Senator CHAPMAN (3:19 PM) —In speaking to this motion to take note of answers, Senator Faulkner for the Labor opposition listed a range of government advertising campaigns and alleged that those advertising campaigns were not genuine information campaigns but were designed to shore up the government's political support. My colleague Senator Brandis has already made reference to the fact that that allegation by Senator Faulkner fell absolutely flat because those advertising campaigns and programs are indeed determined by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, which operates under exactly the same guidelines implemented by the previous Labor government in February 1995. It is exactly those guidelines that are applied to determining the nature, the type of advertising and, indeed, the range of programs subject to advertising by this government. These are the guidelines that were determined, implemented and operated by the previous Labor government.

Surely pensioners, self-funded retirees, farmers and others are entitled to information about programs that affect them. The guidelines applied, which, as I said, were the guidelines introduced by the previous Labor government, state:

The fact is that people are not automatically aware of government programs. In my experience as a parliamentarian, I have known of many occasions when people have not been aware of government programs. Indeed, many have missed out on benefits because of ignorance of those programs, and when they are finally advised of them, through one means or another, it is often too late to obtain the benefit that could otherwise have been derived. Therefore, it is crucial that there be effective government advertising of the benefits of these programs. That is what the advertising to which Labor senators have referred is directed.

We are obliged to publicise government programs and initiatives. Indeed, because of the likelihood that people will miss out on the benefits of those programs, if the government had failed to advertise them, we would have been open to even greater criticism. As far as the Labor opposition is concerned we are damned for advertising but, in terms of the broader community, we would be damned if we failed to undertake that advertising. Labor, it seems, does not want to acknowledge that people want to know, that they have a right to know and that it is important for them to know what the government are doing and what programs are available to them.

Senator Carr came into the debate and said that it was all well and good to quote from the ministerial guidelines but the nature of the advertising undertaken by this government was different from that undertaken by the Labor government. The fact is that it was the Labor Party in government that was guilty of blatant misuse of government funds and abuse of government advertising. But, as I said, both governments have based their advertising on those ministerial guidelines that were established under the Labor Party in government.

In that context, let us not forget the `money growing on trees' campaign that was developed under the previous Labor government for their superannuation advertisements. What about the Working Nation advertisements, which had no content whatsoever? And we ought not forget the thousands of dollars paid to Bill Hunter for the advertising he undertook on behalf of the Labor government. Then, of course, we saw that very same actor, Bill Hunter, bob up in Labor's election commercials. One could almost suggest the possibility of a conflict of interest in that case. As Senator Carr said, it is important to distinguish between the advertising of Liberal governments and Labor governments. When one looks at what the Labor government did, one can say that they went pretty close to breaching their very own guidelines, whereas this government has assiduously applied those guidelines in a fair and proper manner.

I think it was Senator Carr who mentioned a number of private enterprises that had smaller advertising budgets than the present government. Of course, what Senator Carr failed to mention was that the federal government is much larger than any of those enterprises. It has a much wider range of programs and therefore requires a much wider range of advertising of those programs for the benefit of the community.