David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lalor proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s spending of significant public funds on industrial relations information and advertising campaigns while failing to protect fairness in Australian Workplaces.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that the Howard government hates the Senate estimates process because it hates being held accountable. In fact, the minister at the table, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, hates it more than most. His own department, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, has failed to provide answers to almost 700 questions—yes, you heard it right—put on notice during November 2006 and February 2007. Indeed, since November, the key government agencies responsible for Work Choices have refused to provide any information. The Office of the Employment Advocate, now known as the Workplace Authority, took 142 separate questions on notice and did not provide a single answer, and the Office of Workplace Services, now known as the Workplace Ombudsman, was asked 149 questions on notice and none were answered. But we know from evidence that most of these are sitting on the minister’s desk, covered up, because he does not want Australians to know the truth.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has been warned, and I will not hesitate.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, this spin continued in question time today, where the Prime Minister tried to pretend—or maybe he has just forgotten—that the government’s industrial relations laws are not called Work Choices. Amazing. I would just like to get rid of that spin, in case anybody thought that the Prime Minister was telling them something correct. Of course, the government’s laws, the laws where the questions are being covered up and the truth not told, are called the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Work Choices act 2005.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, bracket, Work Choices, end bracket—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will have a chance to reply.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter is warned!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I would like the minister to come to the dispatch box when he replies in this debate and to say, on each and every occasion that he refers to these laws, ‘Work Choices’, because that is what the government has always called them. But of course the cover-up does not stop there. Yesterday in question time and again today, we tried to get the truth out of the Howard government—the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State—about the magnitude of its taxpayer funded advertising campaign, and we still do not know the truth: how much money this government is prepared to spend to dig itself out of the political pit that Work Choices has tipped it into.

What we do know is that the aim of the campaign is purely political. The Prime Minister admitted that when he announced it last Friday. He said, in justifying the campaign, that there is ‘Labor and ACTU propaganda floating around’. There was no pretence then that it was a genuine government information campaign; it was going to be what it is: propaganda, pure and simple, in the interests of the Howard government. On the question of it being a political campaign, we do know that this government has polled and polled and polled to design this campaign, and it has never told us how much that polling has cost Australian taxpayers. The minister refuses to say whether or not he has seen that polling, and the Prime Minister has alluded to continuing that—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Have now,’ he just says. I bet you have, as the government desperately tries to dig itself out of a political hole with taxpayers’ money. Now that you have seen it, get up to the dispatch box and tell us what it cost. Be honest about it in your reply.

The Prime Minister has not ruled out polling and polling and polling to see whether the advertisements being funded by Australian taxpayers are helping the government’s political interests. The government has never come clean on what was said in the polling report we revealed to the Australian public. The government did not reveal—we revealed—to the Australian public the Open Mind Research Group’s advertising market report of 24 April. But from Senate estimates hearings today—the process the government hates—we do know this. Just for one week, the week between 20 May and 26 May, seven days inclusive, this government is going to spend, to screen on Australian television, $4.1 million on the industrial relations ads that you see on your screen today. That is $585,000 a day, or approximately $25,000 an hour.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you and the House to reflect on the working lives and circumstances of Australians around this nation today. Millions of hardworking Australians got up this morning, they got themselves ready for work, they got the kids ready for school. While spending an hour on that simple task the Howard government spent approximately $25,000 of their money on advertisements for its self-interest and political interest. Those families might well have had breakfast in a dining room at home, and you can bet that the dining room they sat in was not worth $540,000—indeed, their whole house would not be worth that. Not for them the indulgences that the Howard government craves for itself.

Then for those families it was off to work—jump in the car, go via the childcare centre, via the school. Petrol in Penrith today cost $1.27.9 a litre, and that will not be the highest price around this country this morning. As they were driving to work, spending hard-earned money on putting petrol in their tank—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter has been warned. He should understand that I do not give second chances.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the Howard government spent another $25,000 of their money, in just one hour. The Howard government in this place pride themselves on being economic managers. They pride themselves on their economic credentials. They regularly come to the dispatch box and primp and preen about how good they are as economic managers. Indeed, the minister will do it today in reply to this matter of public importance. But Australians are entitled to ask themselves this: how is it good economic management to waste $585,000 on industrial relations propaganda each and every day in the government’s political self-interest, when so many of our Australian working families are under pressure? How is that competent economic management? How are those good economic credentials? Australians today who are driving past schools that need repairs, who are driving past local hospitals that need more funds, who are dropping kids off in child care and who are worried about the affordability of that child care are entitled to ask themselves: how is it competent economic management to waste $585,000 every day, in the government’s self-interest, instead of taking some pressure off those working families? It is a question I would like the minister to answer—not turn his back on.

Apart from the waste, the economic irresponsibility, the arrogance and the self-interest that this government exudes, there is its policy crisis when it comes to industrial relations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to contemplate the following: in the ordinary course of things, don’t governments design policies and then from time to time choose to advertise those policies on TV? Isn’t that the ordinary course of things? You design the policy, and then you make a decision about whether or not to advertise it on TV. This is the first time in Australian political history that a government has designed the ads and is now retrofitting the policy to the ads. The advertising came first, the policy is coming second. It is a new low. You don’t design a policy and then advertise it. You design an ad and then find a policy which justifies it. The Prime Minister’s answers in question time today made this so entirely stark. There he was reading from an advertisement that has been out in the public domain since 5 May—television advertising and all the rest. He was there reading from propaganda that talks about a so-called fairness test. Then he has to admit in this parliament that there is not a bill for it, and that there will not be a bill for it until next week. Indeed, last sitting week, this minister could not even speculate on what was going to be in this fairness test. The Howard government is not hunched over policy briefs and research analysis—true independent work—designing this bill. It is hunched over advertising scripts, seeing if it can design a bill that fits the advertising. This is breathtaking arrogance, breathtaking manipulation. We know that the Prime Minister is a clever politician, but we have never seen the likes of this before. We have never seen such cunning in Australian politics.

The Prime Minister today bounced to the dispatch box. He was proud of the fact that he announced on 4 May this policy change to a law, the name of which he can no longer bear to speak—Work Choices—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter will remove himself under standing order 94(a).

The member for Hunter then left the chamber.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then he ensured that it was advertised on 5 and 6 May, even though the legislation wasn’t written. We need to understand what has happened here—it became clear in Senate estimates committee hearings. The Government Communications Unit was contacted by the Prime Minister’s office on the morning of 4 May and asked to do work with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to get ads in the newspaper on 5 and 6 May. That is, they did not go through any proper processes. ‘The Prime Minister needs advertising—he is going to retrofit the policy later.’ He gets on the phone—‘Get the ads in.’ Then, ‘Now I am going to cobble it together and I am going to walk out the door with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.’ A fact the minister might like to clarify for the public debate today is whether he knew anything about this change prior to the morning of 4 May because it has been speculated publicly that he had never heard of it until he was standing at the press conference announcing it.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ha, ha!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he is laughing now, but was he laughing on television when he was defending the privatisation of the Snowy Hydro and the Prime Minister had walked away from him? Was he laughing the day he was defending the state of the Medibank Private privatisation and the Prime Minister had walked away from him? The one consistent feature of this minister across all portfolios is he is always the last man to know, and he was the last man to know on this occasion as well.

Let’s get the time line in our minds, because it is important. Work Choices came into operation last year, last March. The government spent $55 million on advertising, advertising the brand ‘Work Choices’ and the concept that various award conditions were ‘protected by law’. Then of course the data leaked out that for hundreds of thousands of Australians those award conditions were being stripped away. The government did not care about that. When those examples leaked out, they stood in this parliament and they defended it, time after time. Spotlight, Darrell Lea—you name it, they defended it. They said it was okay. Indeed, they said the strength of the Australian economy relied on that aspect of Work Choices.

Nothing has changed about this government’s view. What has changed is its polling. And of course we know it got polling on 24 April. We do not know the contents of that polling, but we know it got it. Then on 4 May it announces a policy shift so vague that there is no written legislation. Then on 5 and 6 May we get the ads in the newspapers. Then we get workers at a helpline directed not to say ‘Work Choices’. Obviously the polling has come in: ‘Cobble together some change, get some ads up, stop people saying “Work Choices”.’ And now of course we stand here in this parliament with legislation for the very thing being advertised not even in this place.

The Prime Minister is a clever politician, but he is also a man who has changed over the life of the Howard government. Australians are entitled to conclude the best days of the Howard government are well and truly behind it. It is out of touch with working Australian families and their needs, and it still believes in extreme and unfair laws which are operating on Australian working families today.

The minister today had the gall to say that the government got it wrong in the past, and he blamed his predecessor—the last refuge of the cowardly. He said the government had it wrong in the past and blamed his predecessor. What we know is the government still believes in these extreme laws, and no mealy-mouthed carry-on from this minister and no amount of advertising is going to convince Australians otherwise. Interestingly, whilst he will not say ‘Work Choices’, now he goes to press conferences and chants: ‘Your rights at work.’ Let’s see if he will do that now. (Time expired)

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am rather amused at the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has the gall to criticise us about our workplace relations regime—or industrial relations regime or Work Choices policy or the various authorities—and yet does not even understand her own policy. Because what we have discovered over the period since the Labor Party policy was released is that she could not even get the constitutional footing of Fair Work Australia, their one-stop shop, which became a two-stop shop when she had to roll in a judicial commission and then a three-stop shop when she was rolling in the Australian Building and Construction Commission. She could not even get the constitutional footing for the main body, this super creation that is going to control industrial relations from one workplace in Perth to another in Sydney and everywhere in between. She could not even get that right, and then: ‘Oops. We have 10 minimum standards, but we forgot the minimum wage. How did we leave out the minimum wage?’ In the negotiations between Greg Combet and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they are talking about their trade-offs so that Greg Combet can come into parliament. They are more worried about Greg Combet’s job than they are about the jobs of over 10 million working Australians. And of course she forgets the minimum wage. Where did the minimum wage go?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Lawler will understand she got a fair go.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where did it go? Is it in the awards? Is it one of the 10 minimum standards? No. ‘We forgot the minimum wage. How did we forget the minimum wage?’ And then we find out that the 24 months guaranteed parental leave is in fact 12 months guaranteed parental leave. And then the member for Rankin says: ‘No. Small business can reject it with a letter.’ Is that true? Small business can reject it with a letter? The Labor Party do not have to guarantee 24 months, because they guarantee 12 months and if there is a letter of rejection from small business then, well, it is not guaranteed. Then there is pattern bargaining. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition knows what pattern bargaining is. On The 7.30 Report he said, ‘We don’t support pattern bargaining.’ Yet it is in their policy, Forward with Fairness, on page 13:

Where more than one employer and their employees and unions with coverage in the workplaces agree to collectively bargain together for a single agreement they will be free to do so.

What does that mean? That is pattern bargaining. Then there is Dean Mighell. We like Dean Mighell. The Victorian branch secretary of the ETU said:

I welcome particularly the policy that lets us put anything back in agreements that we can coerce our friendly employers to put back in. That’s going to be fun.

The Labor Party will be hearing that line a bit between now and polling day. And then there are bargaining fees. It says on page 14 of Forward with Fairness:

Under Labor’s system, bargaining participants will be free to reach agreement on whatever matters suit them.

Whatever matter suits them, without qualification! And on Neil Mitchell’s program the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked:

... bargaining fees are banned at the moment—

but—

under your system they wouldn’t be banned, they’d be there for negotiations. Is that a fair comment?

Gillard:

Yes ...

Then there is the reversal:

MITCHELL: Just before we get to the Budget, sorry one more question on industrial relations, will you be banning union bargaining fees for non-unionists?

RUDD: Yes.

So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says one thing about bargaining fees and the Leader of the Opposition says another. We will find out when the issue comes into this parliament in the next week or so. We will find out from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition exactly what their position is on bargaining fees. Arbitration—again the question is whether it is compulsory arbitration or not compulsory arbitration. We can never be sure. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in an article in the Australian, then we had a letter that she sent out to business and then we had a different policy in Forward with Fairness, on page 16. And then we had the ‘happiness test’. Where did that come from? ‘I want everyone to be happy’. In an amusing moment on the AM program on 17 May Julia Gillard said:

By the time of transition, if the worker is on an AWA and they are happy to remain on that agreement for the balance of it’s term, then they will be able to do so.

If they are happy to honour a contract! If they are happy! Look, that’s a fantastic test! You go to buy a house and you are three-quarters of the way through the settlement and you say: ‘Oh, no, I’m not really happy with this. I’m going to pull out.’ There are no compensation issues there of course, if you believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Let me tell you: there is something called a Constitution and it could have something to do with property rights for businesses. The Labor Party’s little happiness test, which they all look pretty glum about, ain’t gonna work. Could this be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition making policy on the run? But, wait, there’s more! At No. 8 we have ‘Foreign shipping permits’. Labor Party national conference resolutions, chapter 7, Nos 36 and 39: ‘Labor is committed to ensuring that general workplace laws apply to employees in the coastal trade. Labor will protect these vulnerable seafarers and promote fair labour standards in the Australian shipping industry.’ And it goes on. The Australian quotes the MUA as saying that of course they will apply Labor’s new industrial relations regime to foreign workers. Let us just establish this beyond any doubt. The Labor Party’s policy is a mess. The only economic policy they have is a mess.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ads—what is the cost?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s come to the ads.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Lalor! He does not need any help.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was perusing the Labor Party’s comments about not knowing the price of the ads, not knowing that the government was going to undertake the promotion of the activities of the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of the Employment Advocate in relation to the Workplace Relations Act. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because they do not do their homework, to the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook of December 2006, tabled in this place in February. Under the heading ‘Workplace relations reform, raising awareness’ it is stated:

The Government will provide $20.5 million over four years to raise public awareness of the services provided by the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of the Employment Advocate. The education and awareness campaign includes newspaper and radio advertising.

The aim of the campaign is to educate employees and employers to direct workplace complaints to the Office of Workplace Services and employers and employees to approach the Office of the Employment Advocate for information and clarification on agreement making.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lalor would understand that she has been warned as well. I will not tolerate constant interjection.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, they do not like that. The Labor Party do not like actually being caught out. They are claiming that, somehow, this is a new allocation. It was in the papers released in December and tabled in this parliament in February—an allocation of $7.3 million for 2006-07. Why didn’t they ask the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations any questions about advertising this week? They asked the Special Minister of State and they asked the Prime Minister. But, even after being directed by the Special Minister of State to ask me about the budget, they did not ask because they knew that the document about the budget for the advertising was tabled in this place in February. Do you know what they said? Nothing.

Why did the Labor Party say nothing? Were they too sloppy to look through MYEFO? Was the shadow Treasurer not paying attention? Or could it have been political expediency by the Labor Party? They do not like the government explaining the laws as they stand to Australian workers. Do you know what the Labor Party want to do? The Labor Party want to define the law in their circumstances, inside their framework. They want to define ‘fairness’ and they want to define ‘safety net’. They want to define them so that they can get maximum political advantage for themselves and their union bosses. That is why the Labor Party do not want us to tell Australians what protections are in place for workers under the existing system. That is why they have a problem with it.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lalor would know that is out of order.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is also the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in other areas. On Sunday, 25 March 2007 the Victorian Minister for Industrial relations, Rob Hulls, put out a press release saying that the Victorian government ‘is going to launch an advertising campaign against the federal government’s workplace laws’. Hang on! Where was the outrage from the Labor Party on that? I am sorry; did I hear something? The Victorian Minister for Industrial Relations is using Victorian taxpayers’ money to launch a campaign against the federal government’s laws, which in fact the Victorian government could pull back from referral. They are so outraged about the laws they have agreed to that they are going to campaign with taxpayers’ money against them. Rob Hulls said, ‘The new campaign will feature television, radio and press advertisements which will run over the coming months.’

Can you see what the Labor Party want to do? They have got their ugly mates in the states running deceitful ads trying to define federal laws. They have got their union boss mates running campaigns defining our laws but we are not allowed to tell the Australian people what the laws are. The Labor Party are trying to create such public outrage about the expenditure on the ads that they alone can define what the laws are and the state Labor governments can use their taxpayers’ money to define what the laws are. That is exactly why when Kevin Rudd came out with his so-called policy on advertising—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will refer to members by their seats or their titles.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Leader of the Opposition came out on the weekend with his policy on advertising, he neatly tucked in that it would not just be the federal government that would have all its ads sent to the Auditor-General; it would be state governments as well. I thought, ‘Hang on, there’s no power to do that.’ How would you do that? How would you get state governments to send all their advertising to the federal Auditor-General? Over the last 10 years, state Labor governments have spent two and a half times the amount on advertising that we have spent federally. Last year alone, New South Wales and Victoria spent more money on advertising for state Labor governments than we spent for the whole nation federally. Why would the Leader of the Opposition try to refer state advertising to the federal Auditor-General? So I went back to this press release from Rob Hulls. I thought to myself, ‘This guy is sitting on television, radio and press advertisements to campaign against and to spread untruths about the federal workplace relations system.’ And do you know what I bet? I bet he is going to try to run them during the federal election campaign. That is what he is going to try to do. Immediately in the lead-up to the federal election campaign, we are going to see state Labor governments, together with the union bosses, running yet another campaign which will try to create untruths and mislead the Australian people about the workplace relations system.

Finally, I say this. The Labor Party think they are cute in suggesting that ‘Work Choices’ is a name that will not be used in the chamber. We will use it; it is a policy we believe in. Work Choices has helped to deliver higher wages, more jobs and fewer strikes. It is no accident, after the Labor Party were predicting Armageddon, that Bill Shorten—a Labor candidate who will be contesting a safe Labor seat—has said that there will be mass sackings. It is no accident that, since their predictions went awry, since they went wrong, in fact 326,000 new jobs have been created. Since Work Choices, 85 per cent of those new jobs are full time; wages are up; and strikes are at the lowest level since 1913. It is no accident.

But you know what? We have a system in place called the workplace relations system, which is governed by the 1996 Workplace Relations Act. Now we are going to have a Workplace Authority which will operate the workplace information line, assisted by the Workplace Ombudsman. I am the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Labor Party do not like it because the Labor Party want to tell the Australian people lies. When we go about telling the Australian people what their rights are at work, as defined by the law, as protected by the law, the Labor Party do not like it because they want to be the ones to define the law and that is where they failed. (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While current opinion polls provide little guidance as to what the result of a federal election in six months time might be, they make it clear that the electorate want the government to start listening to them. The electorate do not want to listen to more of your message, especially when it is their money paying for it. But what has the government’s response to this been? It has been to get out the megaphone and to torch more taxpayers’ dollars in the process. How out of touch is that? All of this government’s characteristic trickiness has been on display in this latest shabby episode.

First we had the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations yesterday tell radio broadcaster John Laws that the advertising booking is less than $5 million. Mr Laws asked whether that was per week and the minister said, ‘No, for this first tranche.’ Honourable members might be curious to know just how long a tranche is. Today it turns out that the first tranche is in fact one week long. So John Laws was right. They say a week is a long time in politics. It is long enough to spend over $4 million of taxpayers’ money and long enough to mislead John Laws’s audience.

Then there was the trickiness from the Special Minister of State, Minister Nairn, who told the House yesterday that the government approved the advertising campaign because it passed the value for money test. That is plain ridiculous. The minister was unable to tell the House how much the advertising campaign would cost. How can it possibly be value for money if you do not know what the cost is? It is like going home to your family and saying: ‘I’ve just bought a horse. I think it’ll be great value for money,’ and when the family asks, ‘How much did it cost?’ you say, ‘I don’t know. The owner hasn’t sent me the bill yet.’

The master of trickiness is the Prime Minister. He was reported as saying, ‘We have to spend this money to counter the campaigns being run by Labor and the trade unions.’ This would be fair enough if the Liberal Party were paying for it, but it is not; taxpayers are paying. Advertising funded by taxpayers should not be used in areas of political controversy to counter the campaigns of others. Taxpayer funded advertising should be in nonpartisan areas—public service job advertisements or public interest advertising such as tips on water wastage or how to cut your electricity bill. Advertising funded by taxpayers should not be about measures which are yet to receive parliamentary approval—as, once again, we are seeing today.

This willingness to use taxpayer funds for Liberal Party propaganda is a trademark of a government which has been in power so long that it can no longer see any distinction between the public interest and the Liberal Party’s interests. It now treats them as one and the same. The government is increasingly drunk with power and the longer it stays in office the more contemptuous of the national interest it becomes.

We have had a massive advertising binge with something like $1.7 billion spent in the course of the last decade. When we looked at Senate estimates last May, we discovered that a staggering $250 million was proposed for advertising expenditure in the lead-up to the next election. There was $50 million proposed for private health insurance; $47 million for the smartcard awareness campaign—you can write to every Australian household many times with $47 million; $36 million for child support reforms; and $15 million for independent contractors. That $250 million came on top of a $130 million advertising placement spend for the previous financial year. So it is $380 million all-up—a breathtaking abuse of taxpayers’ money. And it is taxpayers who are footing the bill for political advertising in the lead-up to this election campaign, not the Liberal Party.

The Australian public should brace themselves for wave after wave of propaganda along the scale of last year’s industrial relations campaign. That campaign raised the bar of government advertising and the government clearly has no intention of lowering it. We had the artist formerly known as Prince; now we have the adfest formerly known as Work Choices.

This is a government that cheats. Government members parade and strut around here like winners, but they do not believe in a fair contest. Here they are on taxpayer-funded steroids. We know about the increase in the printing entitlement for incumbent MPs  from $125,000 to $150,000 a year; we know about the $1.7 billion spent on notorious campaigns such as the GST Unchain My Heart ads, the strengthening Medicare campaign and the Work Choices campaign, on which $55 million was spent. After the Unchain My Heart campaign, the Auditor-General produced a set of guidelines designed to draw the line between bona fide government advertising and political advertising, for which the Liberal Party should be paying, not taxpayers. The government never adopted those guidelines and it is still at it with further allocations in the last two budgets. We saw it again with the sale of Telstra. It did not allocate anything for the sale of Telstra, but that did not stop it. It went out there with $20 million of taxpayers’ dollars to talk up the Telstra sale and try to undo some of the damage it had done with its interference in the management of Telstra.

Then there was Medibank Private. Norman Lindsay popularised the expression ‘the magic pudding’ with his book of the same name. The government plans to spend $52 million of taxpayers’ money on Medibank Private, in its words, ‘to increase consumer awareness of the incentives and benefits associated with private health insurance’—a general marketing campaign, jointly funded with industry, to provide consumers with ‘relevant information’. Again, we have more taxpayers’ dollars, in the form of government advertising, suggesting that it will be a fine thing for shareholders to buy into Medibank Private. But then the government says that premiums will not go up, so fund members will be okay. Let us see: premiums will not go up, but it will be a good buy for investors. That is truly a magic pudding and Norman Lindsay will be mightily impressed.

Some of the people who would benefit from this advertising splurge are those in the advertising agencies. I mentioned that the government spent $12.4 million promoting the first tranche of the Telstra sale and $13.1 million promoting the second tranche. It is out there again kissing goodbye to $20 million of taxpayers’ dollars. When we look at the advertising agencies such as those run by Ted Horton and Mark Pearson, it turns out that the Liberal Party advertisers profit from these campaigns. The government might like to tell us who will get the advertising contracts for the latest advertising binge.

A secretive political gang known as the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, involving some of the Liberal Party’s campaigning insiders, awards the advertising contracts. It is a secretive process and it is time the government came clean about the basis on which contracts are awarded. The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, was quite right to express his concern about the potential for corruption inherent in these arrangements. It is absolutely extraordinary that we can have tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars wasted on a campaign designed to convince the Australian public to change their opinion about something they do not want. It is propaganda.

In 2005 I presented a private member’s bill designed to straighten out this whole area of government advertising and to ensure that we get proper scrutiny based on the Auditor-General’s guidelines. With apologies to Winston Churchill, never before in the history of government advertising has so much money been hosed up against a wall by so few in so short a time. The government has taken a cigarette lighter to taxpayers’ funds. We have heard stories of excess, such as the man who was paid $6,000 for a morning’s work as an extra on a set. That is the kind of thing that happens if there are no proper checks and controls in place.

It was George Orwell who saw clearly and who nailed in books like Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four the way in which fascist and Communist governments of the 1930s used government resources to indoctrinate their own populations, to manipulate people and to elevate political propaganda to an art form. You would have to wonder what George Orwell would make of today’s government advertising campaigns if he were still alive. I suspect that he would see, as he did in the 1930s, the outrageous irony of governments using the people’s resources to manipulate them and to keep them acquiescent, passive and apathetic. It is nearly 12 years since the Prime Minister promised to put in place some guidelines from the Auditor-General. The Australian people remember that notorious non-core promise; it was a deceptive piece of propaganda designed to get voters to support him. (Time expired)

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My, my, the member for Wills has been very excited reading and relating many political speeches and books. It is good to see that he is using his time productively. It is a far more productive use of time to read well-known literature than perhaps to allow the misuse of his office resources to provide succour and support to those in the criminal underworld of Melbourne. The member talked about fascists and communists. No-one on this side of the House has ever been a fascist, but many members opposite have been members of the Communist Party. Perhaps the member should do a bit more reading of the political history of this nation.

The member for Wills also mentioned the increase in members’ printing entitlements. I have not seen any statement that no Labor incumbents, who will also receive the increase, will use it. Perhaps the member would like that policy introduced now that he has been relegated to the far backbench; perhaps he wants his colleagues to refuse to use that extra money. I look forward to seeing a statement along those lines.

He and the Labor Party talk about guidelines. Well, guess what? Maybe some of them have forgotten that the guidelines that are being used by this government were imposed by the previous Labor government. Remember those very expensive Bill Hunter ads? I have an interesting quote here from back in 1994 on the advertising of IR legislation. It is from the then, and current, member for Hotham, who was then the federal employment, education and training minister. I have to say that he did not exactly enjoy great success, having regard to the high unemployment rates during his reign over that portfolio. This is what he had to say to try and excuse the money that the Labor Party spent during that time:

This campaign is all about making sure that employers know of the training and other initiatives the Government is providing to make the long-term unemployed more competitive and job ready. Three television commercials starring Bill Hunter bring home the message that long-term unemployed people are ready and willing to work and that the Government is willing to help employers take on these people.

He goes on to describe why it is so important. So while it is good enough for the Labor Party while in office to have advertising to promote their particular policies and inform employers of their obligations—surprise, surprise, double standards apply; and, as the Prime Minister said in question time, great hypocrisy—those same standards should now not apply. They set the guidelines, we are following them and they still find a reason to complain, just because it is not the Labor Party in office conducting advertising to inform people. As opposed to the $100 million trade union campaign that is full of misinformation, false advertising and lies, the Australian public deserve to know exactly what this important area of legislation is about, in order to be informed about the rights and obligations of employees—rights that have never been entrenched in legislation before for all workers.

We talk about the new IR system. The Labor Party has been spreading all sorts of scare campaigns, but what is the reality? The reality is that over the last 12 months there have been over 270,000 jobs created. The reality is that we now have an unemployment rate of 4.4 per cent—the lowest since the Datsun 180B was on the market. And I am very pleased to say that in my electorate of Indi it is even lower than that, at 4.2 per cent. That is what this government has delivered.

Those opposite would like to have you think that it is all by accident, that it is all just a nice coincidence that we happen to live in this day and age and that there are these invisible forces out there in the world that have created the economy and this unemployment rate. They are wrong, and they know it. We withstood the economic crisis in South-East Asia. We withstood economic downturns in the US. We have made the hard decisions on reforming the Australian economy and on providing the economic fundamentals within which enterprises can operate, employ people and grow the Australian economy. That is something they do not like us to mention. That is something they do not want to remind the Australian public about, because the Labor Party, drunk on their own self-congratulations on the latest opinion polls, think they have got it in the bag. They think that the only thing they need to do is have pithy, pathetic, fluffy television propaganda, with their leader and others, and not deliver any alternative policy. They do not want to remind the Australian public that we are living in the most sustained period of economic growth. Why would they want to remind the Australian public of that?

Their attitude is one of absolute contempt: just give people a circus to follow; just give them a few balloons and a few silly photographs and perhaps they will forget what the Labor Party are really about. And what the Labor Party are really about, with their 100 per cent union membership on the other side, is paying back. When someone does you a favour, Mr Deputy Speaker, such as to put you in parliament, you are grateful. In the Liberal Party, we have a broad based membership, and we are grateful to those hard-working volunteers who take time out to support such a representative party—representing all parts of Australian society. But what do the Labor Party do? When their members get elected, they have to pay back those union bosses who still control the strings. In government, make no mistake about it: if it is true to form, if history is anything to go by, if the current behaviour is anything to go by, it will be the trade union movement that writes the laws for this country, not the Labor Party. We have only to look at reforms that they tried to introduce when they were last in government. It was the trade union movement that pulled the pin.

They complain about television advertising, purely because they are not in office. We are abiding by the guidelines they introduced when they were last in office. We have had advertising on the cervical cancer vaccine, on citizenship, on defence recruitment, against the use of illegal drugs, and on domestic violence, $52 million on promoting energy efficiency; and yet the Labor Party still complain.

There is deafening silence, though, on the other side of the House when we have state Labor governments that are totally unaccountable. They are awash with funds from a record take of stamp duty, and record, unprecedented and unexpected amounts from the GST. Not only are those state Labor governments not performing their fundamental duties of looking after their key areas of responsibility—in my state of Victoria the federal government has had to kick in to even pay for toilet blocks and basic facilities for schools—but also they are spending money on blatant political advertising against a government in another jurisdiction, because they have no respect for taxpayers’ money. All they have respect for and fear of are their union bosses. The Labor Party would love to see before the next election an economic collapse, for things to go bad. We have heard Sharan Burrow say that what they needed for their campaign was for someone to die so they could use that and manipulate that in the media.

Sadly, what the opposition are about is providing fluff and media spin and not performing their basic fundamental duty of providing an alternative policy. Over 11 days the opposition spokesperson on IR came up with six different policies. She came up with one policy one day and perhaps needed to rest and think it over the next day and then revise it and change it. That follows her disastrous policy with Medicare Gold, but we have not seen any further policies in that area either. We will not see any substance from the opposition because they do not have the ideas. Wayne Swan does not even have a tax policy.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to members by their seat or title.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All they can whinge about is this government abiding by the very guidelines that they introduced.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today’s MPI, and the speeches we have just heard from Minister Hockey and the member for Indi, are indeed a sorry reflection on the priorities of this arrogant government. Pathetic and fluffy indeed! Throw in a few Freudian slips as well! But here we are adding up the cost of spin and deception instead of adding value to protecting and promoting genuine fairness in the workplace. While working people, after 12 months of Work Choices, have paid dearly in cuts, cuts, cuts to their pay and conditions, this government just spends, spends, spends to protect its electoral fortunes.

Let us cast our minds back to ‘Take 1’ of the Work Choices saga ‘Death of a Salesman’, when Minister Andrews had the lead role. His initial contribution to the Work Choices sell was pulped when he forgot to put the word ‘fair’ in—$152,000 of pulp fiction and another 5.8 million booklets stockpiled in warehouses around the country. Then followed that truly forgettable run of four-page newspaper advertisements, so full of text and so full of detail that it is doubtful anyone actually read them.

Then came ‘Take 2’ ‘protected by law’—$55 million worth of spin. That was $55 million wasted because the Australian people learnt from the government’s own sources that very little of their rights or working conditions were actually protected by law. All of the 11 so-called protected award conditions were ditched from 45 per cent of all Australian workplace agreements signed since Work Choices was introduced, 67.6 per cent of penalty rates were ditched, 75.4 per cent of shift loadings were ditched and 51.4 per cent of overtime was lost—and I could go on.

But the new minister, Minister Hockey, looked at the detail and discovered one very important fact about the new Work Choices law—people hate it. So now, with a big enough advertising spend, that rogue bear Minister Hockey will attempt some new packaging—some new spin—to convince the Australian people that Work Choices is fair. Well, we are going to pay dearly for ‘Take 3’: ‘Houdini’ Hockey’s act of illusion, making Work Choices disappear from the minds and memories of Australians and magically conjuring up a fairness test on TV screens before our very eyes.

But while the government will bombard the airwaves of this nation there is a cone of silence, apparently, on how much the spin will cost. The Prime Minister told parliament yesterday, in relation to his plans for more taxpayer funded advertising, that there is nothing planned beyond this week but if there is the public will be informed: spin! According to Senate estimates today that little bit of spin has cost $4.1 million. That little bit of preplanning has cost $25,000 an hour. It is a pre-election campaign advertising run worth thousands of votes, obviously, but we do not quite know how many millions of dollars. Responsible economic management is on the cutting room floor. As for a new fairness test, well, we have not seen it yet. That hasty $4 million worth of ads rushed to air certainly did not tell us much about the test, but we do know it is coming! It is coming to a workplace near you just in time for the 2007 election campaign run-up ratings period.

They might not have all the lines right yet but they certainly know a lot about timing. However, I think the PM needs to take more acting lessons. The smirk on his face yesterday in question time was perhaps worth to us a thousand election ads later this year. ‘It is not a PR campaign,’ he said. Well, the ‘PR campaign-not’ that is costing at this rate up to $20 million a month from the people’s cash register looks like a PR election campaign to us. Minister Hockey, you can dress Work Choices up in multimillion dollar clothing and you can give it the new multimillion dollar makeover, and you can throw the fairness-out-the-backdoor blitz, but when the Australian people add up the costs they will know that this Work Choices package, under any other name, is just the biggest loser of all.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is that the ALP are tired of losing, and that is why they are bringing forward this grab bag of hypocritical criticism of the government’s advertising campaign in an attempt to justify their flip-flop approach to industrial relations, which was outlined so eloquently by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations just a short time ago. The minister referred to a whole series of policy announcements and policy reversals in the area of industrial relations. He referred to those in the area of arbitration. He talked about the happiness test. He talked about foreign shipping permits, the one-stop shop, minimum pay, the 24-month leave, pattern bargaining and the bargaining fee. While he outlined the details of those backflips the simple fact of the matter is that one hand in the ALP simply does not know what the other hand in the ALP is seeking to achieve in the area of industrial relations. It goes further than that, because this policy inconsistency goes right across the length and breadth of opposition policy.

Australians are a pretty fair people—a fairly reasonable nation. Australians the length and breadth of our continent understand when the government is doing the right thing, and they absolutely despise hypocrisy such as we see today from the Australian Labor Party. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the government’s advertising campaign to inform people of changes to Australian law and she kept saying that the government was wasting money. She equated informing the Australian people with wasting money. She forgets that when the Labor Party was in office the Keating government spent large amounts of government funding in a way that was, in fact, political advertising—unlike what this government is doing. We are seeking to inform the Australian people of important changes to the law of Australia.

As a Parliamentary Library research note says:

... government advertising has an important democratic function. The public has a right to be informed about the programs .... their taxes fund. Equally, governments have a right to establish a framework for delivering this information ...

When in office the ALP did as they did, but when we are in office and informing the Australian people about very substantial, important, fundamental, necessary and positive changes to industrial relations we get criticised. Of course, if we had not had an advertising campaign to tell the Australian people about these changes we would have been condemned for keeping the Australian people in the dark. It is absolutely ridiculous that the ALP, on the one hand, claim what they did in office to be correct and, on the other hand, seem to find what we are attempting to do—and what we are doing is not what they did—in informing the Australian people about changes to the law to be somehow unacceptable.

Let us look at what the Keating government did. The bulk of the Keating government’s $3 million advertising campaign on Medicare hospital entitlements was spent in the month before the 1993 poll. The Keating government spent $9 million in the three months prior to the 1996 federal election. When one looks at what the ALP government has done in a purely party political way and compares it with our sensible, rational public information campaign, the Australian people can see that the Australian Labor Party is being totally hypocritical and totally unacceptable.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that the honourable member for Mitchell obviously objectively agrees with the point that I am so eloquently making. Even the Australian in an editorial said:

... John Howard can legitimately argue that the latest advertising campaign is informative, not political. The Prime Minister says the campaign does not attack the Labor Party or the union movement. It doesn’t mount a philosophical argument in favour of the Government’s Work Choices changes but informs viewers of new protections that are available to workers in the form of a no-disadvantage test and where to call for more information.

This advertising campaign does not advertise our philosophy. It does not seek to justify an ideology. All it does is tell the Australian people about the very important and necessary changes that the legislation the parliament has enacted will bring about to the important lives of everyday Australians. There are benefits to this legislation, and it is fair and appropriate that we advertise them. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has expired. In accordance with sessional order No.1 the matter is concluded.