Members, Accommodation Allowances

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (15:46): I rise today to correct the record. As all members of this place are now aware, I received a notice from the former ICAC that required me to produce all documents in my possession evidencing the performance of my parliamentary duties on occasions where I claimed the country members' accommodation allowance.

That raised the obvious issue of whether parliamentary privilege applied. The notice compelled me to disclose my diary and meeting notes. To be clear, despite what the Leader of the Opposition has been telling the media and parliament today, I never sought to claim parliamentary privilege over the documents. That privilege belongs to the house, not to me. It was never about the Premier or anyone else directing me to comply. It was for the house, not me, to decide whether it would allow me to provide the documents.

A member of parliament should be able to protect the identity of the people with whom he or she meets. That is particularly vital for backbenchers, the crossbench and, I would have thought, for the opposition as well. The member for West Torrens certainly thinks so: a pinned tweet on his Twitter page invites whistleblowers to contact him without fear of retribution because all information sent to his parliamentary email address is protected by parliamentary privilege and will remain anonymous. If what he says is true, then met with a similar requirement to my notice, he would have done exactly the same thing as I did, and he would not, as I have agreed to do, produce emails.

The hypocrisy of the opposition on this issue has been as breathtaking as it is concerning. They have sought to weaponise the ICAC, which was the very thing that was feared when the ICAC Act was passed. That fear was why former premier Rann and attorney-general Atkinson refused to create one for so many years.

The act was passed in 2012 and has been amended many times since. The two substantial amendments to the act were made under the opposition when they were in government. No member of parliament has ever sought to amend the act to remove the sections preserving parliamentary privilege. No-one is even suggesting that we do so now. That reveals the base opportunism and disregard for fundamental rights and principles that the opposition has.

Current members of parliament have refused to comply with similar requests from the former commissioner. The member for West Torrens has spoken at length in this house about the importance of parliamentary privilege in the context of the ICAC Act. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has said publicly, former Labor minister the Hon. Leesa Vlahos argued during the Oakden inquiry that the former commissioner could not make a finding against her on issues she argued were the subject of parliamentary privilege.

The leader and the former commissioner each publicly stated that the leader approached the former commissioner and sought his advice on the issue. The former commissioner has publicly stated that he gave the leader that advice, and it is difficult to see how that is not entirely inappropriate. Can you imagine how someone in my position feels, where a political opponent who was publicly attacking you and calling you a criminal gets insights from a person who is conducting what is supposed to be a private investigation? It speaks to the leader's complete lack of integrity that he was even prepared to make such an approach.

Since my election in March 2018, many people have requested to meet with me on the condition of anonymity. On these occasions they have confided in me matters they do not want disclosed, and I have granted all those requests. Where that has occurred that information should be the subject of parliamentary privilege to enable me to carry out my duties as a member of this house, and to freely and fiercely advocate for my constituents. That is all I have ever maintained in relation to this issue.

This issue has been the subject of extensive media reporting, despite the fact that it is an offence under the act to publish such information. To say that is unfortunate is an understatement. The whole point of requiring corruption investigations to be conducted in private is to protect undue harm being done to the reputation of a person while under investigation. Unfortunately, I have not had that benefit.

I entirely accept that as a member of parliament claiming public funds I am subject to greater scrutiny than ordinary members of the public. That is entirely appropriate and I welcome it, but I have been subjected to public commentary that is inaccurate and that I could not correct because I did not have—and still do not have—authorisation to speak about it outside this place.

The new commissioner has entirely revoked the previous notice, which has vindicated my position. She seeks similar information in a more manageable way, which allows me to comply with her requests. I am actively compiling the documents she seeks, as I always said I would do, and will provide them to her as soon as I can. I am enjoying the breath of fresh air that the new commissioner has provided, and look forward to furnishing her with what she has asked for and engaging with the investigative process now that I am able to do so.

It is important to say as strongly as I can that I have never acted dishonestly and have never intended, in any way whatsoever, to dishonestly claim the allowance. I vehemently deny any suggestion of any dishonesty at all. This was a genuine mistake on my part, for which I have apologised. I am genuinely and sincerely sorry, and have learned perhaps the hardest lesson anyone in this place can learn. Due to the harm unfairly inflicted upon me and my reputation thus far, I am desperately looking forward to clearing my name.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.