Motions

State Government Expenditure

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:56): I move:

That this council notes costs incurred by the state government in opposing decisions and policies of the federal government.

The reason I have moved this motion in the last sitting week of parliament is that on 22 November I read a statement from Premier Weatherill that filled me with some foreboding. He was recorded in The Advertiser as saying boldly:

Premier Jay Weatherill yesterday threatened to launch a taxpayer-funded attack on the Federal Government, as political bickering escalated over whether the Murray Darling Basin Plan is being eroded.

I am sure members will recall that, over recent years in periods leading up to state elections and by-elections, this state government has been quite happy to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money as it sees fit to further its own party political interests at particular times. We have seen, on a rough count, more than $4 million being spent on various advertising campaigns over those last few years: $1.1 million on an anti-federal government pensioner concessions campaign, $1.1 million on a Federal Cuts Hurt campaign, $1.2 million on a More Than Cars campaign, and $500,000 on the submarine procurement issue. I am sure that does not include all the taxpayer-funded political campaigns that the government has engaged upon.

The first thing I would say in relation to these issues is that it is entirely the prerogative of the state government of the day to campaign against decisions a federal government takes which it believes are not in the public interest of the people of South Australia, and it has considerable resources, without resorting to taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns, with which it can do that. It has an army of spin doctors and other staff. It obviously has the resources of their own taxpayer-funded ministers and almost unlimited access to free media in South Australia to prosecute their case on talkback radio, television news, radio news, digital media, etc., that a decision that the federal government might have taken, in their view, might not be in the public interest.

The state Liberal Party, under the strong leadership of Steven Marshall, the member for Dunstan, has, on a number of occasions, expressed our strongly differing views on some decisions that have been taken by the federal government which we believe were not in the best interests of the people of South Australia.

For example, in the period leading up to 2014 we opposed the range of cuts that were made in the health portfolio during that period, and said so publicly and on any number of occasions. In relation to the submarine issue, on occasions when it appeared that there was the possibility that a decision unfavourable to South Australia might have eventuated, Steven Marshall and the state Liberal Party expressed a fiercely partisan South Australian view in terms of supporting both shipbuilding and submarine building in South Australia.

There is nothing wrong with a government or a political party in South Australia fiercely arguing in a partisan way for what it believes to be in the public interest for the people of South Australia. However, where the line should be drawn and has not been drawn is where Premier Weatherill in particular and the state Labor government generally have been more than prepared to engage in large-scale taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns, and I will refer to one of those later on, which in some cases are clearly misleading and dishonest in terms of their content.

It has not just been in that area; there have been other criticisms that have been raised publicly at the Budget and Finance Committee, where again, contrary to the government's own guidelines, we have seen either premier Rann or Premier Weatherill breaching those guidelines by the circulation of documents, such as, in the period leading up to the last state election, the Riverbank experience document. A glossy, full colour Adelaide Oval document was circulated in some marginal seats, which included full colour photographs of the Premier of the day arguing all the good things they believed were being done by the state Labor government for the people of South Australia.

There have also been other abuses. In the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Bill I referred to one particular outrageous example of an abuse of a public sector database, where, in the period leading up to the last state election, the Labor Party and the government circulated a copy of the Labor Party policy, approved and endorsed by the state secretary of the Labor Party, no less, to all members on the education department database. It did not even pretend to be a Weatherill government document. It was approved and endorsed by the state secretary of the Labor Party.

A copy of the education policy of the Labor Party was circulated to all teachers and SSOs and others within the education sector database. I expressed some concerns, in the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Bill, about the potential for an amalgamation of these sorts of databases to allow a captive market for a premier of the day who was quite prepared to abuse access to those databases with party political material.

I want to refer now to an even more outrageous example from only the last few days, an email from Premier Jay Weatherill, dated 1 December, so last Thursday, to, I think, all staff in the public sector. It was not just an email received by a section of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. This email is entitled 'An economy in transition'. It is offensive enough in one respect, but we have seen a number of these before, where the Premier of the state argues to their public servants, who are a captive market because they are on the database of the government, about all the wonderful things, according to the government, they have done: how many new jobs they have created, how employment is growing, the biggest mines, tourism is growing. It is a political spin, as best as the government can make it, about how well the state is doing and about how well the government is doing.

What is even more offensive in relation to this particular government advertising program, this email from the Premier to staff, is that he launches a full frontal attack on Steven Marshall and the Liberal Party in an email from the Premier of the state to all public servants in the public sector. It starts with:

Despite this, Steven Marshall and the Liberals have spent much of the year opposed to just about everything. He claimed to support investigating increasing our participation in the nuclear fuel cycle, but bailed before the views of the broader South Australian community were considered. He complained about investing in renewable energy but offered no alternative policy other than to continue using coal. He bemoaned rising energy prices, but then announced a 10 year moratorium on fracking in South Australia.

Again, this is dishonest because the Premier tells all the public servants that it was a moratorium on fracking in the whole of the state when clearly it was limited to the South-East of South Australia. He goes on:

He opposed abolishing stamp duties for businesses and families—

again, an outright lie; that was never the position of Steven Marshall and the Liberals—

but then called for us to bring them forward. Put simply, Steven Marshall has offered no real plans or real leadership in 2016. His policy document 2036 is evidence of that.

It is just appalling that we could have a Premier of the state and a government that feels so immune to criticism and so arrogant as to say, 'We really don't care. We are going to use every device, every facility, every mechanism and every media outlet we have at our disposal to smash the hell out of Steven Marshall and the Liberal Party and to portray ourselves in the best possible light.'

I have been in this chamber, in government or in opposition, for many years. I do not think I can ever recall such a blatantly political public sector email from the Premier of the state bagging the opposing leader and political party. That is what we the opposition or minor parties and Independents are up against when we are considering what this government, what this Premier, is prepared to do using taxpayer funds in their own interests.

I want to turn to the most outrageous example in terms of paid advertising, which was the Federal Cuts Hurt campaign. I am going to seek leave to conclude my remarks in February, but what has been revealed in relation to this is appalling, and I suspect there is more to come in relation to this particular campaign.

What it indicates is a premier in Premier Weatherill and a government that are willing to do and say almost anything in its own partisan political interests. It is in my view the worst example of abuse of the government's own guidelines that we have seen thus far. I think, when all the details of the Federal Cuts Hurt campaign hopefully, at some stage, see the light of day prior to March 2018, all people will be horrified at the extent to which the Premier and his supporters are prepared to go in terms of their own partisan political interests.

I remind members of the report that was written, after questions had been raised about this campaign, by the Auditor-General in November 2015, titled Government Marketing Communications Report. This was the independent Auditor-General. If I have any criticism of this Auditor-General and others it certainly will not be strong, but I think they could and should go harder in relation to the criticisms of some of the outrages and abuses that they uncover in their reports. Nevertheless, this is the audit conclusion on page 2 where the Auditor-General says:

We did find that the Federal Cuts Hurt campaign, the most controversial campaign we reviewed, and which cost $1.18 million, was inherently for a political purpose as it pertained to the State, its government and policy. We did not find it was for a party political purpose. It was this campaign in particular that highlighted weaknesses in existing guidelines.

I respectfully strenuously disagree with the Auditor-General's conclusion that he did not find it was for a party political purpose, and I will outline that in a moment. At the very least, he concluded that it was the 'most controversial campaign' and was 'inherently for a political purpose as it pertained to the state, its government and policy'. On pages 3 and 4, the Auditor-General's summary of audit findings on this Federal Cuts Hurt campaign said:

…following a change to the originally planned second phase of the campaign, it was not evident how the campaign met its original objectives to engage with the community on solutions and decision-making…

The report shows that there had been—and I forget the correct advertising phrase—an explanation of the purpose of the campaign, which was originally given to the committee. The Auditor-General is highlighting that the end was changed in terms of the purpose, and he is reporting that he did not believe the campaign met its original objectives to engage with the community on solutions and decision-making. Clearly, that was just a ruse to supposedly get it through the guidelines, if that was the purpose of the campaign.

The purpose of the campaign was to belt hell out of our federal Liberal government. The purpose of the campaign was to try to set up a battle between a state Labor premier who wanted to portray himself as a fearless warrior and advocate on behalf of South Australia, taking on the terrible monster of the federal Liberal government and, by association, to also attack the state Liberal Party because part of their campaign was to try to link Steven Marshall and the state Liberals with the federal Liberals during that particular campaign period.

As I said, I strenuously disagree with the Auditor-General's understanding and final assessment that it was not party political. It had to be party political, and it was the only reason why the state government engaged in. As the Auditor-General said in his own findings, 'I couldn't see how it was actually meeting the original objective which was to engage with the community on solutions and decision-making.' Anyone who can recall those advertisements would know that there was no engagement with the community about solutions and decision-making. It was finger-pointing; it was blame directed towards a political party, which happened to be the same political party as his political opponents in South Australia at that particular time. On page 4 of his audit finding, the Auditor-General said:

…a reasonable person could interpret the message as being on behalf of a political party where advertising focuses on another tier of government held by an opposing political party and features images of the Premier on the advertised website…

There is a colloquial expression, and I will not use the colloquial expression that Barnaby Joyce used recently, but there are no surprises there. The quote continues:

However, the campaign was clearly identified as a state government campaign and did not include any political party references or identification…

All that says is: it did not say 'Jay Weatherill', neither did it say 'Labor Party' nor 'Liberal Party'. It just referred to the Premier and the state government against the federal government. But everyone knows, without the use of the words 'Labor' and 'Liberal', that the federal government was a Liberal one and the state government was a Labor one, and the state Labor government was opposing a Liberal Party, which, by association, clearly was in the same party as the federal Liberal government at the time. Finally, the Auditor-General in his report states:

…the use of emotive language [in the commercials] is inconsistent with the objectivity criteria in the 'maintenance of high standards' requirements of the guidelines. This reasonably contributes to the perception that this advertising has political motivation rather than providing information to the public in an objective manner…

Once again, there are no surprises there. The Auditor-General says, 'Look, I've looked at this commercial. The use of emotive language is inconsistent with the objectivity criteria'—that is, you have to maintain high standards—'and it reasonably contributes to the perception that it has a political motivation rather than providing information'.

The Auditor-General found that it contributed to the perception that it has political motivation yet in his audit conclusion says, 'Whilst it was inherently for a political purpose, we did not find it was for a party political purpose.' I think that is sophistry in its extreme, but putting that aside, my criticism is not directed at the Auditor-General; it is directed at the Premier, the Weatherill Labor government and all its fellow travellers.

In concluding my remarks this afternoon—as I said, I will seek leave to conclude my remarks in February—these abuses by Premier Weatherill and the Weatherill Labor government can only occur if the government implants in the appropriate sections of its department key people in key positions. Mr Acting President, you and other members will have often heard me talk about the Labor government parachuting their fellow travellers, former ministerial staffers, Labor Party contacts and Labor Party supporters into key positions in the public sector. I do not do that just as a passing interest; there is a deliberate intent and purpose in many of these appointments.

When you look at how campaigns like this get up and going, you need key people in departments like the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. At that time, the Weatherill government had managed to get some key people into key positions. Mr Paul Flanagan and Mr Rik Morris, former key staffers under Labor governments over many years, under both premier Rann and Premier Weatherill, held key positions in the communications advisory section of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

There is a committee, PCAG, that looks after the advertising guidelines for advertising campaigns. At varying stages, both Mr Flanagan and Mr Morris had influence as key people within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet but, in terms of communication strategy overall, they had responsibility. Over the last 12 months or however long it has been, another former Labor Party staffer, Mr Kym Winter-Dewhirst has been parachuted into the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. At varying stages, you have had Mr Flanagan and Mr Morris and now you have Mr Winter-Dewhirst. Mr Flanagan has gone, but another government staffer from another ministerial office has been parachuted into the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Why is that important? It is important because you need people in the public sector in key positions who have the same willingness as the Premier of the State of South Australia to use public funds to further the interests of the Weatherill Labor government in South Australia. In and of itself, it is not sufficient for the Premier to say, 'I want to spend $1 million plus on a Federal Cuts Hurt campaign.' He needs key people in key positions in his department to help implement that particular program and policy.

That is why some of these decisions, in terms of having people like Mr Flanagan, Mr Morris and others—and now Mr Winter-Dewhirst—in these key positions is important. As has been demonstrated, in terms of the breaches of the advertising guidelines which the Auditor-General has found and which we have highlighted on any number of occasions in relation to some of these campaigns, the Premier and the government, with the complicity, support or active action in some cases of some of these Labor Party staffers in key positions, have been prepared to bend where it is required and break where it is required the rules of engagement, the accepted rules of public accountability, the accepted rules of how taxpayers' money should be spent and how it should be accounted for.

We have seen perfect examples of this with this outrageous abuse of the Federal Cuts Hurt campaign that has been highlighted not just by the Auditor-General but by other information that has come to light and that will come to light. When you have a situation where Premier Weatherill and the government say to key people, 'Jump,' some of these people are prepared to say, 'How high?' Their loyalty to the cause, and their loyalty to the re-election of the Weatherill Labor government, knows no bounds.

My criticism is almost solely directed at the Premier and the key ministers who drive this process, but in the end, if there are senior public servants as former Labor Party staffers who have been complicit in implementing some of these policies and guidelines, they too must accept their share of criticism. With that, I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.