Mr BOWEN (4:55 PM) —When the Australian people pay their taxes they expect the money to be spent on services for the Australian people. Nobody likes paying tax, but when they do they at least know it is going to a good cause. But we now have a government which is wasteful and slothful with taxpayers’ money. This is the highest taxing Australian government in history—a government which is spending $100 million, not of its money but of taxpayers’ money, on advocating a policy which has not yet even been introduced into this parliament. It is a government that is buying advertisements on prime time television which appear every five minutes at $90,000 a pop. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money that this government should be ashamed of.

Today we heard in the House the revelation that the government had produced 60,000 pamphlets on the industrial relations changes only to have them pulped because they were not good enough. This is a government which claims to be a good economic manager but is prepared to see taxpayers’ money wasted and thrown around like confetti at a wedding. And that is not all. There has been other wasteful spending from the government in the last 12 months. We have seen $100 million spent so far on private recruitment agencies. I do not deny that some use of private recruitment agencies is appropriate, but spending $100 million on private agencies for government recruitment shows that this government has an extreme ideological approach to these matters. I would contend that this sort of recruitment could be done much more efficiently by members of the Australian Public Service. This government has an ideological obsession with outsourcing.

Last year an estimated $10 million was spent on media monitoring by this government—$10 million to watch themselves on television and read about themselves in newspapers. What an outrageous waste of money which would not pass the reasonableness test of the average Australian taxpayer. Another $80,000 was spent on massages for selected public servants. I do not deny that those public servants work very hard, but I think the average taxpayer would say that $80,000 on massages for selected public servants is not a good use of taxpayers’ money—and if it is good enough for some public servants then it is good enough for all.

The arrogance goes further. A few months ago I put a question on notice to the Minister for Human Services asking him if he had sought legal advice about his powers in relation to the Minister for Family and Community Services. I asked him if he had paid, at taxpayer expense, for legal advice on whether he was more powerful than the Minister for Family and Community Services. For good measure I asked the Minister for Family and Community Services whether she had sought legal advice about the Minister for Human Services. To her credit, the Minister for Family and Community Services answered promptly and said no. The Minister for Human Services took months to respond. Last week I received an answer or, rather, a non-answer: ‘My department seeks legal advice on a range of matters from time to time.’ That was his answer. He refused to indicate how much he spent on legal advice about how much power he has in relation to a so-called colleague.

It is an arrogant contempt of the processes of this parliament when a minister says, ‘I refuse to answer a question from an elected member of parliament.’ I have written again to the Minister for Human Services and asked the same question under the Freedom of Information Act, and I expect to receive an answer. Then we will know how much money he spent finding out how powerful he is in relation to the Minister for Family and Community Services.

We see an arrogant contempt for the forms of this House and an arrogant contempt in the use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money—taxpayers who work long hours going about their business and paying their tax. Nobody likes paying tax, but they do it because they know that community services will benefit. But taxpayers can receive no comfort from the way this government spends its money because it spends it on such things as advertisements and pulped pamphlets.

The SPEAKER —It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted. Before calling the adjournment, I point out to the member for Prospect that he went very close to committing a contempt himself. If he wants to talk about an individual member of this chamber, he should do so by substantive motion.