has examined the signs for the “Nation Building – Economic Stimulus Plan” and formed the view that they are in breach of the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 …

They have been caught out and caught short. They have not come in here and apologised to the Senate, to the parliament and to the Australian people. They are using over $7 million of taxpayers’ money. They are spending, firstly, $3.8 million on these signs that they are putting up at the front of schools to promote themselves—no doubt to try and gain an extra Labor vote at the next federal election—and, secondly, $3.5 million on the Hon. Julia Gillard plaques.

Senator Ronaldson and I asked related questions today in the Senate regarding these signs and we have not been given an answer from either responsible minister. I asked Senator Mark Arbib if and when these signs would be removed, and he refused to answer. I asked what steps are going to be taken to ensure that the state electoral laws have not been breached, and he refused to answer. Likewise, Senator Ludwig refused to answer a question from Senator Ronaldson. But they have been caught out. We are very thankful for the work of the Australian Electoral Commission as an independent entity in making it clear that the government stands in breach.

The figures applying to Tasmania are interesting. Out of the over $7 million in funding nationally, it is estimated that nearly $200,000 will be spent on signage in Tasmania. I want to commend Sally Edwards from the Examiner newspaper for the work that she did last week, particularly for her breaking news stories on Thursday and Friday. She cleverly took advice from some key stakeholder groups, the Parents and Friends Association and the Education Union. I want to confirm what they said. The Tasmanian Parents and Friends Association President, Jenny Grossmith, said that this sign spending was a waste. She said it was ‘wasteful spending’. She said: ‘Quite often we see programs that are delivering great outcomes for children that are often pulled because of a lack of funding, so it is always frustrating to hear of things like this.’ Admittedly, she referred to some Howard government funding with respect to flagpoles, but having flagpoles flying the Australian flag at schools is something I am very proud of, and I know everybody on this side of the Senate chamber has the same view. The Australian Education Union Tasmania President, Leanne Wright, said: ‘Signs should not take precedence over supporting students.’ In that regard, she is 100 per cent correct.

So the government has been caught out. This morning I called the Tasmanian Electoral Commissioner, Bruce Taylor, and definitely confirmed the views that Senator Colbeck referred to just a short time ago. He said that he is seeking legal advice from the Tasmanian Solicitor-General with respect to the exact position applying in Tasmania. Of course, we have an election on 20 March 2010. That is when it is scheduled for; that is the time that people are preparing for. It will be very interesting to see what that advice is. I have no doubt it will be similar to that of the Australian Electoral Commission, noting that it would be most unusual for these two entities to disagree. We know that the Commonwealth stands in breach at the moment.

But all this is on top of the shocking waste of money. The education revolution blow-out has hit $1.5 billion. Christopher Pyne has been, correctly, prosecuting a case and we know the Auditor-General is inquiring into these matters, but I think even more can be done. The Senate can and should do this because of the shocking waste of taxpayers’ money to date. The examples go on and on.