Motions

Statement of Principles for Members of Parliament

Debate resumed.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): I rise to speak on the motion of the Attorney-General, which has been supported by the Premier today, and to confirm that it was on 17 July 2003 that we made a contribution to discuss at the time having a select committee to consider by both houses of parliament a code of conduct for members of parliament.

In October 2004 that committee concluded its deliberations and provided a report recommending that there be a statement of principles as outlined in the motion that is before us today. That committee comprised the Hon. John Gazzola (the Chairman), the Hon. Rob Lawson and the Hon. Nick Xenophon of the other place and me and the Hon. John Rau of this chamber. I think that there are only two of us still here in the parliament and, sadly, of course, we have lost the Hon. Bob Such—

Mr Picton: John Gazzola is still here.

Ms CHAPMAN: —not in this chamber—who was the Independent member of that committee. Can I say this: I have not heard, either from the Attorney-General who formally moved this motion that is now before us or from the Premier, as to why, firstly, there was a failure on the part of the government to move this motion ahead when the Hon. Bob Such moved this motion back in 2012, which I spoke to then encouraging the government to post haste move on with this motion and let us have a code of conduct, let us have a statement of principles.

Back in 2004 the Hon. Bob Such made it clear to this house that when we were doing that investigation already six jurisdictions around the country had a code of conduct or similar level of integrity rules that were to apply. He asked the government of the day to consider and support this motion to be progressed, and I am saddened that that was not sufficient to encourage the government to then progress it.

I am sad that he is not here today to be able to see us accept responsibility for what we are here for and to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with these principles to those who elect us to office. I am very saddened by that, and at least we know that Mrs Such, I am sure, will be pleased, to see its passage.

However, just let us consider what happened post 2012 while the Such motion sat languishing on our Notice Paper with a failure of commitment from the government. Since then the newly-appointed Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, His Honour Mr Bruce Lander, prepared an annual report after the first part year of his operation, and he recommended to the parliament that it have a code of conduct.

Again he pointed out in his report—what appeared to be obvious to everyone and we all knew—that there ought to be a code of conduct. He made the observation that Public Service employees, police officers, protective security officers, elected members of local government, employees of local government, ministers of the Crown, all of them, had in one form or another codes of conduct. He made recommendations in his report at that stage back in October, I think it was, 2014, and he subsequently gave evidence to the standing committee of this parliament, the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, setting out his position on that and answering some questions about it.

We had that evidence back on 31 October 2014. When the Premier finally indicated that he would move the motion himself in late 2014—again which languished on the papers before us, again which never got a vote, again which lapsed—we then have another commitment from his government that he is going to advance it. So, we welcome it. It might be 12 years later, but we finally have it.

I wish to place on the record two important pieces of correspondence that I have sought and received from the Attorney-General and from the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption to outline matters relating to what overlap or independence the area of responsibility the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption might have in respect of any misconduct on behalf of a member of parliament. In particular, what involvement, if any, would the commissioner have if there was any finding by a privileges committee of this parliament, for example, that there had been a failure to comply with a statement of principles? I read first the letter of 2 December 2014 from the Attorney-General:

Dear Ms Chapman

I refer to your letter of 21 October 2014 headed 'Statement of Principles—Members of Parliament'.

You have sought clarification of the Government's position on the role of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption ('the Commissioner') in dealing with matters concerning misconduct by a Member of Parliament.

The existence or otherwise of a Statement of Principles or Code of Conduct of Members of Parliament is irrelevant to the exercise of the powers of the Commissioner. A complaint of misconduct made to the Office for Public Integrity and assessed to fall within the definition of maladministration, misconduct or corruption in public administration under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 ('the Act') could be investigated by the Commissioner.

When the Commissioner appeared before the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee on 31 October 2014, he was asked by the Honourable Stephen Wade whether 'if something was misconduct in the general sense by a Parliamentarian, it could be investigated by the Commissioner'. The Commissioner answered, 'I think it could be investigated, but no disciplinary procedure could be taken by me because I don't have that power. It would go to the Privileges Committee to be [dealt] with, I would have thought' (page 12 of the Transcript of 31 October 2014).

As you correctly point out, the decision to take a matter to the Privileges Committee is not made by the Commissioner. However, should the Commissioner determine a complaint about a Member of Parliament to be within the jurisdiction of the Act, the Commissioner could draw the matter to the attention of the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council as the appropriate public authority under Schedule 1 of the Act. The Commissioner could not, however, direct the House of Parliament in relation to the matter (see section 38(4) of the Act).

I hope this has helped clarify the matter.

Yours sincerely

John Rau

Deputy Premier

Attorney-General

The letter from the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption dated 9 December 2015 reads as follows:

Dear Ms Chapman

Statement of Principles for Members of Parliament

Thank you for your letter dated 4 December 2015. I have read the motion proposed by the Attorney-General and the proposed Statement of Principles.

On Tuesday 10 November 2015 I appeared before the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee when the following exchange took place (based upon the draft transcript that I have been provided):

The Presiding Member: I note that at page 51 of your report you raise the issue of codes of conduct for both Parliamentarians and local government. In terms of state Parliamentarians, how would you see that being enabled and, for that matter, monitored. I would have thought that is a role for Parliament itself, and privileges committees generally come to mind.

Mr Lander: I think that's right. This is the only state that doesn't have a code of conduct for its members of parliament, as I understand it. I think that it would be in the public interest that Parliament did adopt a code of conduct or statement of principles, I think it was, that the Premier mentioned in 2014. If Parliament does adopt a statement of principles or a code of conduct it will be for parliament to ensure that its members behave in accordance with that; it won't be for me. I don't want to be seen to usurp the powers of Parliament.¹

I remain of the view I expressed to the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee.

Parliament does, and should, have the power to deal with its own members. Indeed, Section 6 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 ('ICAC Act') provides that:

[n]othing in this Act affects the privileges, immunities or powers of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly or their committees or members.

I am obliged by Section 24 of the ICAC Act to deal with potential issues of corruption, misconduct and maladministration in public administration in particular ways.

Putting aside potential issues of corruption which I would ordinarily investigate or refer to another law enforcement agency to investigate, matters of misconduct or maladministration are to be dealt with by way of:

1. referral to an inquiry agency (being relevantly the Ombudsman or the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment (section 24(2)(a));

2. referral to the public authority concerned (section 24(2)(c)); or

3. Investigation by me using the powers of an inquiry agency (section 24(2)(b)).

First let me say I would not in any circumstances entertain a complaint or report relating to the conduct of a member of Member of Parliament in Parliament. I see that as clearly a matter for the Parliament.

I cannot envisage a matter concerning potential misconduct by a Member of Parliament that I would refer to an inquiry agency. Similarly, while I cannot foreclose the possibility, I think it highly unlikely that I would exercise the powers of an inquiry agency to investigate the conduct of a Member of Parliament. Certainly if it was a matter of potential misconduct or maladministration that was already being considered by Parliament, I would not be minded to interfere.

In the vast majority of cases of potential misconduct and maladministration in public administration, I refer the matter to the relevant public authority pursuant to section 24(2)(c).

Under Schedule 1 of the ICAC Act the public authority responsible for a Member of Parliament is the Member's House. It follows that if a complaint or report were made to the Office for Public Integrity relating to potential misconduct or maladministration concerning a Member of Parliament, I would ordinarily refer the matter to the relevant public authority, which would mean I would be referring the matter to the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council (depending on the House to which the member belongs).

Section 38(4) of the ICAC Act provides:

The Commissioner may not give directions to the to the House of Parliament or the Joint Parliamentary Service Committee in relation to a matter concerning a public officer.

Accordingly, even if I were to refer a matter or potential misconduct or maladministration concerning a Member of Parliament to the relevant House, I could not give any directions to the House concerning that matter. The action to be taken (if any) would be entirely for the House, including the question whether or not the matter ought be taken to the Privileges Committee.

I trust this addresses the matter raised in your letter.

I have no objection to you providing a letter to your Parliamentary colleagues.

Yours sincerely

The Hon. Bruce Lander QC

That is there now in the Hansard for the viewing of any future commissioner upon what one day I am sure will be the retirement of the commissioner—not something that I wish to occur in haste; many of us may go before that occurs—but, in any event, it is clear.

It is not to say that members of this parliament have not been the subject of scrutiny as a result of another role. There was a member of the other place who has in recent years traversed through the criminal prosecution courts, and some would argue, and I would be one of them to say that his involvement in that and subsequent conviction was a matter of great shame for me as a member of parliament to be, I suppose, lumped in that profession with someone who has now been convicted and is paying the price for a heinous crime, and I think it is a sad day when that happens. That is a criminal matter and it is independent of this. This is a separate matter; this is for members of parliament.

Similarly, but not in a criminal element to the extent of child pornography, the ICAC provided a report to this parliament on the Gillman land deal, about which many statements were made in respect of what were findings of maladministration among public servants and very significant criticism of the conduct of at least one minister of the government who is still with us, and the scathing report and findings in respect of the evidence given and the conduct of that minister, particularly toward public servants, is all on the record. It is a matter of record, and it relates to an inquiry in respect of a particular action. And, as a minister of the Crown at the time, namely, the minister for housing and urban development, that minister had to front up to the ICAC commissioner.

I mention both of those because they are recent examples of where there has been scrutiny of persons who are members of this parliament but they have a different role, or they have exercised conduct unbecoming in one area, and criminal in another—which is the best and most kind I could describe them as—of which they have received the appropriate attention of the authorities. I distinguish those, and we all should in this debate, as to action and relation to other authorities that deal with the criminal behaviour of a member of parliament.

Can I just say one other thing while we are commending the Hon. Bob Such for bringing to our attention important law. The Hon. Bob Such was also keen to ensure that we have legislation dealing with the sexting phenomena, which we debated back in 2012 along with this motion. That is, where we were having to deal with people who filmed or distributed images that were humiliating—they were disturbing examples at the time—the Hon. Bob Such urged the government to ensure that we have legislation to protect people against revenge texting and the like.

One thing he said at the time—and I supported him in this house, as did the Hon. Stephen Wade—was: 'Be careful when you draft this legislation that you don't inadvertently capture children who are offenders.' We do treat our children differently when they are offenders: we have a youth criminal justice system; we give them a fair go; we give them a second chance; and we treat them differently. And we should. The Hon. Bob Such was very strong on that point, and I endorse his comments which I have heard so many times outlined in this house.

It is a great disappointment to me that here we are again, an announcement was made by the government in the dying days of last year—I think it was 30 December, actually—when the Attorney-General finally said, 'Yes, I want to deal with revenge sexting, and I'm also going to tidy up this issue of how we might capture children who will end up on the Child Sex Offenders list.' He made a public statement at the time that there was no child on that list yet, thankfully, but that when he dealt with revenge texting he would do it; he would tidy this up so that we would make sure that children who were stupid in doing something were not unfairly put on the list.

The submissions finished on 5 February on the public consultation list, and we still do not have a bill from the Attorney-General. It is one thing to say that we recognise the significance or contributions of past members of parliament who have brought worthy recommendations to the parliament, outlined a persuasive case to justify legislative reform asking a government to act on it, and then years later it is not even dealt with, and I think that is shameful. I hope that the government wake up to themselves and advance not just this motion but the legislation in respect of revenge sexting and ensure that, when our children act stupidly they receive punishment, but are not branded with being listed on the Child Sex Offenders Register for life, which they do not deserve. May Bob rest in peace.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (12:22): I rise today to support the statement of principles being proposed which is designed to ensure that all state parliamentarians, current and future, are held to a standard which is beyond reproach and which benefits the high standards that we are expected to hold as legislators, representatives and community leaders. The statement has been put by the government today which follows on from its longstanding commitment to ensure that members of this house, as part of a package of anticorruption reforms, ensure the integrity of this parliament.

This included a rewrite of the Development Act to make our planning system more transparent, a bill to regulate the dealings with business and lobbyists, and changes to improve the transparency of parliamentarian remuneration. These build on past successes of the government in this area, including the introduction of an Independent Commission Against Corruption and political donation reform.

It is only 12 months that I have been a parliamentarian, and while I have been strongly connected to service to my community—both as a registered nurse for 30 years this August and as a volunteer, community activist and advocate where, funnily enough, I have written many codes of conduct for various purposes—becoming a parliamentarian has not been a deliberate lifelong journey for me which makes me a little different to many in this place. However, it really is of no surprise to family and friends that I have arrived here, and also of no surprise to them that I openly declare my own statement of personal values to constituents on a regular basis.

I make this declaration often as a way of reassuring the many people who loved my predecessor, Dr Bob Such MP, that in me they also have a person of principles: a person who will be honest; a person who is transparent; and a person who will listen. They know I cannot always do everything exactly as they would all like it to be done—that is impossible. We cannot possibly please everybody all of the time, but they do know that I will not be compromised, and I will always maintain the highest degree of integrity wherever I am serving them. This is important in all electorates, and definitely important in Fisher.

I am aware it has been a long journey towards getting to this point here today where we are discussing this statement of principles with a joint committee on a code of conduct first proposed in a motion in 2004. With this, I would like to acknowledge the hard work undertaken by many members to deliver the statement, especially Dr Such, who was eager to see the statement put in place. I know he would have been very happy to see it being presented to the house today. Dr Such was a crusader for parliamentary integrity. He wanted to see our parliament have the highest possible standing in the community and it must be with a mixture of deep pride and sadness (which I understand) that Lyn Such (Dr Such's loving wife) sits as a witness to the debate on these very important principles.

The considerations first put as terms of reference which first guided the joint committee are important to reinforce, that is, integrity of the parliament, the primacy of public interest over the furthering of private interests, disclosure of interest, conflicts of interest, independence of action, use of entitlements and public resources, honesty to parliament and the public, proper relations with ministers and the Public Service, confidentiality of information, government contracts, and duties of a member of parliament. All of those I have no trouble following.

It is worth assessing today whether we have a statement which meets its goals as initially outlined. I will be supporting the statement as I believe it does meet these goals. The statement defends the integrity of parliament by a strong set of clauses which details members' duties in relation to interests, the protection of information, ensuring that public resources are not used for private benefit, and ensuring that they behave in a manner befitting an MP in this place while not restricting free debate.

The proposed statement of principles provides MPs with guidelines on their conduct in parliament and in their public life generally. This should, of course, also cover behaviours in the media, social media particularly. It is not intended to be a comprehensive code of conduct regulating the behaviour of MPs given that MPs are already subject to comprehensive laws and rules, nor will it be enforceable against MPs. Instead, this statement of principles aims to provide MPs with a reference point to assist in the discharge of their duties and to educate the public of the duties and obligations of MPs. For the seat of Fisher and Bob Such, I commend the motion to the house.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:27): I also rise today to support the motion and to touch on briefly what the Premier alluded to. It is extremely important, as members of parliament, that we discharge our duty with the utmost honour, and it is quite a significant honour that is bestowed on all of us. I also acknowledge Mrs Such in the gallery and also all of the fantastic work that the late Hon. Bob Such did in this area.

We are here to serve the people we represent in South Australia and it is extremely important that this place attracts the best and brightest minds to politics and that there is a clear set of guidelines. As the member for Bragg pointed out, we have been talking about this issue for many years. The government has been slow to implement these principles that we have been calling for, and Dr Such had been calling for, for some time. You do have to ask the question: why has it taken the government so long to do something about such an important area?

We have seen a number of issues in recent times raise this exact concept of a statement of principles. Obviously, we had an ICAC investigation this year into the Gillman land sale where there were several findings in respect of the behaviour of many on the opposite side of the chamber. That particular example made it crystal clear to the government, and to us, that a statement of principles was needed. It is better late than never but I have no doubt that this will be an important step in making sure that all MPs will be held accountable for what they do.

The statement of principles touches on many fundamental important themes such as accountability, honesty, how members conduct themselves in political parties and outside, conflicts of interest, what is a conflict of interest, what is required if there is a conflict of interest that arises and how to act if there is a vested interest in a particular matter.

The statement also covers how to handle gifts and how to utilise public resources for the best use of the community. It covers not only resources but also information. Obviously, from time to time we come across official information that is not necessarily in the public domain and it is extremely important that, as members of parliament, we utilise that information for the best reason and for the public. The statement also covers freedom of speech. Obviously, we do have certain immunities that other members of the public do not. With that immunity, we need to make sure that we use that tool for the right purposes. If this statement of principles helps to crystallise those kinds of issues then I am more than happy to support it.

The government before this government did propose a code of conduct and, as the member for Bragg alluded to, there was a joint committee of the parliament that was convened, I think, in 2003-04. That committee recommended a statement of principles rather than a particular code of conduct. It seems like the Premier's motion is very similar, if not the same, as what was recommended by that committee 10 years earlier.

The ICAC commissioner, Bruce Lander, in his 2013-14 annual report recommended that there be this kind of code of conduct. I am led to believe that South Australia has fallen behind the rest of Australia, because in many other states these kinds of statement of principles or codes of conduct exist. Obviously, parliament does and parliament should have the power to deal with its own members in respect of their behaviour. Overall, I am disappointed that it has taken the government so long to react to this; however, better late than never. I am happy to support what is a good motion.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (12:32): I rise to speak today on this statement of principles for members of parliament, a move that goes to the heart of what we are all here to do with and for the communities we have the privilege of representing. It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge Ms Lyn Such in the gallery, who is here today to see and hear her much-loved late husband's legacy being made a reality. I know he would be proud of the work we are doing here today and I thank her for her ongoing commitment to seeing these reforms passed by the house.

This statement of principles is essential to ensuring that the conduct of our parliament and parliamentarians is a reflection of our community's values and expectations. South Australians have a right to the best representation at the highest levels, and we all must uphold the highest standards as we go about our work both in this place and in our South Australian communities. It is a privilege, not a right, to be a parliamentarian and one afforded only to a select few. As such, we have the honour and also the duty to ensure that the way we act in all aspects of our work is reflective of what our community values and wants from us.

As the member for Reynell, I have always felt and now deeply know that one of the most important parts of our job is talking with rather than just talking at our community, listening to our community, reflecting on their views as we do our work and acting with integrity by duly considering those views. Our electorates are the most important interest that we must take into account as we consider the issues affecting our state. I both enjoy and take pride in reflecting with my community on issues that are important to them.

As we all do as members of parliament, I live a very busy life. As I am sure is the case with many other members, I am often kindly asked how I fit it all in and whether I am tired or need a break. My answer is always the same: if I ever do feel tired I go and doorknock or visit a local shopping centre and I am immediately revived by chatting with the many, many good people in my community who spend their time volunteering, looking after people, and giving to others and our community groups, clubs and organisations in many different ways. These people are the lifeblood of our communities and we must always remember that they deserve us at all times to be connected with them, energetic for them, and authentically representing them and their needs, hopes and desires.

The fact that our new statement of principles begins with a reflection of the deep privilege and responsibility that comes with representing our communities with integrity, honesty and authenticity is heartening and it is right. The faith our electorates place in us, and the power they have to remove us from our privileged positions, must be central and paramount to any discussion around standards of behaviour in this place and in our communities.

Our responsibility to the public is of utmost importance to the work that we do here, and we at all times must work in a manner that respects that trust. Our work must be done with honesty and fairness and, it should go without saying, should be subject to the laws of the state and the rules of parliament.

Whilst much of what we are passing today is what I would describe as common sense, it is important that we take time to reflect on our role and on the best way to fulfil that role. Our credibility as members of parliament is judged by how we fulfil our roles and how we represent those who chose us to represent them. I am proud to vote in favour of this motion today, a motion and statement which reflects the values that this house and indeed our communities believe are important for our role. I hope this motion today, and it is subsequent publication, seeks to inform the public of the duties and obligations that we in this place have to them.

I acknowledge the important work of the late Dr Bob Such this this area. I know that at his heart he wanted what we all want: a parliament of we can be proud, one of which our community can be proud, and one that is an exemplar to other states and territories. We want to exhibit the best practice that a parliament can. I acknowledge the work of the Premier in making this a personal commitment to both his parliamentary colleagues and the people of South Australia. It is the mark of a great leader to make self-discipline and integrity a pillar of your agenda, as well as to lead by example.

I also acknowledge the work of our Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau, for his work on progressing these issues in the house. I understand it has been the work of over a decade, an impressive investment of time. I also thank and acknowledge all of the members who have spoken and will speak in this debate for their reflections and their shared commitment to ensuring our parliament is the best it can be.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (12:37): I will be very quick. I support this motion moved by the Attorney-General. I pay my respects to the late Bob Such and to the great work he did not only for this house but also for all of regional South Australia, and also thank that him very sincerely for the assistance he gave me when I first came here in 2009, and I have put that on the record previously.

Bob Such was always a person of integrity, and that is one of the reasons he wanted this code of conduct to be put before this house. When members of parliament are elected we are the face of the state for our electorates, and we need to be acting at the highest possible standards, both in behaviour and in our image. Also, we must retain our humility and remember to be civil, as the Premier indicated before. We must also remember that we are no different from anyone else in our communities. We are there serving people.

I know there are sides in the political sphere, but when we are elected we have to look after our parties. As we all know, Bob Such was an Independent and I am an Independent. If you are a party person, whether it be Liberal, Labor, the Greens or whoever it may be, you must look after your party, but once we are elected we are there to represent all people across the electorate that we represent.

Once elected we must, first, serve the people out there. Bob Such taught me very clearly that no matter who you are or where you are coming from you are all equal out there. We can disagree with each other in this house here, and perhaps we can disagree with the debate that eventuates. The general public does not have a good image of politicians in general, and I am sorry to say that. You only have to look at question time nationally—a lot of people watch it, but I certainly would not take my school children to see it.

Speaking from personal experience, when we have a debate in this house we debate the issues and, irrespective of the results, we should be able to walk away, but we have to have adequate communications coming out from those debates.

We must believe how the image, and the acceptance of members of parliament in general by the community, are taken is pivotal. We are not highly regarded by the general community, and we need to build up that trust because trust in our political leaders, whoever and wherever they may be, is very pivotal.

I want to put a couple of sentences on the record for the late Bob Such. Bob, as the member for Bragg indicated, had been trying to get this through for many years. We are here today to pay tribute to his request. We are here today to debate this, and I would hope that both sides accept this and that we move forward in a positive manner.

I would also like to pay tribute to the late Bob Such's wife, Lyn. In our field, we have lots of issues and lots of time away from our families. I know that Bob was a very devoted family person and I know that Bob was a very devoted member of parliament. Bob was also a very devoted and committed person to whatever he did. So, to Lyn and the family I pay my tributes and respect, but I certainly agree with this motion coming forward and I would ask everybody to vote for it.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:41): I rise to speak on this motion with somewhat less enthusiasm than has been expressed by some of my colleagues in this place. I will be quite blunt: it states nothing more than the bleeding obvious and, to my mind, I think it is totally unnecessary. In my mind, I have a serious question mark over the motive behind this motion even coming to the house, but I will not go into that at this point.

I want to very quickly make the point that we are here at the behest of our electorate. We are here in a very public way and we are responsible to our electorate. There is nothing in this statement of principles that is not bleeding obvious to all of us and to our electorates. It really does concern me, and in fact in some ways it offends me, that the house would even go down this path.

I live by the credo that there is only one conscience I need to satisfy. When I put my head on the pillow of a night-time and close my eyes, I fall asleep because I have a clear conscience. I am not responsible to anybody else in this place, but I am responsible to my electorate, and I make sure that in everything I do I act in good faith for those very kind people who have sent me here and returned me here on numerous occasions.

If any of us thinks that this statement of principles will make one iota of difference, I think that person would be delusional. I have seen some outrageous behaviour from members of this place, both inside and outside this chamber—absolutely outrageous behaviour. Not one word in this statement of principles I believe will ever change that, and that sort of behaviour will indeed continue. That is one of the reasons why, as a group, we are not seen in the best light by the communities we represent—because too many of us do not behave as we should. I do not believe that this is going to make any difference.

I do not believe that the house should take on the responsibility of trying to curb individuals' behaviour. I think that is the role of the electorate. That is what democracy is about. We are here representing our electorate, not our neighbouring electorates. We are not responsible to those who represent other groups and other electorates: we are responsible to our electorate. I would wish that, as a group, we behave more honourably, but indeed I think I will go to my grave still wishing that because I do not expect that it is going to happen.

Notwithstanding that, I understand that the house is going to pass this motion, but I wanted to put on record my thoughts. I remember a word that Don Dunstan used many years ago which I thought was a terrific word. He had hopped off an aeroplane on his way back from an overseas trip and in the answer he gave to a reporter he used the word 'persiflage', and that is the word I would use to describe this statement of principles and everything that is happening about it. It is unnecessary, it will achieve nothing. I guess this will make some members feel warm inside, and good on them, but to the voting public I do not think it will make any difference and, to the behaviour of those people who behave abominably, I do not think it is going to make any change to that either.

I would like to take the opportunity to put on the record a correction. The member for Fisher talked about this government's record and mentioned ICAC. As everybody who has been in this place for more than five minutes knows, this government was dragged kicking and screaming before it acceded to the will of the parliament and the people of South Australia to have an ICAC established in this place. I do not think that the government's record with regard to ICAC is a very proud one at all. I wanted to take the opportunity to correct that. I am proud that the Liberal Party fought a long and strenuous battle to get an ICAC established here in South Australia; indeed, I think the work of that ICAC has shown the importance and the need for that here in South Australia, and that we were right.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:46): That is a tough act to follow from the member for MacKillop. I guess on the one hand it certainly will make future readers of Hansard more interested in the colour of this debate to have some opposition to these principles which I think are widely supported by all members of parliament. Even if you look at what the member for MacKillop said in terms of a lot of the principles that he enunciated, that we are responsible to our electorates, that we should act in the best interests of our electorates, that we are accountable to them, that is exactly what this statement of principles is enunciating today.

I know that all my colleagues are very honoured to be members of this house and we understand that we need to be mindful of the responsibilities that we have, to use the positions for the benefit of the state in our electorates in an honest and fair manner and to uphold integrity at all times. Ultimately we are judged by our real bosses, the 24,000 or so people who elect us every four years. They have the ultimate ability to decide whether or not we should continue to represent them in this house.

On the one hand this statement of principles is a very significant step that we should adopt, but I also agree that on the other hand a lot of these are common-sense principles that most of us have been adhering to ever since we were elected and, by enunciating them for the house, we are just cementing the fact that these are the principles that we have always been guided by.

I think it is appropriate that we pay our due respect at this time to Dr Bob Such and, like other members, I acknowledge Lyn Such here today and thank her for being here. This is one of the many motions that Dr Such promoted in this house time and time again and tried to have this brought forward and passed by the house. I am glad that we are finally doing that today in the same wording that Dr Such provided. Of course, he was also on the select committee that developed these particular words in 2003 and 2004.

There have been a number of other integrity measures that have been brought in and this is just one of them. We have had a ministerial code of conduct ever since this government was elected in 2002. We expanded the Freedom of Information Act back in 2002. We now have proactive disclosure of government information, as well as open government data. We have implemented the ICAC which absolutely was passed by this government. We have reformed electoral funding regulations and introduced public funding which, I believe, is a very important public integrity measure for this state.

We have also recently regulated lobbyists, which is an emerging issue for integrity across this state and also across the country and the world. We are also hoping to limit the power of the planning minister with regard to the urban growth boundary, and we are hoping that the Legislative Council will agree to that. This is not the only integrity measure that we are passing; this forms the basis for a whole series of integrity measures.

As with any such principles, over time they will be looked at and evolve and we will consider them as situations arise. However, I think the number of the principles will hold true at any time in terms of the fact that MPs are responsible to their electors and also it is important that these principles say that political parties are a legitimate part of the democratic process—it is important that these principles say that.

I noticed when reflecting on some of the debates by Dr Such when he was promoting this motion previously that he talked about how some of these things, if interpreted to their limits, could get a bit silly so we need to be careful. The example he used was: if you were given a ticket to the IceArenA, would that be a gift that you had to declare? I think all of us would agree that that is not. Of course, the principles themselves refer to the declarations required under the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act and that should be the guiding principle when interpreting these statements.

I reflected on that recently when I attended the Seaford District Residents Association and was presented with a bottle of Yellow Tail shiraz (which I think retails at $6.95 at Dan Murphy's outlets) and if that was something that needed to be declared or not—which I guess I am to the house in an official way. These things need to have a common-sense interpretation applied to them. The other thing where common sense needs to apply is with declarations of interest. One of the new things that we have not really reflected upon is that we are now saying that members need to declare to the house when they have a declaration of interest with regard to a particular matter, which probably has not always happened over the last 150 years or so.

We need to make sure that all members are aware of their responsibilities in that regard but, at the same time, that the principles clearly state that they are about financial interests and merely being a patron or a member of a sporting club or something like that should not be interpreted as a financial interest. That has been an issue from time to time in local government, with declarations of interest, where people have been pushed to the limits, going over the top about declaring things and having to leave the room when there is no financial interest at all.

I hope that this house passes this motion and also hope in particular that the Legislative Council, the other place, passes the same wording for principles—and I see no reason why it should not. That would then set a good standard for members across both houses of parliament. As has been mentioned by a number of other speakers, we know that politicians do not have the highest reputation of any profession out there, and I do not think passing this by itself is going to change that totally.

However, I think it is one of a number of steps that we need to make to set the standard of behaviour that people should expect from their members of parliament in going about their duties and having a high level of integrity. We also hope that more and more South Australians will see this as a profession that they want to enter into and will make a decision to run for parliament and take part in this contest of ideas and policies that we have in this house. I support the motion.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (12:53): I was not planning to speak; however, having listened to some of the contributions, I thought I would make a brief contribution. In particular, I wanted to make it very clear to the house that my understanding of the member for MacKillop's comments was not that he was in any way not supporting this motion but, rather, that he was making two points: (1) that this statement of principles is nothing less than a sort of code to which we should all be living anyway in our private and public lives; and (2) that the electorate will decide for us whether our code of conduct has been appropriately upheld by us in our personal and public behaviour.

I do not think that there is any sense in which the member for MacKillop was opposing the motion. He was simply pointing out that the electorate ultimately will make its decision about the behaviour of any person who holds office as a member of parliament, be it in this parliament or the federal parliament.

The reason, however, that I was prompted to comment was a couple of things. One that springs to mind immediately was the fact that the Premier made much of the need for civility. Just last week, the member for Mount Gambier addressed the house in a grievance debate after question time and when he did, the member for Mawson became very agitated. Indeed, he came across the chamber and approached him very aggressively afterwards.

I will not repeat what the member for Mawson said. Suffice to say that the minister, who was upset by the comments made in the grievance debate, was far less than civil. My question to the Premier would be whether he is intending to in any way reprimand, not just a member but a minister of this place, for his unbelievably uncivil behaviour towards a person on this side of the house who did nothing more than get up and in a perfectly polite way make a point on a policy issue. That is the first question.

The second, also involving the member for Mawson in fact, concerns the issue of conflict of interest. Personally, I think that when we come into this place, people should have some schooling in what constitutes a conflict of interest. There is provision in these principles that says it is not a conflict of interest if you are just the same as someone else. If you are a member of a sports club, or whatever it might be, then that is all very well. You are treated just as a member of the public; you are not expected to be taken out of all your normal community involvement and so on, simply because you are now a member of parliament and you must not have a conflict of interest.

I think it can be confusing what actually constitutes a conflict of interest, but as it happens, I never seemed to be able to get across to the member for Mawson, or indeed anyone on the government side of the chamber, that it seemed to me that there was either a conflict of interest or a very real perceived conflict of interest when the member for Mawson was in fact living with a person who was appointed to the board of WorkCover.

Not only that, but that person was also receiving the benefit of contracts from WorkCover for the provision of rehabilitation services and indeed, as I understand it, received more of those contracts than anyone else. It seemed to me to be a pretty blatant case of a conflict of interest, which should not only have been declared but absolutely avoided. I thought it was so blatant that something should have been done, but clearly this government chose to simply ignore that particular issue.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, it is really important not to be particular—unless you want to raise it formally—if you want to be general about things rather than specific. If you want to be specific, you can raise it as a motion yourself.

Ms REDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have spoken to the table, and we are all of that same opinion. You only have a minute to go, and I do not want to cut into your time—or are you going to seek leave to continue your remarks later?

Ms REDMOND: Thank you. No, I will not seek leave to continue my remarks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do or you do not?

Ms REDMOND: I think that my remarks to date have been entirely within the scope of the debate and have been no more particular—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Except that you have been naming people. We are not going to go into it. We have asked you not to name people. You are quite welcome to range as wide as you want about the actual issue, but just not name people.

Ms REDMOND: The issue is conflict of interest. As I was saying, I believe that when members come into this place it would be entirely appropriate for us to have some schooling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is fine; we just ask you not to name people, that is all.

Ms REDMOND: Coming out of the law, I think I probably had a better idea of conflict of interest. Having attended Australia's first anticorruption conference, when I was fighting to get an ICAC in this state—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was with you shoulder to shoulder, as I recall, in some places.

Ms REDMOND: Not at that conference, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but I was in Brisbane at the time you were.

Ms REDMOND: I attended that conference. I fought hard to get an ICAC in this state, and I am very pleased that we now have one, but as I say, I believe there is a lot of ignorance about what constitutes a conflict of interest. Therefore, I believe that when people come into this place there should be some education, so that instead of simply signing on the dotted line, they actually acknowledge that they understand what is meant by a conflict of interest and take steps to avoid it. I will conclude my comments there.

Motion carried.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.