Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the respective chairs of the Environment, Communications and the Arts, Economics, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport legislation committees, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to those reports which considered time critical legislation.

Leave granted

I move:

That the reports be adopted.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the chair of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the interim report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the final report of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 and related bills be presented today.

Question agreed to.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of item 15(c), the ministerial statement.

I rise to speak on the ministerial statement by the Special Minister of State ‘Administration: exemption to guidelines on information and campaign advertising by Australian government departments and agencies’. Over the last month we have seen unsurpassed grubbiness by this government in relation to government advertising. I am referring to the exemption given by Senator Ludwig to the Treasurer in relation to the advertising on the great big mining tax and all the implications of that.

I want to take the chamber through some comments that were made by the Prime Minister prior to the last election and put those into context. In October 2007, prior to the federal election, the Prime Minister said that government advertising was:

… a sick cancer within our system. It’s a cancer on democracy.

The complete and utter hollowness of those words will become clearly obvious in due course. I will go through some of the ALP’s platform in 2007 under item 54. It said:

54. Labor will not support the use of government advertising for political purposes. Labor will introduce legislation to ensure:

• government advertising campaigns only occur after government policy has been legislated for by parliament;

What advertisements are running today, and were running yesterday, on national television in relation to the NBN? Has the NBN been legislated? No, it has not. That is a broken core promise from this Prime Minister. It goes on:

• all government advertising and information campaigns provide objective, factual and explanatory information, free from partisan promotion of government policy and political argument ...
• all advertising campaigns in excess of $250,000 are examined by the Public Service Commissioner—

which has subsequently changed to the Auditor-General. These promises were broken. Further, in November 2007 the Prime Minister, at a doorstop, said:

I can guarantee that we will have a process in place, run by the Auditor General ... In terms of establishing the office of the Auditor General with clear cut guidelines to whom every television campaign is submitted for approval before that television campaign is implemented, you have my 100% guarantee that that will occur ... and each one of you here can hold me accountable for that.

In July 2008 the government introduced new guidelines for government advertising. The Special Minister of State’s press release said:

In 2007, Kevin Rudd made an election promise that campaigns over $250,000 would be scrutinised by the Auditor-General.

This election commitment is now met.

That is what the press release said.

The Auditor-General will provide a “health check” on the final product of a campaign before it is communicated.

What have we seen since? We have seen broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. This duplicitous government went to the election with weasel words from the Prime Minister, weasel words from the then opposition in relation to accountability, in relation to what the Auditor-General would be required to do and in relation to their commitment to changing the rules in relation to government advertising.

Not just two weeks ago in Senate estimates we saw the most disgraceful display from this government in relation to their complete and utter contempt for the Australian people. Under the new guidelines the Auditor-General has gone and there is a so-called independent committee, the ICC, which is meant to scrutinise government advertising. Auditor-General out and three people on two-year terms brought in to substitute for the Auditor-General. Three people, one of them getting the equivalent of $350,000 over two years, I might say.

Guess what? The minister has given himself an extended exemption to take this matter out of the hands of the so-called independent committee. The Auditor-General was subject to some guidelines in relation to this but this minister and this Prime Minister, who has broken his word in relation to this matter, put in some new words, some catch-all words, namely ‘compelling reasons’. How long is a piece of string? This takes it from a matter of urgency to compelling under this new committee. We sat in Senate estimates, we discussed exemptions and the department gave evidence. I will read it:

Mr Grant—I might add that, where an exemption is granted, the minister formally records and reports the exemption to parliament.

Senator RONALDSON—When is that tabled?

Mr Grant—Historically it has been tabled as soon as the exemption has been granted, within a day or two.

When was this exemption letter signed? It was signed on Monday, 24 May, the day that Senate estimates started. Indeed the issue of government advertising was put across until the Thursday to enable some proper discussion of it. So on Monday this letter was signed having been told that historically, and I will read it again, ‘When an exemption has been granted, it is within a day or two that it is tabled.’

We had a ridiculous interjection from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy this afternoon when he said, ‘You didn’t ask the question’. We did not ask the question whether you were breaking the rules and whether you were trying to mislead the Senate. Sorry, next time we will ask the obvious question: were you misleading us or is there something you are not telling us? What a stupid and idiotic interjection from the minister for communications.

What is the basis on which this exemption has been given? Interestingly, and honourable senators might not be aware of this—guess what?—this independent committee had actually considered this government advertising in relation to the mining tax on 21 April before the release of the Henry review. They probably got the papers on 19 April. The cabinet group met on 20 April to tick off on this. I asked the specific question in the economics committee: was the ICC given any indication at all that an exception might be required? The answer was no, they were not. The independent committee had had this since, at the minimum, 21 April. Henry was released on 2 May. The letter was written by the Treasurer to get exemption on 10 May.

What was the urgent or compelling reason for this? Two advertisements in the West Australian on the Friday and Saturday saying no more and no less than the mining industry was paying its fair share of tax. That was the basis on which this was done. It was done on the basis that they hit the panic button in relation to this tax. They realised that they had made a dreadful mistake and they wanted to get in early. They have breached their own rules and I will refer to the Treasurer’s letter to Minister Ludwig which is quite remarkable. It says:

… the benefit of the exemption from the guidelines will be to ensure that advertising is able to go to air much more quickly—

Much more quickly, okay—

This means issues and misinformation currently being aired in the media can be addressed …

Two advertisements.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Entirely accurate.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two entirely accurate advertisements in relation to this big new tax on mining—that was the sole airing of concern in relation to this matter in a public sense. This is a complete and utter stitch up and this is absolutely indicative of a government that has lost the right to govern.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also take note of ministerial statements. I support Senator Ronaldson in his comments and will focus my comments on yet another disgraceful display in relation to rules on advertising that are being flouted. This refers to the false and deceptive advertising in relation to the health reform or the grand health plan. What I would like to do is take the Senate through some very pertinent points that have been raised in relation to this through estimates—most importantly on the parameters of the authorisation for this campaign. It does not appear that the campaign that is currently being run actually meets the guidelines that were approved by the ICC. So, Senator Ronaldson, what happens is that, even when the ICC gets involved and gives approval, this government is not even capable of following the guidelines to the letter.

Let me show you why. In relation to the health reform, let me take the Senate back. At estimates we were told that there was a series of meetings that occurred before COAG. Ministerial approval was given on 19 March to develop an advertising campaign. On that same day, four agencies were invited to tender. Indeed, in only 11 days an agency was appointed. How can you go through a process of appointing an agency within 11 days if you are going to follow even your own rules? This was the evidence that was given by Ms Palmer in community affairs estimates on 2 June. There was a process where they engaged a research company, focus groups were run, benchmark researching was undertaken and—voila!—after 11 days we suddenly got an agency appointed.

Then, of course, the minister decides to get approval, so then you have this process where they do go to the ICC. In the middle of all this, COAG happens, which completely reverses and changes the Prime Minister’s original plans, which he had outlined at the National Press Club, where he told everybody:

For the first time, Local Hospitals Networks, run by local health, financial and managerial professionals, rather than state or, for that matter, federal bureaucrats, will be put in charge of running the hospital system.

That was the grand plan and the grand promise: that these local hospital networks would be run locally and funded federally. But, of course, that bears absolutely no resemblance to the agreement that was finally set out with the states.

So what do we have? We have the correspondence in which approval was given to this campaign by the Independent Communications Committee. They refer to five meetings. The department was told that it needed to check that the inconsistency in the website on which it was called to action in the materials has been fixed. I do not know what that is about. But, interestingly enough, this campaign was approved with no materials reviewed: no television commercial, no radio advertisement, no print advertisement and no digital advertisement. Why was none reviewed? Because the attachment to that letter says: ‘Final campaign advertising material reviewed: none. Not applicable.’ So this ICC approved a campaign without even looking at this material. It is absolutely appalling.

Then, of course, suddenly approval is given. It is little wonder that there is absolutely no scrutiny, because the other appalling part of all this is that Jane Halton, the secretary of the department, signed off and certified on behalf of the government for this campaign. This is supposed to be advertising for the implementation of a cabinet decision ‘which is intended to be implemented during the current parliament’. But, of course, we know that this has not been approved by cabinet. Despite my questioning of the department, they were not able to tell me who finally approved this. Indeed, Ms Palmer told me that it was by ministerial approval; it was not by cabinet approval. Therefore, how can you certify that this is a campaign where there has been a cabinet decision which is intended to be implemented during the current parliament? During the current parliament, for goodness sake! The legislation has not even come here and they are talking about spending money for something that has not even been implemented yet. But, of course, the Australian Financial Review of 9 June tells us that the hospital and health package is another one of those kitchen cabinet decisions by Mr Tanner, Mr Swan, Ms Gillard and the Prime Minister. So I do not understand. I would like clarification as to why this document was certified when there does not appear to be a cabinet decision.

Indeed, it specifies in this document that the campaign materials that have been presented are fact and those facts are accurate and verifiable. Of course they are not accurate. In fact, our two-day hearing on health reform shows just how inaccurate and deceptive this whole campaign is. Indeed, so much evidence was given during the inquiry which goes to show that this agreement, which was entered into by the Commonwealth with the states after this campaign appears to have been approved, basically says that the local hospital networks will be appointed by the states and that the premise is that the doctors in these local hospital networks will come from areas ‘external to the local hospital network wherever practical’. So all this drivel that exists in these advertisements that talk about it being ‘run locally’ is absolutely deceptive and misleading, using taxpayers’ money for what was supposed to be a campaign about fact. I call on the government to withdraw these ads and tell the Australian people what the facts really are. The facts are that this network will not be run locally. It is in black and white in this agreement that the doctors in these local hospital networks will not come from that local area. You cannot get more deceptive than that.

Then they talk about there being more aged-care beds. They are raiding the budget. They are raiding $276 million from the aged-care budget destined for residential high-care beds, shunting it off to failed state and territory hospitals so that we can keep people who should be in aged-care facilities in hospitals longer. In 2007, this government promised a new direction for frail and aged Australians. ‘We are going to get them out of hospital and into aged-care facilities.’ They are doing the exact opposite. They are keeping 2,000 more in hospitals. In any given night in this country there are 3,000 people who should be better cared for in aged-care facilities but who are in our hospitals. This government is breaking another promise. It promised to help our frail and aged and make the transition out of hospital into aged care better. Instead they are doing the direct opposite, just like they are deceiving the Australian public in relation to these advertisements.

I call for some facts in relation to this misleading and deceptive advertising. Even when they get approval through the ICC they cannot even follow the guidelines. The guidelines and the certifications are not even worth the paper they are written on, because they too do not follow the ICC. And how can you approve a campaign when you do not actually see the material? How can the ICC have approved this campaign? It is little wonder that what has come out at the other end with the ad campaigns in radio, television and print media bears no resemblance to the actual facts of what is contained in this agreement.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be brief in my remarks. I think it is fair to say that when the coalition was in power they spent an enormous amount of money on government advertising and they did so before legislation was actually passed. I think that was the wrong thing to do, but they did not promise to reform the system.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least legislation was drafted.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that is the point. I know that in my time in state parliament there was concern expressed in broad terms by the then South Australian Auditor-General, Ken MacPherson, who was concerned about government advertising of a policy when the legislation was not yet passed by the parliament. I know that the constitutionality of that was dealt with in the context of the High Court’s decision in Combet v Commonwealth, when Mr Combet took on the then government about advertising with respect to the Work Choices campaign. The High Court found that, so long as there was an appropriation for that funding, it was legal, notwithstanding that the legislation had not been passed.

The difficulty for the government here is that they promised the people at the last election that they would clean this up and that they would have a new regime in place. I think it would be fair to say that the government has monumentally failed to deliver this. The new process we have seen through the ICC is, with respect, too cute by half. That is why I think there is considerable public disquiet about what the government has done. I know that Senator Ronaldson and Senator Fierravanti-Wells have outlined their concerns about this, and I share a number of those concerns. This is not the right way to go about things. The rules have been changed by taking this away from the Auditor-General as the independent watchdog to deal with these matters, and I think there are very real concerns about that.

I believe that the government has fundamentally done the wrong thing here. What they have done is try to cloak this in process, to say that they have somehow managed to fix this problem up with process, but the government has been too cute by half by doing so. My concern is that we do not have a system in place that is robust, accountable and transparent in dealing with government advertising. I think the government’s argument is, ‘We’re spending less than the last mob,’ to put it colloquially, but the fact is that this government came to power on the basis that they would fix this up and what they have done is the opposite. That is why they are taking public opprobrium; they have fundamentally done the wrong thing. They have done the wrong thing by taxpayers. What we are seeing is a cheap way of doing the party’s ads using taxpayer funds, and that is fundamentally wrong. It is an even more serious issue when you consider that this legislation has not even passed the parliament. We have not even seen the drafting of this legislation.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to contribute to the debate on the ministerial statement. Not only is that money being wasted on advertising for the great big new tax on mining, not only has it been wasted on the so-called ‘health reforms’—if ever there were something wrongly labelled, it was the so-called ‘health reforms’—but we have also found out today that the government is going to spend another $16 million of taxpayers’ money in Labor Party advertisements supporting their failed and continually failing national broadband proposal. It is incredible that this government, which labelled that sort of advertising as—what was it?—a ‘cancer on democracy’ is now, in three short weeks, spending over $50 million of taxpayers’ money on what are effectively campaign advertisements for the Australian Labor Party in advance of the election which will be coming up some time in August or September.

On the weekend up in North Queensland a bloke came up to me and said, ‘I am a member of a union. I get very, very angry when the union uses my union fees—the fees I pay to the unions to look after my workplace arrangements—to campaign for the Australian Labor Party. I do not have much choice about it. I pay my fees and the money goes in campaigning for the ALP. That is bad enough, but what happens now is as a taxpayer I am also funding the ALP’s election advertising in the form of this advertising for the great big new tax on mining, the so-called health reforms and the broadband.’

Everyone is at times accused of doing this, as Senator Xenophon said. I do not necessarily agree with Senator Xenophon that the previous government did that, but where I do agree with Senator Xenophon is that Mr Rudd made a virtue out of indicating that he would not be embarking upon this sort of conduct. It is the same with everything Mr Rudd has touched. Before the election were all the promises, all the pious pronouncements, all the blah, blah, blah; but when in power as a government in some political difficulty, Mr Rudd pays no regard at all to the promises he made and the rules he said he would make. This whole series shows a government in trouble. It is the sort of action that totalitarian governments take when they are in real trouble. Governments that cannot make it on their own but think they can dip their hands into the taxpayers’ money to advertise for their political party are the sort of thing we do not expect in Australia. Totalitarian regimes around the world have been doing this for years. To me it is a regret that our own Australian government is now following the lead of those totalitarian regimes.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This issue is an absolute disgrace. The Prime Minister of Australia said that he would stop the rorts that happened with political advertising and advertising around election times and yet here is the Prime Minister with his hand in the cookie jar spending taxpayers’ money on propaganda for the Rudd government. It is wrong and the Prime Minister should not be allowed to get away with it. Here he is exempting the ads for the Rudd government from the guidelines that he set up.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot go to the Australian public and say, ‘I am going to put a stop to the rort of using taxpayers’ money on advertising for the government of the day.’ It is wrong, and if the Labor Party want to continue down this track of advertising a mining tax they should do it out of their own expenditure—Labor Party money—and not at the taxpayers’ expense. I hope that with the budget this chamber can move a request that means that no taxpayers’ money will be spent on the mining tax, the RSPT. This is clearly a breach of their own guidelines and it is wrong. They cannot have it both ways. The Prime Minister has to be held to account and the Senate should do that. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.