Motions

Government Privacy Principles, Contingent Notice

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:02): I move the contingent motion standing in my name, in order to establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon any breaches of the South Australian government's privacy principles, appearing on the Notice Paper. I move:

That all Private Members Business, Committees and Subordinate Legislation, Notices of Motion, be postponed and taken into consideration after the notice of motion appearing on the Notice Paper to establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon any breaches of the South Australian government's privacy principles.

The motion that this contingent motion gives precedence for above other matters is as follows:

That the house establish a select committee to investigate and inquire into and report on—

any breaches of the South Australian government's privacy principles, published by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, or any other code of conduct or public-sector principle;

the use of IT platforms or domains licensed or owned by an organisation external to the state government by public officers;

the effectiveness of the South Australian government protocols in place to protect the privacy of South Australians accessing official South Australian government websites;

any abuses of public office by public officers in relation to privacy, data harvesting and any other relevant matter;

the use of NationBuilder and the stateliberalleader domain to harvest data from official South Australian government websites;

any transfer of information or data from the South Australian government to the South Australian Liberal Party, or any affiliated entity of the Liberal Party, or Steven Marshall, or the state Liberal leader website, or NationBuilder, or other non-government entity;

any breaches of any commonwealth or state laws, regulations, policies or protocols by public officers, or any political party, official or any other individual in relation to data harvesting or privacy breaches; and, of course,

any intentional misleading statements to the House of Assembly by any member on this matter.

Private members' motions are often very difficult to get to. Private members put them on the Notice Paper in anticipation of debate and they often find it very difficult to have their committees debated or discussed. That is why it is not a regular occurrence to have these contingent motions moved. I know it is not the natural progression here, but we are faced with an extraordinary circumstance. The extraordinary circumstance is the overwhelming evidence that someone is harvesting data from government websites and handing it to the Liberal Party.

The only way we can uncover that is through a parliamentary inquiry. I will not canvass the merits of that inquiry, but if this contingent motion is not successful the house will not have an opportunity to debate this motion for months, if at all, until the next election. The South Australian public would expect us to put this ahead of any other business. This is the business of this house today: is there corruption at the highest levels of the South Australian government? We need to get to the bottom of it and the way to do that is for this house to investigate it.

Without going into the merits of it, the house has an order for what we debate and discuss in this place. It is done so that we give precedence to government ministers in government time, but private members' business and committees time is very important. That is why the opposition do this rarely and not lightly. We would not normally do this because we would have expected an independent inquiry by now by an independent office or instituted by the Attorney-General. That has not occurred. So the only option we have is to give precedence to the motion that this contingent motion flags.

I know that there are members who may be disappointed to see debate on other matters delayed, but the threshold question for this parliament is the delay of those matters over corruption at the highest levels of the South Australian government. That is a threshold question for the people of South Australia: how is it that people are getting unsolicited emails from the Liberal Party? How is it that stevenmarshall.com is sending out emails? That is a Liberal Party domain sending out emails to people who have registered only on government websites.

How is it that NationBuilder and stateliberalleader.com are depositing cookies on people who have only gone to government websites and having their browsers monitored and having that information given to the Liberal Party? We do not know who is responsible for this, we do not know who has organised it and we do not know who implemented it. All we know is who the beneficiaries are and what has occurred.

If there is corruption at the highest levels of government, surely it is incumbent on us to push away those other motions for now and bring this select committee motion forward. Surely, this is a better use of the time of the house than anything else. Surely, if the government has nothing to fear and has done nothing wrong, then this inquiry will uncover nothing.

However, if people have something to hide, if people think that this inquiry could uncover maladministration, misconduct and, unfortunately, potentially corruption, the likes of which we have never seen before in this state on an industrial scale, then the house should and must change the order and at least allow a debate on this motion.

I ask the government: whatever they think of the merits of the select committee or otherwise, let's have the debate. The people of South Australia deserve to have the debate. They deserve to hear the arguments thrashed out and they deserve to have their house work in their interests. There is time for us to do the other matters that are on the Notice Paper at other times. There is no reason why this contingent motion should not be agreed to.

I hope the government can see fit to allow a debate on this regardless of how they vote on the merits of the select committee, which is not up for grabs now. Now we are talking about the contingent motion. The contingent motion will allow a debate on the select committee. I say to government members: you can still support the government if you do not believe a select committee is warranted, but surely you do not fear a debate.

Surely, you do not fear to have the contest of ideas in the people's chamber about whether or not there is corruption at the highest levels of the South Australian government and that public officers have abused their public office in breach of a number of acts, including the ICAC Act and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, including potentially the Electoral Act.

If that corruption is occurring, let's have the debate. If members opposite do not think it is occurring, they will vote accordingly on the select committee; that is their prerogative. But stifling even the debate I think sends a message to the people of South Australia, by not accepting this contingent motion, that perhaps there is something to hide. Perhaps they do fear scrutiny. The old saying is that the best disinfectant is sunlight, so they bring down the shades to make sure there is no light shone upon this issue.

Looking at the Notice Paper, I accept that there are a number of motions ahead of the establishment of this select committee. A lot of those motions do good work, and I understand that it is not disorderly but unprecedented to do this at this time. That is why again I say the opposition does not do it lightly. I would ask members to consider whether or not we cannot do more of this. The opposition is prepared to sit longer after the Easter break and have more sitting days if necessary to complete—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just point out to the Manager of Government Business that he adjourned the house, not me.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will not respond to interjection.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just point out to members opposite that this contingent motion does not establish the select committee: it is the motion that comes afterwards. This simply allows a debate on a select committee.

Those terms of reference I read out I think are very important for the people to know that their government is not corrupt, that their government is not stealing data, that their government is not using public resources on South Australian government sites to populate the database of the South Australian Liberal Party. That crime would go unmatched in the history of corruption within the South Australian public sector. People who potentially have perpetrated that could be facing serious legal jeopardy—serious legal jeopardy.

We are not the only body that can investigate this. There are other bodies that can investigate this. The contingent motion is important, but I do point out to members that there are other independent statutory officers who can investigate this. The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption can investigate this, the Ombudsman can investigate this, the Auditor-General can investigate this; indeed, all three could do it at once. The South Australian Anti-Corruption Branch could investigate this. All four could do it at once.

Of course, finally, the parliament: the ultimate accountability for the executive of the government of South Australia. This is the place, in this floor, that keeps the executive accountable. The people who established this adversarial system of government designed it in a way to give this parliament extraordinary powers to compel people, to make laws and to investigate through select committees.

Let's have the debate about exercising those powers to uncover potential overreach of the executive, potential corruption within the executive, potential maladministration within the executive, misconduct, abuse of public office, breaches of the Electoral Act, and on and on and on. There are not that many votes that define you in parliament. Integrity measures are one of them. In former parliaments, the now government and then opposition pushed very hard to establish an independent integrity agency in the ICAC.

In the end, they were right—and now we are right about this. This is the right thing to do. People who are potentially perpetrating this answer to people in this chamber. We are the ones who should be investigating it. We are the ones who should be holding a light to this. We are the ones who should be shining lights in dark places to find out what is going on because the public's trust has been rocked by these accusations—rocked.

Right now, we need people trusting our institutions. We need them trusting SA Health, we need them trusting the government of South Australia, we need them trusting QR codes and we need them trusting that, when they go to sources of information that are trusted and accurate, their data is not being stolen.

One of the worst things that has occurred with the breakdown of our media as we know it through social media is the rise of what people have termed 'fake news', the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories online. We have trusted sources of news in this state. We have our independent broadcaster, the ABC. We have The Advertiser here in South Australia, which is the bedrock of news here in South Australia. We have other media outlets, and of course government information—independent government information—guaranteed its independence by statute, by the Public Sector Act so that public officers are independent and offer fearless and independent advice to the executive of the day.

If that has been compromised it rocks the foundations of the information that people gather every day, and that is why this contingent motion is so important to allow us to at least debate it. I say to the government: what is more important today than having a debate about whether this parliament should inquire into the facts of what is going on?

The government told us that people were not being redirected to NationBuilder and stateliberalleader. That is not true: they were. That has been proved by Mimecast. That has been proved. That statement by the government was incorrect. We know that through that redirection cookies are installed on browsers. We know that now. That is what NationBuilder does. It is on its web page.

People have gone to state government sites and have had their browsers implanted with cookies from NationBuilder on behalf of the Liberal Party. That should not be allowed to occur. The government says that it is inadvertent. First, they said it did not happen—has not happened. As recently as yesterday the Premier said that it had not happened, and today we know it is happening.

I say that the contingent motion now is probably the most important thing we are going to vote on today in this section allocated under standing orders. I would ask members opposite to consult their conscience on this. I am sure that most members opposite are completely unaware of what is going on at the highest levels of government and are not part of this conspiracy, but it is never the act that gets you; it is always the cover-up. It is always the cover-up.

This scandal has all the hallmarks of those other scandals, where the act may be inadvertent but the attempts to cover it up and conceal it are the crimes. Do not participate. Let's see whether those Liberal values of voting with your conscience on all matters really stands, or whether there will be a collective movement today to stop an inquiry and not support this contingent motion to allow a debate on a matter of the highest importance to the people of South Australia—the integrity of their government—because if you cannot trust the government with your data what can you trust it with? That is the fundamental question.

If data has been stolen, people will go to gaol. If data has been stolen and harvested, people's careers will end. Let's get to the bottom of this. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, and we will know by this vote whether the Liberal Party is worried.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister for Energy and Mining, I just indicate for the benefit of members and indeed for myself that the contingent notice of motion is contingent upon two things: first, that the relevant notice of motion is appearing on the Notice Paper, and I indicate that the relevant notice of motion is Notice of Motion No. 60 in the name of the member for West Torrens; and, secondly, that Private Members Business, Committees and Subordinate Legislation, has been called on. It is in those circumstances that the contingent notice of motion is brought.,

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:18): The member for West Torrens is a particular type of person. Not many of us could have kept a straight face through all of that, including what he said at the very end, which was: 'If you don't support this motion, then you must have something to hide.' I refute that. It is entirely unfair, inaccurate and deliberately misleading. Let me be very clear and say the government does not support this contingent motion. It is an issue that the opposition is trying to confect. It is an issue that—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: Did you hear the Spin Cycle this morning? It's not us.

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Mawson! The member for Mawson will cease interjecting.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Everybody is talking about it. Everybody knows.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee! The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is nothing to hide on this side of the chamber. SAPOL could look into this, the Auditor-General could look into this, the Privacy Committee could look into this, the Ombudsman could look into this and, perhaps most importantly, if there is actually any suggestion of corruption, ICAC could look into this. There are various ways that this alleged misconduct could be considered quite appropriately without going through this contingent motion, which is really just an attempt by the opposition to try to draw attention to what they allege to be true.

I also heard from the member opposite his assertions that these are extraordinary circumstances, that there is overwhelming evidence that there is a conspiracy going on within the government. It would seem that those opposite do not even need a committee. They have made up their minds. They have already said that there is overwhelming evidence. It cannot be taken seriously that the people on the other side of this chamber are doing what they are doing this morning with regard to this contingent motion for any reason other than just to cause mischief.

The member opposite had the temerity to start talking about fake news. Everything that the opposition is doing on this issue is about fake news. We have nothing to hide. There are many ways that the opposition and the relevant bodies can pursue this if they want to. So for the member for West Torrens to use the term 'fake news' is just extraordinary.

To the point of moving one person's motion up ahead of 59 other motions, that would be an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do. The idea that a government that usually has a majority in the house could, any time it wanted to, just use its numbers to bring a motion that it would like to bring forward and jump ahead of 59 other motions would set a dreadful precedent.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: A precedent you set yesterday!

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee! The minister has the call. The minister is entitled to be heard in silence.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is just the opposition trying to whip up a storm in a teacup. There are opportunities for other organisations. Perhaps they are already doing it. Perhaps they are already looking into these things if they choose to.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens! The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: SAPOL, the Privacy Committee, the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, ICAC—any one of those organisations is welcome to look into what those opposite allege. Perhaps they already are; that would be their business. If they are, they will let us know in time. I think the Attorney-General has said the secrecy committee—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Privacy.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —the Privacy Committee is already doing that. That is as it should be. But the suggestion that one member of parliament can come in here and move a motion and then try to jump ahead of all the other motions is completely inappropriate. The idea of trying to establish a select committee and simultaneously saying all the things that were said with regard to there already being overwhelming evidence, there already being a conspiracy, there already being extraordinary circumstances, etc., invalidates the proposal that the member also made, which was that it would be a clean, fair and decent way to look into it.

The opposition is just trying to make an enormous fuss about something that can be dealt with, if it is necessary, in many other ways. To suggest, as the member opposite did, that it would be okay at any time to have a select committee to inquire into any topic—just because there is nothing going on you have nothing to hide, so we will have an inquiry—is also absolutely ridiculous logic.

So is the idea that those on our side of the chamber should accept a select committee if we think we have nothing to hide. That would be an excuse to have a select committee at any time on any topic that the member opposite chose. We earnestly oppose this mischievous and dangerous contingency motion.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:25): Member for Stuart, that was perhaps not the best line of reasoning in seeking to outline why this motion should not be supported. He says it would be completely inappropriate for a member to come before this house and prioritise a motion at short notice above all other motions on the Notice Paper. Has he forgotten exactly what his Deputy Premier and deputy leader did in this very same place less than 24 hours ago?

It is just extraordinary. So it is okay for the government, which sometimes enjoys a majority in this place, but it is not okay for other private members to do the same thing. It is one rule for the Tories and another rule for everybody else in the community. Absolutely extraordinary! He also tries to continue on this bogus line of argument that has been put over the last four days by the Premier which is, 'There is nothing to see here. There is nothing wrong that has happened here.'

We know, of course, that that is not the case. We know, of course, that when South Australians are clicking on official government websites, including the SA Health website, they are being redirected through a South Australian Liberal Party-sponsored nationbuilder.com domain. That is not appropriate. That may be illegal. It may well be very corrupt.

That data is being harvested and is being used for purposes which are not official government purposes, because some people who have done that have been sent political emails from party political addresses, including from the member for Dunstan as the state Liberal leader. These are all facts. They have been well canvassed and established out in the public and they need to be investigated.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, I hesitate to interrupt the member for Lee's flow.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, don't feel obliged then, sir.

The SPEAKER: But I do. I am moved to remind the member for Lee that matters that might well be the subject of debate pursuant to Notice of Motion No. 60, in case the house is inclined to move in that direction, are properly canvassed at that time. A certain amount of latitude has been given and I am conscious of that. I do remind the member for Lee of the narrow bounds of debate within the context of the contingent notice of motion. The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. I am grateful as always for your guidance. So we have had three days in the media of the Premier's refutation that there is nothing to see here. It is clear that there is and it is clear that it needs investigating and it is clear that it needs investigating now. It is clear that this needs to happen right away. This is a matter of urgency.

It needs to be established how deep, how far and how extensive this problem lies throughout the myriad government websites so that the public can be given some assurance as to the extent of what data is being harvested from the people of South Australia for party political purposes by the Liberal Party. The proposal is that this should not be No. 1 out of 59 motions, according to the member for Stuart, but it should be No. 59 or later, that it should wait hopefully never to see the light of day so that this practice can continue, so that the South Australian public will have no idea at any point in the future about to what extent this practice is occurring. That is unsatisfactory.

It has never been the case by any government that this sort of practice has occurred, except under this one. There has not been any cogent refutation that this practice has been occurring. If so, why has the practice been changed? If so, why has the story consistently changed from the government? These are the sorts of things that need to be investigated by an urgent parliamentary inquiry, even urged by the editorial pages of the state's daily newspaper. We need to get to the bottom of this.

If it is okay for those opposite to rush in here, drop everything else and as a matter of urgency bring a motion in yesterday afternoon to investigate something they deem as being urgent—which as we well canvassed yesterday indeed is not; in fact, it is seven years old—then why can this matter not be treated with the same accord by those opposite? It is a double standard. It is a clear double standard. This should be investigated.

The Premier says that there is the potential for South Australians to have their confidence rocked in official sources of government information. Well, let's take the Premier at his word about that, shall we? If that is the case, then why not clear this up? Why not get this sorted? Why not expose this to some sunlight and get it thoroughly investigated and do it quickly?

We see that this pandemic is not over, we see that restrictions are being imposed elsewhere around the country, we know what the risk is to our community, and with all of that will come the requirement that South Australians have access to accurate timely information in particular from sources that are made available online. They deserve to have confidence on an ongoing basis, including from right now, that when they click on these sources of information their data is not being harvested for political, let alone nefarious purposes, by the South Australian Liberal Party.

Why will those opposite not seek to provide the opportunity to give South Australians that assurance? Why are they trying to hide this? Why are they trying to sweep it under the mat? It is quite clear, is it not? They do not want this to see the light of day because they have something to hide. They know that something has been done that is clearly wrong. The assertion has been made, including from our side, that this conduct may well be corrupt and it possibly could be.

I would have thought that if I were the first law officer of this state, I would want to put that beyond doubt. I would want the opportunity to clear my political party's name of that—not according to those opposite: let's try to bury this, according to the rationale of the member for Stuart in his contribution; let's try to bury this down to No. 59 or 60 on the Notice Paper so it never sees the light of day, so it never gets ventilated, it never gets investigated.

The rationale of the Attorney-General is that 'the hitherto unheard of Privacy Committee which directly reports to me as Attorney-General will investigate this at some point with no determinate outcome or time period'. Here we have the executive investigating itself, and let's all guess what finding will be there: I am sure an exoneration of course. Would we expect anything else? Do you think we might have heard this rationale before about why this parliament should not quickly move to investigate something? I am trying to think.

When have we heard this rationale recently from the Liberal Party? Was it about the events of the Christmas party in December 2019? Was it about the use of the country members' travel allowance? It is the same rationale time and again from the Liberal Party whenever they are in trouble: 'Nothing to see here. We'll use our numbers to defeat any possible chance that the people of South Australia may be able to shed some sunlight on what is actually going on in the South Australian Liberal Party.' It is just an outrage. What is good for the Deputy Premier and the Liberals yesterday is no longer good for the South Australian parliament today.

The member for Stuart says that, listening to the member for West Torrens' contribution, we should be trying to cover up a smile, or we all must be struggling, or the member for West Torrens must be struggling to keep a straight face. I tell you what: it is not the member for West Torrens' contribution that puts us in that position; it is the member for Stuart's and the contributions that have been made in the place previously by the member for Bragg—an outrageous double standard designed to purely protect the political interests of this government and of the South Australian Liberal Party. Shame on all of you for seeking to sweep this under the mat.

You know that there is something wrong, it is clear to the people of South Australia that there is something wrong, it is clear to media outlets after media outlet that there is something wrong, and you do all you can in this place to bury it, to sweep it under the rug so it will not be exposed. Well, it will be exposed. As we all know, the South Australian Liberal Party will be found out and caught out for outrageously, if not illegally, harvesting South Australians' personal data including the installation of cookies on their web browsers to track South Australians' internet usage.

What an outrage! 'Oh no, nothing to see here,' or, as the Premier so aptly says, 'I know nothing, I haven't been briefed, I'm not aware, I don't have the details.' Are those opposite aware now that, rather than get what Dan Andrews got over in Victoria, a dance remix of Get on the Beers, there is a remix of the South Australian Premier not knowing anything at any time? It is extraordinary. How embarrassed you must be about the fog of ignorance the South Australian Premier seems to walk through day in, day out in the conduct of his job. It is just extraordinary.

This needs to be supported. It needs to be supported in the same way that the Liberal Party saw fit to support yesterday's urgent motion from the Deputy Premier. If they do not support it, despite doing that yesterday, it will be clear to the people of South Australia how two-faced those opposite are and the hypocrisy of the South Australian Liberal Party.