Senate debates
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Questions without Notice
Climate Change
2:18 pm
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to her statement of 16 July 2007, which was made in conjunction with then Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julia Gillard and in which she said, ‘Labor will end the abuse of taxpayer funded government advertising.’ I also refer the minister to comments made yesterday by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that his department is ‘examining a number of options for public communications’. Has the government invited tenders or contracted an agency to undertake a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign in support of your carbon tax plans?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has made clear that the government has not made any decisions about an advertising campaign in this area. I would make the point to Senator Birmingham that when the coalition was in government there was a substantial amount of money spent on government advertising; from recollection, some $121 million was spent on advertising Work Choices. This government has reduced the advertising funding by a significant amount in a range of budget decisions over the last few years.
I make the point that there is obviously a discussion that can occur about the extent to which we need to get the facts out in this debate as opposed to some of the fear mongering that we have seen in recent times. I am interested, for example, in some of the comments written on signs outside parliament today. One said, ‘Carbon dioxide is not pollution’; another said, ‘I love CO2.’
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question specifically asked whether tenders had been let or contractors engaged. That is the only thing that the question was addressed to. From 15 seconds into her answer to the question until now—in other words, most of the time that she has been on her feet—the minister has been criticising the opposition for things it was alleged to have done when it was in government. That can on no rational view be regarded as a direct answer to the question, ‘Have you let tenders?’ Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 73(iii). The test is not whether a minister is responding to the question but whether the minister is answering the question. To respond to the question is a different thing than to answer the question. The minister’s obligation under the standing orders is to answer the question.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on the point of order: this is the most ridiculous point of order I think I have ever heard taken in this chamber. The complaint from Senator Brandis is that the minister answered the question in the first 15 seconds! His complaint is that the minister directly answered the question in the first 15 seconds. That is how far the opposition has got in terms of its credibility. The minister, having directly answered the question, went on to put it into context in terms of advertising campaigns—perfectly in order, Mr President. Quite frankly, as I said, this is the most stupid point of order I think I have every heard in my time in the Senate.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on the point of order, and to respond to the submission by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, it really does stretch credulity to suggest that you can refer to slogans on placards outside of this place in response to a question as to whether or not tenders have been let for a certain situation. If we are going to have any semblance of relevance in question time then this has to be one of those cases where a ruling must be made.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, Mr President, the agenda has just been revealed: if you do not give them the answer they want in the first 15 seconds, you are clearly irrelevant. This is not a point of order. It should be dismissed. It is frivolous. And if those opposite keep doing this you should deal with them.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The minister still has 61 seconds remaining in which to answer any part of the question that has not been answered at this stage. If not, the minister need not continue.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. As I said, the government—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
When Senator Abetz has finished arguing with the President, perhaps I could respond.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Oh, you poor little petal!
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, I am not a poor little petal. I don’t think anyone would suggest I have ever thought that!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Debate across the chamber does not help.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! This is not assisting the progress of question time. If people wish to debate other issues, they can do so later. Senator Wong, you have 46 seconds remaining.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. As I said, the government has made no decision about an advertising campaign. Obviously, any decisions regarding tenders or contracts are always subject to the usual disclosure requirements that apply to all government tenders, of which Senator Birmingham is well aware. But I would again make this point: there have been many times when governments have advertised. Perhaps some were more meritorious than others. When those opposite want to lecture this government about advertising, you might recall the excess of $120 million that you spent on your Work Choices campaign, Senator Abetz—which I know you were a prime architect of. That was a winning strategy, wasn’t it!
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister’s tacit admission that the government will be running a campaign to ‘get the facts out’, I refer the minister to Labor’s 2007 election promise that:
… all government advertising and information campaigns in excess of $250,000 will need to be vetted by the Auditor-General or his designate.
Will the minister guarantee that any campaign will be subject to this process and that the minister will not follow the Treasurer’s example of declaring a national emergency to get around it?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! When we have silence on both sides we will proceed.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You may recall, Senator Birmingham, that a range of changes were made to the advertising guidelines. I do not have the details—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Which were then junked!
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Oh, come off it!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Interjections across the chamber do not assist in the conduct of question time.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Chris Evans interjecting—
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Ronaldson interjecting—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! If honourable senators would like to debate this, the time is after question time.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Chris Evans interjecting—
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Ronaldson interjecting—
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Chris Evans interjecting—
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Ronaldson interjecting—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Ronaldson and Senator Evans! If you wish to debate the issue, the time is after question time.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. I would make the point that this government has significantly reduced spending on advertising over the last few years. We have established more transparent and formal reporting arrangements. Advertising campaigns over $250,000 are independently reviewed, properly targeted and non-political. Campaign expenditures are also published and supplier lists are public. These are new procedures which enable the public to have access to information to see how their taxpayer dollars are spent. So, when those across from us in this chamber lecture people about advertising, let’s just remember the $120 million spent on telling working people why taking away their conditions was such a good thing.
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. How can the minister claim that any advertising campaign regarding the carbon tax will in some way be an information campaign, when there is utterly no information to share—no price, no compensation, no inclusions, no exclusions, no detail and, frankly, no idea whatsoever?
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy interjecting—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In two questions now I have answered that no decision has been made of the sort that Senator Birmingham has referred to, so I find it hard to understand how he now can try to beat his chest over an answer he did not get. Perhaps the real question is this: why is it that people on that side of the chamber are lining up behind a leader who goes and addresses rallies where there are signs such as, ‘Carbon dioxide is a harmless trace gas, you fraudulent criminals?’ Seriously, one wonders where the liberals are inside this opposition.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! I have called for order so that Senator Bob Brown could ask his question in silence. He is entitled to be heard in silence.