Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Today in question time we had yet further examples of the arrogance of this government. The arrogance of the Howard government was on full display in question time today. This is a government and a Prime Minister which treats taxpayers’ money as its own. We have seen that in recent months with the millions of dollars in taxpayer funded government advertising that this government is foisting upon the Australian people in its attempt to improve its electoral chances.

In question time today we saw Senator Minchin refuse to indicate whether the figure that has been quoted in public—of $36.5 million on the second wave of the government’s Work Choices advertising campaign—is correct or not. So we look forward to Senator Minchin coming clean with the Australian people as to how much of their money this government intends to spend on Work Choices mark 2. Bear in mind that this is a government that has already spent, or has budgeted to spend, over $1.8 billion—over the life of the government—by polling day. It has already spent, or has budgeted to spend by polling day, over $1.8 billion—and that is what we know about; that does not include what the government has not fessed up to yet, including the $36 million that is now out there in the public arena. It is interesting; Senator Minchin says he cannot confirm it, but somehow somebody has leaked it to the Australian already.

Probably one of the worst examples in recent times of the government’s complete lack of regard for public funds and taxpayers is the use of Kirribilli House for a Liberal fundraiser. The Prime Minister says this was not a Liberal Party fundraiser. The reality is it was, and the Australian people know it. These are the facts. Kirribilli House is a taxpayer funded official residence. It is not a Liberal Party function centre, but that is precisely what this Prime Minister and this government have been using it as. This is Prime Minister Howard acting like he owns the place, using Kirribilli House, a taxpayer funded official residence, for a fundraiser.

We have seen attempts in recent days by the Prime Minister to worm his way out of this embarrassing situation. First he hides behind saying that this was not a fundraiser; it just happened to be a function to which business observers—who have paid thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party of Australia—were invited. Part of what they get for their donation and attendance at the Liberal Party Federal Council is an invite to Kirribilli House for drinks with the Prime Minister. It is very simple: you pay money to the Liberal Party and in return, amongst other things, you get drinks at Kirribilli with the Prime Minister. The Australian people understand what a fundraiser looks like. This was a fundraiser.

What do we have today? Yet another variation on the theme—Senator Minchin trying to wriggle his way out of a difficult situation by saying that the government relied on the advice of Prime Minister and Cabinet that they could use Kirribilli provided the function was not of itself a fundraiser. This is what Prime Minister Howard thinks is public accountability in the late Howard era—as long as an event is not of itself a fundraiser, although it might be part of a fundraising package, it is quite legitimate to use a taxpayer funded official residence for it. The reality is that it is clear for all to see that Kirribilli House was used as part of a fundraising effort for the Liberal Party, and no amount of wriggling by this Prime Minister or his ministers is going to alter that.

In terms of the advice that Senator Minchin says was given by Prime Minister and Cabinet, not only does Senator Minchin rely on some legalistic definition; he also refuses to table the advice. So what we have from this government when confronted with the facts around a Liberal Party fundraiser is a reliance on advice that they refuse to make public and, frankly, a somewhat puerile attempt to demonstrate that this was not a fundraiser by saying, ‘Well, it wasn’t of itself a fundraiser.’ (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! We have heard it all today. Can I give you one example, Senator Wong. You might want to look at the Queensland papers from over the weekend—there was a full-page ad from Mr Beattie, not even authorised, that said, ‘Queensland government driving coal infrastructure’. What about Premier Rann over the weekend advertising his South Australian budget? What about the $354 million that the state Labor governments spent on advertising last year? What about the $160 million spent by the Bracks government alone in relation to advertising? What about the $90 million spent by the New South Wales government in the run-up to the last state election? What absolute, patent nonsense! How hypocritical of the Australian Labor Party to come into the Senate and talk about advertising. We have been waiting here listening intently and you have not said one word, Senator Wong, about the state Labor governments’ spending—not a single word. How duplicitous of you to come in here and plead a cheap political point. They have all of a sudden slipped from walking around with puffed out chests as an alternative government back to their old habits of being a useless opposition. Not one question today was relevant to the Australian people. There was not one policy discussion. Again, all we heard was cheap political point-scoring.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carol Brown interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s have a talk about this government’s advertising. Senator Carol Brown can yell and scream as much as she likes. She actually has to explain to the people of Tasmania why they cast 12,000 jobs out of Telstra. There has not been a word from the Australian Labor Party. Under Kim Beazley, as communications minister, 12,000 Telstra jobs were cut. Senator Brown, can I suggest you check your facts before you ask those stupid dorothy dixer questions at question time.

Let’s have a look at what we have spent on advertising. There was $118 million spent through the 2006-07 financial year on campaign advertising. There was the Telstra 3 campaign offer—we shouldn’t have used that? What about the Skills for the Future campaign to encourage people to take up apprenticeships? The Australian Labor Party is saying to the people of Australia and saying to this chamber that we cannot spend money to encourage young people to take up apprenticeships. That is what they are saying: ‘We don’t care about the future of this country’s young people and this government cannot spend money on apprenticeships.’ What about financial literacy? There was $11.6 million for the financial literacy campaign to teach people how to manage their money better. Senator Wong of all people, with her shadow portfolios, is saying that this government is not allowed to advise and assist people in how to best manage their money. Coming from the shadow minister, with the responsibilities that she has, I find that quite extraordinary.

What about the youth tobacco campaign? Are we not able to go out and try to convince young people about the dangers of smoking? Is that what the Australian Labor Party is telling us today? Shame on you—absolute shame on you. Then there is the national skin cancer campaign on which we spent $5.2 million. Is the Australian Labor Party saying it does not care enough about skin cancer to enable this government to go out and make sure the people do whatever is required to avoid the ravages of skin cancer.

I will very quickly go through a quote. I suspect that one of my other colleagues may want to talk about this as well.

The workplace relations ad appeared to me to be a non-political commercial that advertised changes to the law and how to get information about those changes. The ad offered no endorsement of government policy on workplace relations and, as such, did not conflict with my personal principles.

This was from the lead actor in the government’s Work Choices advertising. Who was it? Mr Fletcher— (Time expired)

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

John Howard treats public property and public funds as his own private windfall. That is a real problem that we have got. Eleven years ago, Mr Howard decided to stick the Australian taxpayer with the bill for two official residences: Kirribilli House and the Lodge. Then he got to turning Kirribilli House into ‘party central’, which I named it some years ago. There is a wine consultant, a huge cellar and a $243,000 booze bill for the guzzlers at Kirribilli House. There have been massive refurbishments—renovation and refurbishing has run to more than $760,000 at Kirribilli House. And that is just the costs that we have been able to find out about.

Nobody actually thought he would turn Kirribilli House ‘party central’ into ‘Liberal Party central’, but that is what he has done now. Now we find that Kirribilli House is being used for Liberal Party fundraisers at more than $8,000 a head. This is not only outrageous, it is a totally improper exploitation of that grand Australian residence, which is part of the national estate. It is an improper use of Kirribilli House for party political fundraising.

The Prime Minister’s defence that the costs were met by the Liberal Party is a joke. We have seen year after year just how difficult it is to find out what the Howards spend on their parties down there at ‘party central’, Kirribilli House. The Christmas and New Year knees-ups that John Howard had down at Kirribilli House this year are only two examples. But of course there is no accountability for the public money that he spent there on those functions in a property that is owned by the Australian people. There was a wall of silence about who was invited to these two knees-ups. We do not know who was invited, we do not know who attended and we do not know the costs of the functions. We do not know what was spent and we do not know what was consumed because he will not tell us. Mr Howard will not tell us because he hates accountability. Given this track record, we can be sure that any costs that are disclosed by Mr Howard for re-election fund cocktail parties will be too little too late, if they are disclosed at all.

The abuse down there at Kirribilli House ‘party central’ is only one way that John Howard uses the public purse as his own pocket money. The biggest abuse—the biggest rort—is the government’s expenditure on taxpayer funded partisan political advertising. That is the biggest rort of all. Government advertising in this financial year and the next financial year alone will cost at least $550 million. These are just the ones we have been able to find out about through the Senate estimates process. The Howard government is now wasting taxpayers’ money on advertising at absolutely record speed. Between the last election and the upcoming election Mr Howard will have spent between $800 million and a billion dollars on advertising. That will take it to a total of $1.85 billion worth of taxpayer funded advertising campaigns since the election of the Howard government. This money is really burning a hole in Mr Howard’s pocket.

We have never seen an Australian government so blatant in revelling in grotesque abuses of the privileges of office as Mr Howard and his government. Of course, this is on top of the $500,000 for the proposed renovation of his dining room here in Parliament House—until we exposed him. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just seen an example of Senator Faulkner’s confected outrage. It is a skill that he has honed to a fine art in the Senate estimates committees and here in the chamber. We have seen this particular act many times before.

I would like to start with the issue of Kirribilli House. It is clear that the function at Kirribilli House was not inappropriate and it was not at any cost to the Australian taxpayer. Successive prime ministers have taken a fairly broad view of what is an appropriate function to have at Kirribilli House or the Lodge. I recall a particular luncheon that was held at Kirribilli House to negotiate a particular pact between a then Labor prime minister and Labor treasurer. There has been a range of functions held at Kirribilli House.

But a true example of something that is inappropriate, again under the former Labor government, is the selling of budget night tickets for the House of Representatives gallery. That is an example of something that is inappropriate. Under the former Labor government, packages were sold and, lo and behold, part of a package was a seat in the House of Representatives gallery for budget night. If you want to look at examples of something which could perhaps be inappropriate, look no further than the previous government.

We have also heard great exclamations today about the inappropriate nature of government advertising. The advertising that this government has undertaken has been on the same basis as that of the former Labor government—on the basis of the 1995 guidelines under which Paul Keating operated, guidelines which said:

... all Australians have equal rights of access to information about programs, policies and activities which affect their benefits, rights and obligations ...

... All departments are required to conduct their public information programs at a level appropriate for ... impact on the community ...

And that is exactly what this government is doing.

What we have not heard from the Labor Party is which particular campaigns they want to knock out. Do Labor want to knock out campaigns against alcoholism and illegal drugs? Do they want to knock out campaigns encouraging people to quit smoking? Do they want to knock out campaigns encouraging people to take out Australian citizenship? Do they want to knock out campaigns about protecting our flora and fauna and about quarantine? Do they want to knock out campaigns urging people to consider and employers to support apprenticeships? Do they want to knock out campaigns urging vaccinations against cervical cancer? Do they want to knock out campaigns informing country people of their telecommunications rights? Do they want to knock out campaigns encouraging people to get involved with environmental projects? We need to hear from Labor which particular campaigns they want to knock out—not just saying that the government advertising spend is too big, but actually going through and telling us which particular campaigns they want to knock out.

We have seen Labor’s hypocrisy. When they were in office, we had the ‘money growing on trees’ campaign, costing $10 million, for their superannuation guarantee ads. We had the Working Nation advertisements, which cost $9 million and which had no content, no information, at all. And we had $250,000 paid to Bill Hunter for that government advertising campaign, only to see the same actor, Bill Hunter, then pop up in Australian Labor Party advertisements during the 1996 election commercials. So you had Bill Hunter in a paid government ad and, a few weeks later, Bill Hunter in a paid ALP ad. We had never seen anything of that nature before in Australian politics, and that is something which this government would never, ever do. We have also seen instances in the past where we have had Frank Walker, who was the housing minister in the Wran government, appearing in a government ad—the Hon. Frank Walker QC. Steve Bracks has appeared in government ads in Victoria, flying in a chopper over dams, making the point—which we all know—that water is scarce. There is no good reason for Steve Bracks to be in that particular ad; it is complete and absolute hypocrisy.

But, if we want a real example of Labor blowing taxpayers’ money, we need go no further than the front page of today’s Herald Sun, headed ‘Silk’s purse’, which reveals that Mr Mark Dreyfus QC, Labor’s candidate in the federal seat of Isaacs, was paid by the Bracks government $340,000 to help try and foist a toxic waste dump on the people of Mildura. We do not have to go too far to see examples of outrageous ALP spending; we only have to look at the state governments. We know, if we want to see that sort of thing repeated, to elect a federal Labor government—and you will see the sort of thing that we are seeing in Victoria, with Mr Mark Dreyfus QC being given $340,000 of taxpayers’ money to try and foist a toxic waste dump on the people of Mildura.

This government does spend responsibly. The Australian people are entitled to have government programs explained to them and to have government legislation explained to them. That is what we are doing. (Time expired)

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pathetic attempt by Senator Fifield at defending this government’s record. Let me take you back to 1995, when these words were put out in a press release by the then opposition leader, John Howard. He said:

This soiled Government is to spend a massive $14 million of taxpayers’ money over the next two months as part of its pre-election panic. Judging by information coming from within the public service, if the full communication barrage runs its course it could reach $50 million. This Government has effectively allowed the Labor Party to get its fingers into the taxpayers’ till.

They were the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, John Howard. Since he became Prime Minister in 1996, John Howard has presided over the most arrogant, spendthrift government in the history of this country. It is a government that is effectively a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to dealing with issues of government advertising and government expenditure. We are not talking about the normal government advertising that is done for defence recruitment, quarantine issues or any of those other important campaigns in the interests of the Australian public. What we are talking about, as every senator on the government side knows, is the campaigns that have been blatantly used as pre-election propaganda.

I was privileged to chair the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee inquiry into government advertising and accountability, which reported in December 2005. That, mind you, was in the days when Senate committees were able to inquire into important issues of government accountability, unlike today. That inquiry highlighted the fact that, in the first five years of the Howard government, government advertising increased by over 40 per cent from the last five years of the Keating government. Most notably, when you take out the expenditure on such things as defence recruitment, the bulk of the expenditure was in promoting those campaigns that this government saw as important to its election prospects: the GST campaign—remember ‘unchain my heart’ or whatever it was; plagiarism at its worst—and Medicare—

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sandy Macdonald interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It worked because the Democrats sold out. That is why it worked; it had nothing to do with the advertising campaign. There was the campaign promoting the changes to Medicare. Remember the campaign on national security, the famous fridge magnet? I wonder how many people still have their fridge magnets. And of course there was that scurrilous campaign, $55 million on the introduction of Work Choices, an advertising campaign that was run before the legislation was even introduced into the parliament.

Mr Deputy President, $118 million was spent on the GST, $18½ million on the national security campaign, $54 million on Medicare, the PBS and those other health campaigns—all to convince the public on the government’s policies, to assist the government in its election campaign. As Senator Faulkner has just referred to, we now have a situation where government advertising under this government has reached $1.8 billion since the Howard government was elected, and, in the current two years, this and the next financial year, it has reached almost $1 billion. It has generally run at around $100 million to $150 million on average. It is now running at around $500 million on average. And now, again, we are going to have a campaign to try and convince the people about the changes to Work Choices, because the previous campaign did not work. The Prime Minister has now accepted that it is not a fair system, so the government is now going to spend millions more dollars trying to convince the public that it is going to change Work Choices to make it fairer.

I am old enough to remember senators and members of the coalition attacking Gough Whitlam when he bought Blue Polesa national treasure now—and attacking Paul Keating when he put the Gould prints into the cabinet room. The worst thing that had ever happened! ‘Scurrilous and outrageous conduct,’ they cried! Yet here we have a Prime Minister who wants to increase the size of his dining room simply so he can enjoy his last supper! (Time expired)

Question agreed to.