MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Debate resumed.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:43): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hopefully, we have some aspirants to come into the parliament one day. I am pleased to indicate my support for this motion. Representatives on the committee of inquiry, chaired by the Hon. R.B. Such, member for Fisher, were myself and the Hon. Robert Lawson (some years ago now). A recommendation came from that committee, established with the blessing of the then premier, the Hon. Mr Rann, to identify and recognise the importance of the standards by which members of parliament should abide.

Members may not be aware that at that time the government had announced that it was going to have a high level of integrity and accountability. Indeed, the premier had announced that there were going to be new standards and a new regime imposed on his ministers, and codes of conduct were implemented.

In fact, since that time, there were other announcements made by the then premier, such as that we would have high degrees of transparency and that there would be a new regime for the disclosure of cabinet documents. We know now, as we have been under the Labor government for over 10 years, how difficult it is to get documents. We have a situation where, despite being an environment in which the government had applauded the high level of standards of accountability, it still consistently refused, year after year, having presented this report to the parliament, and there was a resistance to adopt a statement of principles.

The committee, under the stewardship of the member for Fisher, had undertaken its work. It came back with what I would call a minimalist approach. There was no recommendation in that report for any body to be established to exercise any discipline of members who were in breach of any code of conduct or, as we recommended, a statement of principles, because there was a clear recognition that the responsibility of members was to their electorate and that the final arbiter of the conduct of the members would and should continue to be in their hands, with the right to dismiss them from office at elections.

It is important to be consistent here because we were not suggesting that there be some execution squad, some permanent committee who would be able to either exercise any discipline or have any powers of suspension. That is left in the course of the parliament to you, Madam Speaker, and to the President in another place, to ensure the orderly management of the houses and, ultimately, sanctions of this parliament for disorderly behaviour. In the end, the real arbiter is the people, and that is also consistent with the principle on parliamentary privilege.

Often, parliamentary privilege is floated in the general public as something that is the right of protection of individual members of parliament; nothing could be further from the truth. It is not something that is used as some barricade or defence against the defamation action, it is a privilege of the people of South Australia to ensure that their member will come into this house and, without fear or favour, can speak on their behalf and represent them. That is the privilege: to make sure that the people of South Australia have a voice in here and that they are protected against the barriers of suffocation which would apply if their member of parliament were not able to come here and speak freely. It is a privilege of the people that must be protected.

Similarly, the government, inconsistent with doing nothing about this aspect, said it was important that we have a code of conduct for people who become lobbyists after they leave the parliament. Similar to this question of any potential conflict of interest, the rules that apply to members of parliament who leave this house, especially if they have been a minister, state that they have to do a number if things if they want to become a lobbyist. They have to register in the Premier's office (I think that is still the case) if they are to become a lobbyist.

We read in the paper that the Hon. Kevin Foley, former treasurer of this state, has recently become a lobbyist. Good luck to him. Poor chap probably cannot get a job, but anyway, good luck to him in his new capacity. He is going to operate his position. He is self-employed. I think it is a private proprietary limited company that he has established, and good luck to him. He has listed a number of clients. The code of conduct for lobbyists states that they are not allowed to represent or act as a lobbyist for someone who they have had dealings with during the time of their administration as a minister.

Mr Foley has been the minister for defence and the treasurer less than two years within the time frame that is required by that code of conduct. So it is important that, when we have this situation and we have a code of conduct, it is enforced. The member for Fisher did not refer to this and I will just say again that, in that instance, the former treasurer had been a minister yet he has listed on his lobbyists register of interests and peak parties he is representing the Australian Submarine Corporation. So it is important that we comply with these codes of conduct if they come in.

The behaviour of members of parliament, largely, under these statements of principle relates to conflicts of interest that are specified here, and they are important to be considered. We have a Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1983 in this state, and I think most parliaments around the country recognise the importance of having disclosure. When that came in, members might recall, there was quite a bit of controversy about whether partners, lovers, wives, de factos, boyfriends or girlfriends, or members of family should be involved in the obligation to disclose, but I think it is fair to say that the public insists on a level of disclosure to ensure that it is well known before votes and debates take place in this house.

So it is the minimalist model. There is no disciplinary action that flows from it. It has been sitting around for years. I applaud the member for Fisher for introducing it. I am stunned that the former Labor administration under Mike Rann did not act on it for all those years, and I am more particularly concerned that the new Weatherill regime also has not taken this up. I cannot understand why he or his representative is not here in the parliament saying, 'Thank you, member for Fisher, for bringing this forward, because I am now overseeing a new era. The Weatherill era is going to be transparent and accountable and responsive and listen to the people of South Australia and recognise the importance of full and frank disclosure to them.'

We have heard all the speeches about there being a new paradigm, yet the one group that is offering to be bound by a set of standards is not taking it up. I just find the whole thing so inconsistent, almost hypocritical, when statements are made on the one hand and here is an opportunity to embrace something that is completely consistent with that, yet we have silence from both the former government and the new government regime on this issue.

I think I recall the Hon. Rob Lawson talking about these principles in terms of their being like the Ten Commandments. There are lots of other laws that sit behind the Ten Commandments in the Christian world that actually enforce those commandments. Of course, in our legal system, 'Thou shalt not kill' sits behind myriad pieces of legislation relating to the homicide, manslaughter, murder or unlawful killing of a fellow human being. That point needs to be taken into account.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.