Senator FAULKNER (12:45 PM) —Today I want to outline how, through a national network of second ministerial media officers and support staff, the Howard government has established a nationwide media monitoring network.

From the outset I wish to make it clear that we have always taken the view that the discretion for allocating personal staff and their responsibilities lies with the government of the day. Provided the agreed ratio of government to opposition staff is maintained, we accept that government staffers can be tasked for a wide variety of responsibilities. What we object to in relation to the government's second media offices is the dishonest, shady and secretive manner in which the government established and maintained them. What we object to is the cant and hypocrisy of coalition frontbenchers who had so much to say about the National Media Liaison Service and the Ministerial Media Group when we were in government but who now sit silently at the table during Senate estimates, refusing to admit what the rest of the country now knows: that the Howard government, from the moment it was elected to office, established a nationwide media monitoring unit; that this unit was established in secrecy, in many cases funded unknowingly by the home departments of junior ministers allocated second media officers; that this unit, although the government denies its existence, reports directly to the office of the Prime Minister and has recently been doubled in size, presumably in anticipation of an impending federal election; and that this unit monitors opposition spokespersons and state premiers around Australia and provides material directly to ministers and also directly to the Liberal Party in Menzies House—all at taxpayers' expense, without so much as an announcement or an appropriation that can be scrutinised by the parliament.

This government came to power promising leaner government. They boasted of reducing ministerial staff levels by 30 per cent. As an opposition, we copped the corresponding decrease in our own numbers sweet. As long as the ratio of government to opposition personal staff at 21 per cent was maintained, we would not have complained. However, what has really happened to government staffing levels is that they have risen from 292 to 326.5—an increase of 34.5. Departmental liaison officers are now at a record level of 67. Consultants working directly for, chosen by and reporting to ministers have been charged to departments. The cases of Mr Mansfield, Dr Webster and Dr Davies are classic examples of this occurring.

Neither departmental liaison officers nor consultants are part of the government-opposition ratio, allowing the government to ratchet up their personal staffs without providing additional resources to the opposition. As well, the classification levels of many MOPS staff have been increased. The spirit of the agreement, which was supposed to maintain a nexus between government and opposition staff, has been broken by a government which promised loudly in opposition that things would be different. There is no better example of this sneaky, Nixonian sort of operation of the government than the establishment of their secret, nationwide media monitoring unit.

Labor abolished the government information unit when we came to office in 1983 because of concerns about the appropriateness of many of the roles that it attempted to simultaneously perform. Instead, we established the National Media Liaison Service and the Ministerial Media Group, with separate functions—aNiMaLS to disseminate information about government programs and policies, and the MMG to carry out more overtly political media tasks for ministers.

Whatever criticisms the then opposition may have had of our arrangements, they cannot deny that our media activities were established quite openly, with clear appropriations. They had published guidelines to govern their conduct. Indeed, senators Kemp and Abetz spent many hours in estimates questioning officials and ministers to satisfy themselves that these units functioned according to these guidelines. Nevertheless, this did not prevent the coalition promising that, when they came to power, things would be different. Total staff numbers would fall, government would be leaner and there would be no media monitoring or, as Senator Kemp labelled them `political hit squads financed by the taxpayer'. Indeed, Senator O'Chee stood in this chamber, during a debate on the National Media Liaison Service, on 7 June 1995 and said:

. . . we would cut back on some of the government's taxpayer-funded self-promotion, because this money—and this is typical of Labor bureaucracies—which is detailed here, does not go to delivering a service; it goes to making the government look good.

Imagine our surprise when, upon the coalition coming to government, we chanced upon the appointment of the so-called `second media officers'. All coalition ministers—cabinet and outer ministry alike—were allocated one press secretary. And then six ministers, apparently randomly, were allocated a second—and most of them were junior ministers. In no instance could we establish what particular circumstances warranted a second media officer for Senator Vanstone, Mr Reith, Mr Williams, Mr Smith, Mr Ruddock and Mr Jull.

What about Mr Williams, for example? His duties were considered so light that he earns the dubious distinction of being one of the first attorneys since Federation not to sit in the cabinet. Yet the Prime Minister felt it necessary to approve a second media officer for him—and Mr Ruddock, Mr Smith and Mr Jull, all junior ministers at the time. Why? The opposition could well understand perhaps Senator Vanstone and Mr Reith requiring all of the extra media assistance that they could obtain, given their performance, but why, of all ministers, were these six allocated second media advisers?

It became obvious: one was in New South Wales, one in Victoria, one in Queensland, one in South Australia, one in Western Australia and one in Tasmania, each with a designated home base in the respective state capital city—no public announcement, no appropriation and no line item budget entry. Indeed, the only public announcement by any of the ministers of the appointment of any of these second media staff was a press release by Senator Vanstone. There was no suggestion that this staffer was to perform any role other than that ordinarily carried out by a minister's press officer acting at their direction as a member of the minister's personal staff.

In fact, when the opposition first raised the issue, we were met with a wall of dishonesty. Senator Kemp, in fact, denied that these activities could in any way be equated with aNiMaLS. We know now that in the case of Senator Hill he actually misled the estimates committee on 22 October 1996 when he said quite specifically that the role of the second media officer in Mr Ruddock's office was `To work to, in that instance, Mr Ruddock, to carry on the usual functions of a media officer . . . ' Someone should have told Mark Elliot, Karim Barbara or Sarah Baxter of those facts about that position before Mr Ruddock employed them.

Gradually the truth began to dribble out. On the same day that Senator Hill gave his dishonest assurances that Mr Jull's second media adviser was `to enable Mr Jull to meet a broader requirement of communication within Queensland', Mr Jull was already beginning to fess up to the reality. He qualified Senator Hill's answer by stating:

. . . the entitlement of a second media officer is part of a strategy to provide additional media resources in each state to promote coordination of media relations.

Senator Parer went further during his memorable performance before the estimates committee. We were able to question him directly on 4 June on the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Mr Jull's second media officer to Senator Parer's office. Senator Parer's revelations clearly established that the role of the second media officers was related to the whole of government media monitoring on a state by state basis. But he insisted that the staffer involved—in this case a Mr Ryan—reported to and worked directly to him as a responsible minister.

We asked why. Senator Parer explained that Wik and Century Zinc were issues of particular concern to the people of Queensland and that they fell within his portfolio responsibilities. We know Senator Parer has always his partywide responsibilities extremely seriously. Not only was he able to provide a statewide media monitoring resource for the federal government financed by DAS and his home department, we have since learnt that he apparently provided the stationery resources for the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party.

The opposition is not alone in its sense of paranoia about what this media monitoring unit might be up to. Apparently its activities extend to monitoring the statements of the troublesome and recalcitrant state premiers. In fact, we know that Mr Hanke, the second media adviser on Minister Reith's staff, got a cheerio from Mr Kennett on Neil Mitchell's radio program on 6 November 1997. But when raised in estimates on 12 November 1997, Senator Hill assured us:

We are not running a media monitoring operation of the type with which we are very familiar.

This brings us to Mr Mark Elliot and Miss Sarah Baxter. The memorandum prepared under the signature of Mark Elliot and obtained by the opposition contained absolute proof that the government is maintaining a taxpayer-funded, secret media monitoring unit in every state despite Senator Hill's denials.

The memorandum tells us that Senator Hill's explicit assurance that Mr Ruddock's second media officer works directly for his minister was not true, and that he misled the committee. The memorandum tells us that the baby aNiMaLS staff, in fact, report to the Prime Minister's office and the Liberal Party directly. The memorandum tells us that baby aNiMaLS staff are instructed to ignore requests to carry out work for their employing minister unless they have time. I have outlined in a media release some of the other aspects of this particular operation.

Where did the information go? To the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who employed these people? Of course not. The transcript went directly to the Prime Minister's office to Mr Tony O'Leary. A copy was sent to Mr Lynton Crosby at the Liberal Party federal secretariat.

Senator Kemp, when in opposition, called aNiMaLS a Labor Party rort and a political hit squad. Perhaps some of the people who made these statements will come into the chamber now and explain how Mr Elliot's role is consistent with the outrage that was expressed then. Perhaps Senator Abetz and Senator Hill will also explain their attitude to this situation now that they are in govern ment—a very different attitude to the one they expressed in opposition.

We do not consider media monitoring outrageous but, like all taxpayer funded activity, it should be transparent and accountable. Baby aNiMaLS is not accountable; it has no guidelines; it is shrouded in secrecy and the costs are concealed dishonestly in home departments arbitrarily chosen for their geographical spread. This is something the coalition said it would not do in government. I intend at a later stage to speak at some length about the costs of the six media advisers, the six personal secretaries, that have now been engaged to double the unit resources of this secret media monitoring unit and about a range of other costs that are being borne by taxpayers in this.

We know now, of course, that the operations of the government members secretariat employ 11 full-time staffers. In the media monitoring unit there are an awful lot—24 full-time hacks in total—being employed to support the Liberal Party. These are taxpayer funded political operatives working on media monitoring and campaigning. They got a bagging in the Liberal Party party room yesterday and at the joint party meeting that Mr Howard had to front up to.

I seek leave to table some of the transcripts that give examples of the sort of material that is being provided by these units, one of which highlights John Laws's comment:

Incidentally, it's lucky one of John Howard's `S' words isn't sincerity. . . cause we all remember and it is going to remain around to haunt him. . . in 1995 he said the GST would never, never be part of Liberal Policy.

These are good examples of what is being done by this sleazy, slimy, secret operation on behalf of the Liberal Party. I seek leave to table the material which I have shown to Senator Ian Campbell, for the government.

Leave granted.