Senate debates

Tuesday, 12 June 2007

Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers

Answers to Questions

3:10 pm

Photo of Michael RonaldsonMichael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share 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)

Comments

No comments