Madam SPEAKER - 1998-10-08
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members you may recall yesterday that the member for Wanguri asked me some questions concerning the authorisation of the statehood material. The member for Wanguri asked why, as Speaker, I authorised the statehood material which he considered had nothing to do with the ‘yes’ case authorised by members of this House. I wish to advise members of my answer at this moment.
The timing of my agreement to authorise the advertising was directly related to the signing off by members of both government and opposition on the official ‘yes’ case under the Referendum Act. When approached to authorise material, the Clerk, under my instructions, consulted with Kerry Heisner of the Australian Electoral Commission as to whether it would be appropriate for me to authorise the advertising material, pursuant to the Referendums Act and the Australian Electoral Act. I was advised that there was no statutory or other impediment to the Speaker authorising advertising material in support of the ‘yes’ case.
As the matter to support the ‘yes’ case was a decision of the Parliament, it seemed appropriate that the Speaker should authorise the matter to avoid any political bias. I was further advised that in consultation between government and the ministerial officers, and officers of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, it was agreed that it was preferable to use the Speaker’s name rather than the Chief Minister’s and the Leader of the Opposition’s names. Indeed, this was reiterated in the letter I received from the Leader of the Opposition, and I quote:
For the official ‘yes’ case document and official how-to-vote card alone, we agree it appropriate for you, as the Speaker of the Parliament, to provide an authorisation.
After consideration, I gave my consent to authorise material consistent with, and linked to, the official ‘yes’ case. I then received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition on the member for Barkly’s letterhead, signed by the member for Wanguri, and I quote:
I have noticed in recent days that you have authorised material being distributed in relation to the statehood referendum. An example included the full page advertisement in
last weekend’s Northern Territory News. Could you kindly advise whether you or your department have commenced expending money on this matter, or if there is another
explanation for you to be authorising material which I previously understood was being produced by the Chief Minister’s department.
I was interstate at the time, and before I returned to give an explanation, the member for Wanguri went on radio and said:
So when we saw the Speaker starting to authorise it, we wrote to her saying, you know, ‘What on earth is going on? Why are you compromising the impartial position of Speaker
by authorising the advertising campaign that previously has been written and authorised by the Chief Minister? Why has the campaign now moved to the parliament. Is it
because Shane Stone’s name with the campaign is being seen as such a negative that you want to take his name off?
It then moved on to say:
We support a truthful campaign about what the vote is and she is compromising her independence by supporting the government’s advertising campaign.
Now, these remarks on radio were a great distortion of the contents of the letter that I just read to you and he, again, publicly attacked the impartiality of the Speaker. I raised my concern with the Leader of the Opposition, but an appropriate response or apology still has not been received from either the Leader or the member for Wanguri.
The member for Wanguri asked the question why I ignored Labor’s 3 written requests from the Leader of the Opposition to stop playing this role. I had, in fact, replied twice. In the second letter I forwarded the Asche/Collins letter as an example of the material I was authorising, and I requested details of the content of any advertisements with which the opposition had concerns. I still have not received a response and I do not know what advertisements the Leader of the Opposition is objecting to or what statehood propaganda material the member for Wanguri is referring to.
The member for Wanguri also asked what expenditure I authorised and for what purpose. I had already responded to this question in a letter dated 17 September, that is 3 weeks ago, to the Leader of the Opposition and I quote:
I can assure you that any costs of the campaign will not impact on the normal budget of the parliament, as special arrangements will be made through the Department of the Chief Minister
and the Treasury.
The Department of the Legislative Assembly did not fund the advertising campaign, the funding was through the Department of the Chief Minister, and any question on funding should be
directed to the Chief Minister.
I reiterate that I feel the impartial role of the Speaker of the parliament made it appropriate for me to authorise this information and I was pleased to have done so.
The timing of my agreement to authorise the advertising was directly related to the signing off by members of both government and opposition on the official ‘yes’ case under the Referendum Act. When approached to authorise material, the Clerk, under my instructions, consulted with Kerry Heisner of the Australian Electoral Commission as to whether it would be appropriate for me to authorise the advertising material, pursuant to the Referendums Act and the Australian Electoral Act. I was advised that there was no statutory or other impediment to the Speaker authorising advertising material in support of the ‘yes’ case.
As the matter to support the ‘yes’ case was a decision of the Parliament, it seemed appropriate that the Speaker should authorise the matter to avoid any political bias. I was further advised that in consultation between government and the ministerial officers, and officers of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, it was agreed that it was preferable to use the Speaker’s name rather than the Chief Minister’s and the Leader of the Opposition’s names. Indeed, this was reiterated in the letter I received from the Leader of the Opposition, and I quote:
For the official ‘yes’ case document and official how-to-vote card alone, we agree it appropriate for you, as the Speaker of the Parliament, to provide an authorisation.
After consideration, I gave my consent to authorise material consistent with, and linked to, the official ‘yes’ case. I then received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition on the member for Barkly’s letterhead, signed by the member for Wanguri, and I quote:
I have noticed in recent days that you have authorised material being distributed in relation to the statehood referendum. An example included the full page advertisement in
last weekend’s Northern Territory News. Could you kindly advise whether you or your department have commenced expending money on this matter, or if there is another
explanation for you to be authorising material which I previously understood was being produced by the Chief Minister’s department.
I was interstate at the time, and before I returned to give an explanation, the member for Wanguri went on radio and said:
So when we saw the Speaker starting to authorise it, we wrote to her saying, you know, ‘What on earth is going on? Why are you compromising the impartial position of Speaker
by authorising the advertising campaign that previously has been written and authorised by the Chief Minister? Why has the campaign now moved to the parliament. Is it
because Shane Stone’s name with the campaign is being seen as such a negative that you want to take his name off?
It then moved on to say:
We support a truthful campaign about what the vote is and she is compromising her independence by supporting the government’s advertising campaign.
Now, these remarks on radio were a great distortion of the contents of the letter that I just read to you and he, again, publicly attacked the impartiality of the Speaker. I raised my concern with the Leader of the Opposition, but an appropriate response or apology still has not been received from either the Leader or the member for Wanguri.
The member for Wanguri asked the question why I ignored Labor’s 3 written requests from the Leader of the Opposition to stop playing this role. I had, in fact, replied twice. In the second letter I forwarded the Asche/Collins letter as an example of the material I was authorising, and I requested details of the content of any advertisements with which the opposition had concerns. I still have not received a response and I do not know what advertisements the Leader of the Opposition is objecting to or what statehood propaganda material the member for Wanguri is referring to.
The member for Wanguri also asked what expenditure I authorised and for what purpose. I had already responded to this question in a letter dated 17 September, that is 3 weeks ago, to the Leader of the Opposition and I quote:
I can assure you that any costs of the campaign will not impact on the normal budget of the parliament, as special arrangements will be made through the Department of the Chief Minister
and the Treasury.
The Department of the Legislative Assembly did not fund the advertising campaign, the funding was through the Department of the Chief Minister, and any question on funding should be
directed to the Chief Minister.
I reiterate that I feel the impartial role of the Speaker of the parliament made it appropriate for me to authorise this information and I was pleased to have done so.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016