Grievance Debate

Electoral Reform

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:05): The government stands condemned today, as it has for five years, for this dodgy practice of using dodgy how-to-votes at elections. I was elected in 2010, and it was done in Morialta and it was done in three other seats, including the member for Mawson's seat. Today, in the District Court, Her Honour Judge McIntyre has found in favour of the defendant—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order from the Minister for Transport.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Might not the member for Morialta—to quote the member for Morialta—be imputing improper motives on the member for Mawson?

The SPEAKER: That is a bogus point of order and under the sessional order I remove the Minister for Transport for the next 15 minutes.

The honourable member for Lee having withdrawn from the chamber:

Mr GARDNER: The Liberal Party is all too familiar with the dodgy tactics that are always used by this government that have been used over and over again. It happened in 2010 and it happened—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: For the second and final time.

Mr GARDNER: —in 2014 and today—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is suspended for the next half-hour under the sessional order.

The honourable member for Wright having withdrawn from the chamber:

Mr GARDNER: Today, Her Honour Judge McIntyre has belled the cat. Judge McIntyre has described the case that on 28 March 2010, page 24 of the Sunday Mail, contained an article about the plaintiff, Sandra De Poi, the then partner of the Minister for Tourism, the member for Mawson, under the headline 'Bignell's partner's $10 million bonanza'. The plaintiff said that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the article, together with the photograph, are that:

She obtained substantial financial benefit through her close ALP connections and thereby demonstrated that she lacks integrity;

She knowingly engaged in and placed herself at the centre of dishonest electoral practices;

She was one of the main instigators of dishonest electoral practices. which conduct is consistent with her past history of preparedness to place herself in conflict of interest in her professional relationships with a view to financial benefit;

There are reasonable grounds to suspect her of having breached the code of conduct of the Australian Institute of Company Directors by having placed herself at the centre of dishonest electoral practices.

So alleged Sandra De Poi against the Sunday Mail that they had so defamed her. Today, the finding is that they did not defame her. They did not defame her for several reasons. The findings, in particular—

The SPEAKER: Member for Morialta, I think you will find that the finding was that they defamed her but there was a defence.

Mr GARDNER: I will quote the finding, If you like, sir:

1. The imputations pleaded in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.5 of the third statement of claim are not established.

2. The defendant has justified the imputation at paragraph 5.4 of the Statement of Claim—

The SPEAKER: Justification—favourite defence.

Mr GARDNER: Yes, truth is a defence, sir.

The SPEAKER: Indeed.

Mr GARDNER: It goes on:

—that the plaintiff knowingly engaged in and placed herself at the centre of dishonest electoral practices and in 5.6 that she placed herself at the centre of dishonest electoral practices.

Accordingly the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

This is of a piece with a range of dishonest electoral practices conducted by the Labor Party over a series of years. It has happened in the most recent by-election. The Labor Party was the only party that the Electoral Commissioner found against during the Davenport by-election.

We only need to go back a year to those flyers, 'Can you trust Habib?' The member for Elder stands condemned for conducting a racist campaign against the Liberal candidate for Elder in that campaign—a shameful campaign that in fact Labor members interstate have had the guts and the gumption to label, to bell the cat, as racist in that campaign. The member for Elder should stand condemned for that—

Ms DIGANCE: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Member for Elder.

Ms DIGANCE: I don't appreciate being referred to as racist, member for Hammond.

The SPEAKER: Can the member for Elder nominate which member of the opposition referred to her as a racist?

Ms DIGANCE: The member for Hammond.

An honourable member: All of them.

Ms DIGANCE: Yes, probably all of them in turn. The member for Hammond at this particular point.

The SPEAKER: Did the member for Hammond refer to the member for Elder as a racist?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I did, sir.

Mr WILLIAMS: We're all guilty, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop. Would any other members like to volunteer that they referred to the member for Elder as a racist?

Mr PISONI: I have referred to the member for Elder as a racist in previous speeches, and I stand by it, sir.

Mr Marshall: So have I, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond, the leader, MacKillop. Would anyone else like to subscribe? I call upon the members for Unley, Hammond, the leader, and MacKillop to apologise. The member for Chaffey wants to be included?

Mr WHETSTONE: Absolutely.

The SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. Would any of those members like to apologise?

An honourable member: No.