Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When Labor came to office in 2007 we promised the Australian people that we would restore confidence to government advertising in this country. We pledged that government campaigns would be properly and independently reviewed, properly targeted, nonpolitical with the intention of informing the community about government policies and programs. We have delivered on that commitment. The proof is in the administration of government adverti­sing arrangements audit process. It proves that we have delivered on this commitment. But the question must be asked: why did Labor have to pledge this to the Australian people in the lead-up to the 2007 election? Why was this reform of government advertising and oversight required here in Australia? The answer is quite simple: because the Australian public had lost confidence in government advertising during the years of the Howard government. For proof of that we need look no further than the government advertising associated with the goods and services tax campaign and, particularly, the Howard government's shonky advertising associated with Work Choices, a $55 million waste of taxpayers' money. It was blatantly party political advertising used to soften up the public regarding the harshest elements of the total realisation of Work Choices.

Not only was this advertising associated with Work Choices blatantly party political; it was also wrong. Some of the information contained in those ads was completely wrong. There is no greater example of that than the fact that the ads associated with Australian workplace agreements claimed that workers could move onto Australian workplace agreements where they received 'fair' compensation from their employer. Having dealt with a number of Australian workplace agreements I can tell you, Mr Deputy President, that the compensation was not fair at all. In fact, in many respects there was no compensation for forcing young workers in particular onto agreements that stripped away weekend penalty rates, shift allowances and other important leave entitlements. But those ads also claimed that if people had questions about moving onto Australian workplace agreements they could seek advice from an organisation called the 'workplace authority'. Everyone scratched their head and thought: what on earth is the workplace authority? Then it was discovered that there was no workplace authority at all and that the closest thing may have been the Office of the Employment Advocate.

But the greatest example of the Howard government's failure with respect to the Work Choices advertising campaign came in early August 2007, when the Howard government was actually forced to withdraw their own government advertising. Why? Because an actor who was playing a 'concerned father', concerned in this ad about the fact that his two sons might be forced onto Australian workplace agreements that cut conditions, had been accused by two young workers who had worked for him in his painting business of ripping them off. Life writ large in a Howard government ad! It said everything about Work Choices. Is there any wonder why that particular ad was withdrawn?

The government welcomes the ANAO report on its Clean Energy Future package. The report was tabled in parliament and it suggests that the government's transparency and accountability framework for campaign advertising is operating well. Again, we made the promise and we have delivered on that promise. The report finds:

Additional Treasury evidence supported the statement that more than 9 in 10 households (92 per cent) were estimated to receive some combination of assistance, lending support to the statement in the household mail-out.

That is, lending support to the statement that this household mail-out was true. The report also says:

The campaign did not contain any overt promotion of party political interests, party slogans or bias …

It is an independent report verifying that the government system of advertising is working. (Time expired)