Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes the past statements by the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) in relation to Government advertising, specifically that ‘Labor will end the abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising’;

(b)

expresses its regret at the hypocrisy on display as a result of the Government having confirmed it is developing options for an advertising campaign related to its planned carbon tax; and

(c)

states its clear opposition to any such taxpayer funded advertising campaign prior to consideration by the parliament of the Government’s carbon tax proposal.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

Paragraph (b), omit “hypocrisy”, substitute “inconsistency”.

Question agreed to.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the original motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When used properly, government advertising campaigns inform the people of this country. It is a legitimate channel for the government to use to communicate its policies and inform its citizens of the opportunities and challenges that face them. Without independent oversight, it can lead to the waste of taxpayers’ dollars that we saw for 11 years when the opposition were in government. At that time, there were no checks or balances on government advertising. The amount of money wasted by the Howard government is staggering. It included $118 million for advertising of the GST and over $100 million on Work Choices. In 2007, the government spent $254 million in one year alone in a vain attempt to buy an election with taxpayer dollars. Under the Howard government, the committee that made the key decisions of how to spend taxpayers’ money on advertising consisted of a group of ministers, staffers, party hacks and spin doctors.

Given the abuse of the system by the Howard government, it is a little ironic and ridiculous for the opposition to accuse the Labor government through this motion. The Labor government introduced the independent oversight that ended the Howard government’s abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising. Now all advertising campaigns over the value of $250,000 undertaken by Australian government departments and agencies are reviewed by an independent communications committee for compliance with the guidelines on information advertising campaigns. These guidelines emphasise that campaigns must be factual, objective and not directed at promoting party political interests. The Labor government has also significantly reduced spending on government advertising. In 2010, the government spent $140 million less than the Howard government did in 2007. We have undertaken these measures to fix the disastrous system that operated under the Howard government and it is clear, transparent, open and accountable.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief explanation.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this motion because I have real concerns, and have consistently had real concerns, about governments, Liberal and Labor, using taxpayer funds for advertising purposes—effectively, party political ads. Just because the Howard government was, I think, pretty outrageous in the way it went about things, particularly in relation to the Work Choices ads, does not make it right that this government is proposing to do the same thing, which many would see as party political.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We’re not doing the same thing.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair to Senator Ludwig, I acknowledge that he says they are not doing the same thing. But I think the mining tax ads, as counterproductive as they were—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They usually are!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

were an example of that. Senator Fifield acknowledges that they usually are counterproductive. I think, if a politician wants to get a point across, they can do so: they can hold a media conference, or they can get the party to fund the ads, but using taxpayers to push a line before legislation has been passed—and that is a big distinction—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No government advertising? What about health related issues?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig is interjecting, and I am happy that he is. There is a big difference between explaining the effects of legislation once it has been passed, and how it will impact on people, and before legislation has been passed. The distinction is that, before legislation has been passed, you have to consider: is it a cheap way of doing the party’s ads?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could hear Senator Ludwig, I would respond to his interjections!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask you to ignore Senator Ludwig and conclude your remarks.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can you ignore Senator Ludwig, Mr Deputy President? I indicate that I support this motion. But I think that the coalition have acknowledged that they have been in the wrong on this in the past as well.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his contribution and for his indication of support for the amended motion. I have noted what Senator Ludwig has had to say in this regard, and can I say that hypocrisy is writ large in what the government has to say on this matter. Senator Ludwig wanted to talk in great terms about what the former coalition government did. Yet, of course, he ignored the government’s own words in relation to that previously: those words, from the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister, and the then spokesman on government waste and now finance minister, that Labor ‘will end the abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising’.

Senator Ludwig spoke about the committee process, the Auditor-General reviews that have been put in place, yet we know they were circumvented on grounds of so-called ‘national emergency’ for the mining tax campaign. What is to say you will not do this again? We know that Mr Combet has confirmed the government is looking at options for public communications. The government should rule this out. This is a highly charged political debate. There is no place for government advertising in this debate at this time, and Senator Xenophon is quite right: politicians should be able to sell these issues on their merits. That is the challenge for the government.

There is also a challenge in this for the Australian Greens. I have not heard their position on this motion, but I challenge them to support this motion. Senator Brown has previously championed issues of government waste in advertising. He has introduced bills to do so, and he has claimed, in introducing them, that such bills are ‘designed to protect both the public purse and public interest from self-invested government advertising’. I challenge Senator Brown and the Australian Greens to support this motion and, through their involvement in the carbon tax with the government, ensure the Australian purse is protected from such self-interested advertising in the future.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ludwig! Senator Brown is seeking the call.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The matter we are—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, you must seek leave.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had sought leave.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I did not hear you. Leave is granted for two minutes.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is two minutes for everybody, Senator Parry.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that it is for two minutes, because leave can be granted unconditionally. But it has been granted for two minutes.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then two minutes for all, you may say, Mr Deputy President. Senator Birmingham requires a position from the Greens. We will be voting against his motion. The difficulty for the opposition is complexity—they are frightened of it, but we are not. I have a bill before the Senate which requires such advertising as this to go before the Auditor-General, and I would expect that will be the case if advertising is devised—and I know the government has indicated that is the case.

On the other hand, the opposition leaves out of this the most potent factor at play, to bombard and distort democracy—that is, the power of the corporate, tax-deductible advertiser. We saw in the mining tax advertising $22 million from the big corporate sector, who are very much invested in the issue of reducing any carbon price in the future. They effectively used advertising to get an arrangement which is going to rip $10 billion per annum out of the public purse over the next 10 years. That is $10 billion for schools, hospitals, transport and housing every year, through a targeted advertising campaign that had the current Labor government take a much weaker stand, and of course the opposition back off all together. I do not think we should allow public opinion simply to be exposed to that without any sensible, well thought out and fair rejoinder.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Birmingham’s), as amended, be agreed to.