Mr STIRLING - 1997-04-30
Of the 220 or so questions asked of this government by the opposition since August 1994 that remain unanswered, almost 80% relate to taxpayers' money spent on government advertising. In the lead-up to the 1994 election, Territory taxpayers' money was spent on an expensive feel-good advertising series with the theme `The Territory - Made Great
Page 2098
by Territorians'. Last week, the Country Liberal Party launched $50 000-worth of advertising, this time under the guise of promoting Territory Day. Will the Freedom of Information Bill, that the Leader of the Opposition has introduced and is hoping to have enacted, allow Territorians to know just how many of their tax dollars are spent on political advertising by this government?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the freedom of information legislation that the Territory Labor Party proposes will do precisely that. It will open up the records of this government that remain secret and unaccountable to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Hatton interjecting.
Mrs HICKEY: The member for Nightcliff is rudely interjecting. If he sits quietly and listens, perhaps he will learn something. The opposition has persistently asked questions ...
Mr Hatton interjecting.
Mrs HICKEY: The member for Nightcliff is at it again. I can take my time.
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The member for Barkly may not take her time on questions asked in anticipation of legislation to come through this Assembly. This is the second day in a row on which the opposition has used the tactic of putting a question to the Leader of the Opposition based on the privacy bill that she has before the House. I believe that this tactic of anticipating debate must be wearing thin with you. How many times, Mr Speaker, will you allow a question based on the Notice Paper to be debated? That is what it is developing into.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. It is a device that has been used previously. In fact, if having a bill on the Notice Paper prevented questioning about it, it would be a device that would be used time and time again to prevent questioning. The question is appropriate, but I ask the Leader of the Opposition to respond in the terms of her bill and to respond as quickly as possible.
Mrs HICKEY: Mr Speaker, I point out to the Leader of Government Business that the Chief Minister started this ...
Mr Coulter interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Coulter interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business is treading on dangerous ground.
Mrs HICKEY: The Freedom of Information Bill that I introduced recently would oblige government ministers to bring forward evidence of details of such matters as ministerial
Page 2099
travel and government advertising. There is an increasing use of the photographs of ministers in departmental advertising. The face of the Minister for Health Services appeared even on an advertisement to announce the opening times of a private clinic at Palmerston. One wonders whether the minister is doing a spot of moonlighting there. Why did he need his face on the advertisement?
Mr Stone: You are using taxpayers' money with your letters. You have spent over $100 000 so far.
Mrs HICKEY: I will respond to the interjection from the Chief Minister. The advertising done by the opposition, using government expenditure, is to identify the opposition in terms of its role, and my role as the Leader of the Opposition. The case of the Minister for Health Services having his face on advertising for the clinic is quite a different matter.
In 1994, just before the last election, the Country Liberal Party used an advertising agency to make a series of feel-good advertisements. It was the same advertising agency that it used for its own Country Liberal Party electoral advertising. No tender process was undertaken for the government advertising. It was all done under a veil of secrecy, as most of the government's deals are. It does not want to tell Territorians how much it is costing taxpayers. Of course, that secrecy would be prevented under freedom of information legislation.
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Standing order 68 says: No member shall anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper ...' If the member for Barkly is not anticipating debate on what she has on the Notice Paper, I would like you to do some remedial work with me on standing order 68.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that the standing order refers to debate in the Assembly in which a member is not allowed to anticipate. It is quite clear under standing order 110 which relates to questions seeking information from other members: `Questions may be put to a member, not being a minister, relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the Assembly, of which the member has charge'. There are current topical issues such as the way this government spends its money and does not make it public. This is quite appropriate under standing orders. The Leader of the Opposition has carriage of that legislation and is able to discuss it. It is strange that there is one set of rules for the way they play the game ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! You have made your point. There is no point of order. While the Leader of the Opposition maintains her current line, I think she is in order. However, she must be very careful not to go too deeply into the content of her bill. That is something to be kept for when that bill comes before the House in August. In the meantime, I believe she is in order at this stage.
Mrs HICKEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No tender process was undertaken with regard to those feel-good advertisements. We see another series of them coming, a $50 000 push for Territory Day. One wonders if that is not a prelude ...
Mr Stone: And what is wrong with that?
Page 2100
Mrs HICKEY: It is wonderful in terms of exposing Territory life and putting Territorians forward, but one has to wonder in what juxtaposition it is placed with regard to the Country Liberal Party's aims and objectives in getting its election manifesto up. That, together with a failure to disclose travel costs, ranks ...
Mr Stone: We tell you how much we spend.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs HICKEY: Advertising and travel costs rank as 2 of the Country Liberal Party administration's most smelly practices. Under freedom of information legislation, those matters would be exposed to public scrutiny. Freedom of information legislation in the Northern Territory would provide taxpayers with the opportunity to make their own decisions about whether this government is doing things in the proper way. It is time the government acknowledged that we need freedom of information legislation, but I personally will not hold my breath while we wait for it. I believe that the fellows opposite are not interested in allowing Territorians to see what really happens behind the scenes. They are not interested in giving Territorians the opportunity to examine the practices that Country Liberal Party administrations have followed for the last 23 years. It is a disgrace.
Freedom of information legislation, privacy legislation and whistleblower legislation are proper devices of the democratic system, enjoyed by Australians in all other jurisdictions in this country. This government propounds its basis as being one of honesty and open government. That is nonsense.
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I draw your attention to standing order 144 of the House of Representatives and our own standing order 68 from which I will quote in order that you may give a ruling. I want to take this up with you in the Chamber at a later date. Standing order 68 says:
No member shall anticipate the discussion of any
subject which appears on the Notice Paper: provided
that, in determining whether a discussion is in order
or not in order on the ground of anticipation, regard
shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the
matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly
within a reasonable time.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is doing exactly that. She is absolutely out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has just about completed her answer. She did perhaps stray a little towards the end. However, numerous precedents have been set in this House by government members asking questions about bills on the Notice Paper. In the past, it has been allowed, and I am not prepared to rule one way for one side of the House and another way for the other. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is about to finish her remarks.
Mrs HICKEY: It is very interesting to see the response of members opposite when they are faced with having to sit quietly - which, of course, they do not - and listen to the
Page 2101
answer to a question in a courteous manner. They are unable to do it. It is a case of 3 strikes and you are out. The Leader of Government Business has exposed his abysmal lack of knowledge of standing orders.
I conclude by saying that Territorians are very interested in this issue. For years, they have seen the way in which this government uses taxpayers' money to advance its own political cause. They have had enough of it. They are saying to us very clearly - at their doors, in public forums and at any other meetings that we care to attend - that they want these people exposed. They know they are smelly and they want them exposed. They want the democratic mechanisms that all other Australians enjoy. We are in the dark ages in the Northern Territory compared with the rest of the country. I believe that freedom of information legislation should be enacted.
Page 2102
Page 2098
by Territorians'. Last week, the Country Liberal Party launched $50 000-worth of advertising, this time under the guise of promoting Territory Day. Will the Freedom of Information Bill, that the Leader of the Opposition has introduced and is hoping to have enacted, allow Territorians to know just how many of their tax dollars are spent on political advertising by this government?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the freedom of information legislation that the Territory Labor Party proposes will do precisely that. It will open up the records of this government that remain secret and unaccountable to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Hatton interjecting.
Mrs HICKEY: The member for Nightcliff is rudely interjecting. If he sits quietly and listens, perhaps he will learn something. The opposition has persistently asked questions ...
Mr Hatton interjecting.
Mrs HICKEY: The member for Nightcliff is at it again. I can take my time.
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The member for Barkly may not take her time on questions asked in anticipation of legislation to come through this Assembly. This is the second day in a row on which the opposition has used the tactic of putting a question to the Leader of the Opposition based on the privacy bill that she has before the House. I believe that this tactic of anticipating debate must be wearing thin with you. How many times, Mr Speaker, will you allow a question based on the Notice Paper to be debated? That is what it is developing into.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. It is a device that has been used previously. In fact, if having a bill on the Notice Paper prevented questioning about it, it would be a device that would be used time and time again to prevent questioning. The question is appropriate, but I ask the Leader of the Opposition to respond in the terms of her bill and to respond as quickly as possible.
Mrs HICKEY: Mr Speaker, I point out to the Leader of Government Business that the Chief Minister started this ...
Mr Coulter interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Coulter interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business is treading on dangerous ground.
Mrs HICKEY: The Freedom of Information Bill that I introduced recently would oblige government ministers to bring forward evidence of details of such matters as ministerial
Page 2099
travel and government advertising. There is an increasing use of the photographs of ministers in departmental advertising. The face of the Minister for Health Services appeared even on an advertisement to announce the opening times of a private clinic at Palmerston. One wonders whether the minister is doing a spot of moonlighting there. Why did he need his face on the advertisement?
Mr Stone: You are using taxpayers' money with your letters. You have spent over $100 000 so far.
Mrs HICKEY: I will respond to the interjection from the Chief Minister. The advertising done by the opposition, using government expenditure, is to identify the opposition in terms of its role, and my role as the Leader of the Opposition. The case of the Minister for Health Services having his face on advertising for the clinic is quite a different matter.
In 1994, just before the last election, the Country Liberal Party used an advertising agency to make a series of feel-good advertisements. It was the same advertising agency that it used for its own Country Liberal Party electoral advertising. No tender process was undertaken for the government advertising. It was all done under a veil of secrecy, as most of the government's deals are. It does not want to tell Territorians how much it is costing taxpayers. Of course, that secrecy would be prevented under freedom of information legislation.
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Standing order 68 says: No member shall anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper ...' If the member for Barkly is not anticipating debate on what she has on the Notice Paper, I would like you to do some remedial work with me on standing order 68.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that the standing order refers to debate in the Assembly in which a member is not allowed to anticipate. It is quite clear under standing order 110 which relates to questions seeking information from other members: `Questions may be put to a member, not being a minister, relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the Assembly, of which the member has charge'. There are current topical issues such as the way this government spends its money and does not make it public. This is quite appropriate under standing orders. The Leader of the Opposition has carriage of that legislation and is able to discuss it. It is strange that there is one set of rules for the way they play the game ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! You have made your point. There is no point of order. While the Leader of the Opposition maintains her current line, I think she is in order. However, she must be very careful not to go too deeply into the content of her bill. That is something to be kept for when that bill comes before the House in August. In the meantime, I believe she is in order at this stage.
Mrs HICKEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No tender process was undertaken with regard to those feel-good advertisements. We see another series of them coming, a $50 000 push for Territory Day. One wonders if that is not a prelude ...
Mr Stone: And what is wrong with that?
Page 2100
Mrs HICKEY: It is wonderful in terms of exposing Territory life and putting Territorians forward, but one has to wonder in what juxtaposition it is placed with regard to the Country Liberal Party's aims and objectives in getting its election manifesto up. That, together with a failure to disclose travel costs, ranks ...
Mr Stone: We tell you how much we spend.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs HICKEY: Advertising and travel costs rank as 2 of the Country Liberal Party administration's most smelly practices. Under freedom of information legislation, those matters would be exposed to public scrutiny. Freedom of information legislation in the Northern Territory would provide taxpayers with the opportunity to make their own decisions about whether this government is doing things in the proper way. It is time the government acknowledged that we need freedom of information legislation, but I personally will not hold my breath while we wait for it. I believe that the fellows opposite are not interested in allowing Territorians to see what really happens behind the scenes. They are not interested in giving Territorians the opportunity to examine the practices that Country Liberal Party administrations have followed for the last 23 years. It is a disgrace.
Freedom of information legislation, privacy legislation and whistleblower legislation are proper devices of the democratic system, enjoyed by Australians in all other jurisdictions in this country. This government propounds its basis as being one of honesty and open government. That is nonsense.
Mr COULTER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I draw your attention to standing order 144 of the House of Representatives and our own standing order 68 from which I will quote in order that you may give a ruling. I want to take this up with you in the Chamber at a later date. Standing order 68 says:
No member shall anticipate the discussion of any
subject which appears on the Notice Paper: provided
that, in determining whether a discussion is in order
or not in order on the ground of anticipation, regard
shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the
matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly
within a reasonable time.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is doing exactly that. She is absolutely out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has just about completed her answer. She did perhaps stray a little towards the end. However, numerous precedents have been set in this House by government members asking questions about bills on the Notice Paper. In the past, it has been allowed, and I am not prepared to rule one way for one side of the House and another way for the other. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is about to finish her remarks.
Mrs HICKEY: It is very interesting to see the response of members opposite when they are faced with having to sit quietly - which, of course, they do not - and listen to the
Page 2101
answer to a question in a courteous manner. They are unable to do it. It is a case of 3 strikes and you are out. The Leader of Government Business has exposed his abysmal lack of knowledge of standing orders.
I conclude by saying that Territorians are very interested in this issue. For years, they have seen the way in which this government uses taxpayers' money to advance its own political cause. They have had enough of it. They are saying to us very clearly - at their doors, in public forums and at any other meetings that we care to attend - that they want these people exposed. They know they are smelly and they want them exposed. They want the democratic mechanisms that all other Australians enjoy. We are in the dark ages in the Northern Territory compared with the rest of the country. I believe that freedom of information legislation should be enacted.
Page 2102
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016