CHARLES STURT COUNCIL

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.N. Winderlich:

1. That this council:

(a) Notes general community concern about the influence of the Australian Labor Party on the elected members of the City of Charles Sturt, including:

i. the fact that 12 of the 17 councillors are members of the Australian Labor Party;

ii. the fact that 3 councillors are employed by Labor members of parliament; and

iii. the influence of the member for Croydon on elected members of council.

(b) Notes specific concerns about the potential for conflict of interest in the revocation of the community status of land at St Clair arising from:

i. the fact that the revocation of land is essential to the policy objectives of the state Labor government;

ii. the fact that the decision making process followed by the council will be assessed by a Labor minister; and

iii. the lack of any strategy adopted by the City of Charles Sturt to manage potential conflicts of interest arising from the role played by ALP members in that council.

2. The Legislative Council therefore refers the following matters to the Ombudsman, pursuant to section 14 of the Ombudsman’s Act 1972, for investigation and report:

(a) The potential for actual conflict of interest of elected members of the City of Charles Sturt in relation to revoking the community status of land at St Clair as per section 73 of the Local Government Act;

(b) The extent to which the City of Charles Sturt met its obligations under section 48 of the Local Government Act to manage the risk of conflict of interest associated with the revocation of the community status of land at St Clair; and

(c) Any other relevant matter.

(Continued from 18 November 2009. Page 3985.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:10): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting this motion, paragraph 1(a)iii of which refers to the influence of the member for Croydon on elected members of the council—and here he is. He has just walked in, resplendent in his braces, his tie and a whole range of other wonderful bits of apparel. I noticed that he had a flower in his lapel earlier this morning. Paragraph 2(b) requests that the council note the issues relating to the conflict of interest involving the revocation of the community status of land at St Clair. Of course, this week we have seen the Minister for State/Local Government Relations request the Supreme Court to set aside her decision in relation to that revocation.

The member for Croydon noted at a multicultural function that we attended in the last couple of months that I have not made many comments about the City of Charles Sturt for some considerable time. Certainly, in the previous term (2002-06), the government took a particular interest in the activities of that council, and I have been given information relating to the member for Croydon's interest and influence in that particular council. I was certainly given some information back then that meetings were being held outside council hours and that decisions were being made that affected the outcome of council meetings. It is well known that it is in breach of the Local Government Act for members of a council to get together and meet outside a properly constituted council meeting and make decisions in relation to the council, and more than half of the members of the council were present at some of those meetings.

I made some allegations and, as members would recall, I was subject to a couple of citizens' right of reply. Members of the council thought that I may not have accurately portrayed the facts particularly relating to the circumstances involving those council members. I am aware that some of those allegations—maybe not involving the same people—are around today in respect of the City of Charles Sturt, in particular, the consultation and the St Clair issues. I think that is what brings this matter to a head: the consultation has been quite superficial in that regard.

I had the pleasure of having some guests for dinner here on Tuesday night—people whom I had not met before. One of the guests, who was from West Lakes, said she had not been contacted. She is in the City of Charles Sturt, from my understanding, but she had not been contacted by anybody and did not know exactly what was happening. I think her business interests and her employer are on Woodville Road, right in the middle of the City of Charles Sturt. This person expressed a deep concern about St Clair and the loss of that public amenity to the community.

I know that we still have a significant amount of private members' business to deal with and that the Hon. Mr Winderlich has some further information that he wants to put on the record. We think it is important for the Legislative Council—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. John Dawkins interjects that the Minister for the Southern Suburbs will fix the St Clair issue: I am not sure that he will, and I can guarantee that he will do nothing before the election. It was purely a stunt to push this decision off until after the election—a bit like a decision we saw yesterday, with the announcement on the Adelaide Oval.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ridgway will stick to the motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am. I am now talking about the government—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway will not debate the motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The government can't be trusted anymore. It says one thing and does another—and it has been doing it for eight years. Paragraph two states:

The Legislative Council therefore refers the following matters to the Ombudsman, pursuant to section 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1972, for investigation and report—

(a) The potential for actual conflict of interest of elected members of the City of Charles Sturt in relation to revoking the community status of land at St Clair as per section 73 of the Local Government Act;

(b) The extent to which the City of Charles Sturt met its obligations under section 48 of the Local Government Act to manage the risk of conflict of interest associated with the revocation of the community status of land at St Clair; and

(c) Any other relevant matter.

I think this would be an opportunity for the Ombudsman to look at what has happened in the City of Charles Sturt. Clearly, the government is concerned, because the minister would not have backed down and asked the Supreme Court to set her decision aside. Either the government is aware the minister has breached the Local Government Act or there are some other issues. This issue is adding to the community belief that this is an arrogant government which is out of touch and does not consult and which is riding roughshod over community interests. The motion is a wonderful opportunity to refer this issue to the Ombudsman and wait for him to report. With those few words, I indicate that I endorse the motion and commend it to the chamber.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (12:17): The Hon. Mr Winderlich's motion proposes that the council should refer to the Ombudsman for investigation matters relating to a decision taken recently by the Charles Sturt council. I will be surprising no-one when I say that the government does not support this motion.

The honourable member seeks to invoke section 14 of the Ombudsman Act, but it is hardly necessary. Section 13 of the Ombudsman Act 1972 provides that the Ombudsman may investigate any administrative act, either on receipt of a complaint or on the Ombudsman's own initiative. Members are engaged in political grandstanding—as we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition.

If opposition members were genuine, they would be encouraging those people who have a genuine interest in or complaint about the matter to lodge those concerns directly with the Ombudsman. Rather than trying to score political points, members opposite should be providing that advice to those locals, instead of standing here trying to hog their share of the media limelight.

I am confident that, should the Ombudsman receive a complaint, he will consider the public interest in determining whether or not to examine the matter and will undertake his duties appropriately, thoroughly and diligently. I am also confident that, if the Ombudsman had any concerns, he would inform the minister of those matters.

The Hon. Mr Winderlich has always espoused the ideal of putting the local back into local government. Well, one suspects that what he is really all about is putting the Hon. D. Winderlich back into the Legislative Council. He knows full well that there are adequate provisions in the Ombudsman Act for investigations to be undertaken by the Ombudsman, either on receipt of a complaint by a person or a group of persons or, as I said earlier, on his own initiative. Any person, or group of persons, who believes they have grounds for complaint, should lodge their concern with the Ombudsman's office, which is what the system is there for.

The motion refers to the political affiliations of some members of the Charles Sturt council. Local councils are an independent sphere of government, and their representatives are democratically elected from all walks of life. The community votes for elected members, and these volunteers put themselves in the public arena when they stand for local government. As part of that process, they provide information about their views and vision to the community as part of any election campaign and during their role as a councillor. If anyone wants to check where a councillor works or whether they have a particular political affiliation, they can. In fact, they can call the councillor and ask them. Many councillors put this information out themselves as part of their electioneering.

Of course, once a person is elected to a council, they must fill in a register of interest, which includes things such as their source of income, positions in companies and various other bodies, membership of political parties, bodies or associations formed for political purposes, or any trade or professional organisation and, of course, details of gifts, assets and debts.

It is in a councillor's interest to be transparent and open with ratepayers and electors. The Local Government Act has specific provisions concerning when an elected member of a council has a conflict of interest in a matter before a council and the actions that must be taken in such circumstances. In general terms, an elected member of a council has a conflict of interest if the member or person with whom they are closely associated would gain or lose in any way, either financially or otherwise, if the matter were decided in a particular manner and that benefit or detriment would not be enjoyed or suffered in common by all, or a substantial proportion, of the ratepayers, electors or residents. In such circumstances, the act requires that a member disclose that interest, leave the room and not take part in the discussion or vote on that matter, except in some very limited circumstances.

It is drawing a long bow to suggest conflict of interest when supposedly some of the councillors who are members of the ALP actually voted against the proposed revocation. It is indeed a very long bow to suggest that there was some sort of financial interest or benefit gained for a limited class of people as a direct result of the council's decision. Councillors require long-term foresight to make decisions in the best interests of their local community: it is not a short-term popularity contest.

Section 62 of the act requires an elected member to act, at all times, honestly and with reasonable care in the performance and discharge of official functions and duties. Section 62(3) of the act specifically makes it an offence (subject to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine up to $10,000) for an elected member or former elected member to make improper use of information acquired by virtue of his or her position as an elected member, to gain directly or indirectly an advantage for himself or herself or another person, or to cause detriment to the council.

There are also offence provisions relating to abuse of public office under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 that prohibit the use of information gained by a public officer by virtue of his or her office with the intention of securing a benefit for himself or herself or for another person.

Councillors are the elected decision-makers for their local area and, like all of us in this place, they will be held accountable at the next election (in their case, in November 2010). It is important that we let councillors get on with the job they have been elected to do, and that is to run their local council. The government will not be supporting the motion.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (12:22): I associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague the Hon. Mr Hunter. Clearly, this motion is the most extraordinary attack on democratic principles I have seen in the four years I have been in this place. How extraordinary that the Liberal opposition, which claims to be the alternative government of this state, is adopting a position whereby it is improper for members of a political party to take part in local government. Let us see the Liberal Party amend this motion to express concern that Steve Perryman, the Mayor of Mount Gambier, is a member of the Liberal Party, the Liberal candidate for the seat—not that he is a long-standing Liberal member. So great was his commitment to the Liberal Party that he joined just before he got preselection, thanks to the votes from Adelaide that tipped him over the line ahead of the locals. Why is the Liberal Party not trying to amend this motion to condemn His Worship the Lord Mayor Michael Harbison, who is a former candidate (I do not know whether he is still a member of the Liberal Party)?

The notion that members of political parties should not be involved in councils is absurd and is an attack on democracy. How would this principle work in other states, where they have party political endorsement for local government—the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and I imagine the Greens? I think Clover Moore, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, is a Green or an Independent.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My colleague mentions the Mayor of Byron Bay. There are members of political parties in local government all across the country. In other states the parties actually endorse candidates—they are party political candidates for office. By the Hon. Mr Winderlich's reckoning, local government in other states should be abolished.

In South Australia we do not have that system, but people who are members of political parties are concerned members of the community and they want to make a difference. One way they choose to do that is by running for local government and being successful at it, which is to be applauded and encouraged and not condemned, which is the step the opposition is taking on this occasion. We do not have binding party positions or caucuses for members of political parties who happen to be in local government, because they are not there officially as Labor or Liberal members or anything else. On the rationale the Liberal Party is proposing, the Lord Mayor, the Mayor of Mount Gambier and any other member of the Liberal Party who is involved in local government—and there are plenty of them (perhaps even more than there are Labor people)—would not be able to take part in any decision because they are compromised. That is their rationale.

There is no suggestion that members of the Labor Party who are members of councils are bound to some sort of party position. As my colleague Mr Hunter pointed out, some members of the council who are members of the Labor Party actually voted against the proposition being discussed here. I understand that the Hon. Mr Winderlich does not believe much in political parties. We saw that pretty quickly because, as soon as he got here, he quit the party that put him here. He climbed up the ladder, turned around and kicked it aside pretty swiftly.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Indeed: as the leader points out, one of the reasons the Hon. Mr Winderlich has such an extraordinary vendetta against the Attorney-General is not only that apparently he was mean to the Hon. Sandra Kanck in her time in this parliament but also that he exposed the fact that the Democrats have become a sham and are no longer a functioning party.

The Hon. P. Holloway: They didn't have sufficient members to get in here.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: That is right: they did not have sufficient members to even put him in here, which has been proven by his subsequent actions. Having got here without the requisite number of members required under the Electoral Act to be a functioning political party, he came out and said publicly, 'We need members, we are on our last legs, we're dying, we've got no members and, if you don't roll up, I'm quitting', and that is exactly what he did. He has confirmed that the party is defunct, yet he did not take that position when he was accepting a place in here.

We often hear from the Hon. Mr Winderlich, the great defender of freedom of association. He is always out there with the bikies and the freedom in education and drug dealing party, or whatever they are called, and supporting them because he wants to support freedom of association and he believes that people should be able to associate with whomever they like. The Serious and Organised Crime Control (Unexplained Wealth) Act was a travesty, according to Mr Winderlich, yet here he is suggesting that being a member of a political party and a member of local government is inherently a conflict of interest and should not be allowed. He is trying to ensure there is no party politics in South Australia. That is a legitimate position, if he wants to take it: that there should be no parties. However, it is not a position to which we subscribe or one to which the broad community subscribe, as they continually elect people who are members of political parties, not only for state and federal government but also for local government.

The crux of this motion is that there is an inherent conflict of interest, that if you are a member of a political party you have a conflict of interest in making decisions related to your duties as a councillor. Further, because it is a Labor government it should not be in a position to make a decision on this, and this is the line the Hon. Mr Winderlich has been running again this week: how can a Labor minister make a decision about a project supported by a Labor government and a Labor dominated council? It is all just too much because they are all in the same political party and could not possibly make a fair decision! By that rationale, no government could make any decision about anything. He might just as well move a motion expressing concern that 28 out of 47 members of the House of Assembly are members of the Australian Labor Party and that that means they cannot make decisions because they have a conflict of interest as they are all members of the Labor Party.

They are indeed bound by the decisions of caucus, unless they choose to leave the party over a particular issue, unlike councillors who are not officially part of the party-political structure, are not endorsed as Labor candidates and are not bound by any particular policy propositions when it comes to council decisions, unlike members in here who are. There is nothing about that in the Hon. Mr Winderlich's motion. That may as well be the motion he moves—that we express grave concern that members of both houses are members of political parties—because, on his rationale and reckoning, that is an inherent conflict of interest and an inability to take a fair decision.

This motion is again an extension of the bizarre, extraordinary obsession with the Attorney-General, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, that members in this place seem to have. The Hon. Robert Lawson assumedly regrets that he probably gave up a place on the bench to come in here and yet was attorney-general for only a few months before being succeeded by the current Attorney-General.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: That is the basis for his—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I think the Hon. Mr Lucas showed us the relevance yesterday.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Indeed. The Hon. Mr Winderlich is the successor of the Democrats and the successor of the Hon. Sandra Kanck, for whom he used to work. We have seen how the poor Hon. Sandra Kanck can become very hurt. The Attorney-General was very mean to her on a number of occasions, so that itself was reason enough to have a motion before this parliament.

This is an extraordinary attack on democratic principles. The Hon. Mr Winderlich has said that he is going to expose new revelations, allegations, etc. but why doesn't he just pick up his notes and walk out the door? You can do it right now. Call a press conference on the steps of Parliament House and say whatever you have to say. Why don't you do that? You will not do that because you are going to be a coward. You are going to use the cover of parliamentary privilege to defame people. It is as simple as that.

The Hon. Mr Winderlich is desperate to get whatever coverage he can in the lead up to the election, having abandoned his political party, and assumedly alienated any of the people who did support him in the first place to get him in here. He is now chasing any ambulance that comes by. But what is most extraordinary is that he is joined in that by Liberal members opposite who have proved yet again that they are not ready for government; they are incapable of forming a government for this state.

Here we have the Liberal opposition saying that members of political parties should not be involved in local government, that there is an inherent conflict of interest with members of political parties making administrative decisions at local and state government level. That is the position now of the Liberal opposition. Mark this: if the Liberal Party were to win, it would not be able to govern. The Hons Mr Ridgway, Ms Lensink and Mr Wade are all in the shadow ministry. Those who are not in the shadow ministry are the ones who are leaving. Let us assume that they have six ministers in here, that they build the second tier of the frontbench, and they have six ministers in the Legislative Council. They will not be able to make any decisions because they are members of a political party and, according to them, that is an inherent conflict of interest.

The Liberal Party in this state has become an absolute disgrace. It has become a vulture in search of a carcass. Any time Liberal members see something they think will get them a couple of lines on page 40 of The Advertiser, they are there swooping in. They do not have any vision for the state apart from the $3 billion, a 15,000 space car park, a two kilometre-long train, a 15 level super stadium-hospital-super school-court system that will have local and interstate trains, car parks, sports, a hospital and courts all in the same complex on one site. It is the most amazing thing you will ever see. It is the most extraordinary development that has ever been proposed. That is the Liberal policy for this state.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member should stick to the motion.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Thank you, Mr President, for your guidance. The Liberal Party has proved that it is totally incapable; it is simply not ready to govern this state. Liberal members have certainly proved that by supporting this motion. Frankly, I expect this sort of thing from the Hon. Mr Winderlich, because it is what crossbenchers—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: How extraordinary to be lectured on speaking by the Hon. Mr Dawkins! It is almost like the Hon. Mr Stephens telling me how to be an orator. I expect this sort of thing from the Hon. Mr Winderlich. It is the sort of thing that minor party members do: chase after these minor issues, try to stir up some trouble, disrupt council meetings, leave their parliamentary duties for which they are paid and for which they have been elected however fraudulently, and leave those duties to disrupt meetings of elected members of council. That is the sort of thing you would expect from a member like the Hon. Mr Winderlich, but for the Liberal opposition to join in this attack shows that it is not ready for government.

Members opposite are saying that they do not believe in political parties or democratic participation. It is an absolutely extraordinary day, and this week has proved it yet again. With the Hon. Mr Lucas and his failure on radio, with their support for banning imitation firearms and now with their support for this motion, they are demonstrating yet again that they are not ready for government and they have no intention of being a government of this state. I urge honourable members to oppose the motion.

The PRESIDENT: The speech of a future leader!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (12:35): I did not intend to speak on this motion but, having listened to the hyperbole which had so little to do with the substance of the motion, I feel obliged to speak. I attended the meeting last week—

An honourable member: Was Bernie there?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, Bernie wasn't there.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In fact, there were no members of the state Labor Party in attendance. May I say that the preceding speaker (the Hon. Bernard Finnigan) completely played the man and not the ball. He was full of personal attack and did not even mention the community. This is an issue to do with the community and local people. Fundamentally, it is about what the community think.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: And it is about the integrity of a decision—

The PRESIDENT: Government members will cease to wind up the Hon. Ms Lensink.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you, Mr President. I might get a rush of adrenaline and then who knows what I might say! This matter is about the integrity of a particular decision. We saw an extraordinary backflip by the Minister for State/Local Government Relations this week. In her rush to agree to a community land revocation—which I think the Hon. Mark Parnell articulated at the community meeting is not a decision that is usually taken very quickly—a decision was taken extremely quickly, and now that has been set aside. One must wonder why. The whole nature of this decision stinks.

Even the local mayor, in his address to council (or it may well have been as reported in the paper) said that it had been a very difficult decision for council. At that meeting there were several hundred people who were obviously very angry and distressed about the decision that was taken. Our local government spokesperson, the member for Kavel (Mark Goldsworthy), addressed the meeting, and I attended because, the Friday before, one of the groups—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: They are all on council. Your little mate, Mr Paul Sykes, who is a Labor acolyte in training—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Finnigan had his go, and the Hon. Ms Lensink will stop debating across the chamber.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You might like to go back to the Attorney's office and have your cookies and milk, like a good little boy.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: He doesn't, actually.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Lensink should not respond to out of order interjections from the Leader of the Government.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I am sorry, Mr President; I deeply apologise for offending you. A lady by the name of Pam phoned me on the Friday and said, 'We're really quite desperate. Anything you can do to show support by just turning up and being there will demonstrate that you are there to assist us.' She said, 'Quite honestly, we've been snowed. We're all a bunch of mums and dads'—as is Kirsten Alexander, who has been one of the main spokespeople for the group—'and we suddenly realised, after this decision had been taken in June, what was going on'—that the council has agreed to what the government wants: to build on a piece of their park and swap it for a site that needs remediation.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The council? But the council does not reflect the view of the community, and the consultation has been a sham. Speakers before me (in favour of this motion) have stated that other residents in local areas not far away are also very concerned about this decision.

The entire consultation process on this matter has been a sham. I think the government should hang its head in shame. It has little acolytes on council whom it tells what to do. Like the puppets that we all know they are, they deny that but they have ways of getting what they want. I think they realise that there might be some issues there. People at the meeting were calling to put Labor last, so there may be threats from independent Labor and other candidates there.

I think people have had their votes taken for granted, as they are in so many Labor electorates. Therefore, I support the motion. I think it is a decision which is in the best interests of the community but which has just been shoved under the rug; abandoned by Labor.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (12:40): I thank the Hon. Mr Ridgway for his support for the motion and the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her advocacy for the community. I thank the Hon. Bernard Finnigan for his excellent speech about a motion that has nothing to do with this one, because this motion is not about whether or not members of parties are entitled to be involved in local government.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Influence, not presence. As to the other remarks made by the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, I think it is unfortunate to cast slurs on the Electoral Commissioner, who certified that the Democrats had sufficient members to fulfil the requirements under the Electoral Act. As to anything he said about me, I draw on Dr Seuss, as I always do in these matters: 'Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind,' and that is good enough for me in matters such as these.

The heart of this motion is about investigating the potential for actual conflict of interest of elected members of the City of Charles Sturt in relation to revoking the community status of land at St Clair as per section 73 of the Local Government Act. To understand the focus of the motion, it is important to appreciate the source of potential conflicts of interest, and these are particularly the influence of the ALP on council and especially the influence of the member for Croydon (Hon. Michael Atkinson).

As a key member of the government, Mr Atkinson is theoretically able to offer benefits and rewards to councillors for making certain decisions in certain ways. The question is: is there evidence that this actually happens? Here, I think there are two important considerations: do we have evidence that Mr Atkinson is closely involved in the council, closely interested in the council, and do we have evidence that he uses that involvement to offer benefits that could create a conflict of interest?

If the answer to those two questions is yes, I think that an investigation by the Ombudsman is warranted, and I will outline some of the evidence of the Hon. Michael Atkinson's close involvement with the City of Charles Sturt.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Well, keep listening, and I will show you just how interested he is. I am aware of four complaints to police about people closely associated with Michael Atkinson and their involvement in community affairs; I have seen three of those, and I want to read an extract from one, 'At the above time, RP was protesting at the West Croydon Community Centre by herself. She states that she was standing there talking out loud when she saw a male with a camera. She recognised the male to be Brad, who she states works for the Attorney-General's Department office in Port Adelaide. The male took a photo of the female, and the female said, "What do you think you are doing?" The male said, "You will pay for this, for what it did today." The male then left and walked down Rosetta Street.'

As I said, I have several other complaints of this nature, but here we have a local person exercising their democratic right to protest about a local council issue and an employee (and there is some confusion about the office, but I have had this generally verified by several other people) of a state member of parliament taking photographs and making threats.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: You have obviously never been around a polling booth.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Again, what a perfect illustration of the mentality of the Australian Labor Party towards the practice of democracy in South Australia—just like the other day—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I will come back to that in a moment.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Never mind about making unfounded allegations, the fact is that you've been down there. You've been filmed down there pointing in the faces of elected councillors.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: When I was filmed down there, I certainly was not pointing in the faces of elected councillors. What the film will show is me calming down excited residents. You can go back and look at it any time.

I think these are important matters, and you may want to reflect also on the night of the deadly wine club incident, when numerous members of the government were absent and actually interfered with the passage of the constitutional deadlocks reform bill, because the majority were at a wine tasting. I will happily go to a community meeting; I will happily go to a community protest—I make no apology for that—without disrupting the business of parliament when what your party did was have people off at a wine tasting, and that disrupted parliament. I am happy to defend myself at any time.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I rise on a point of order, sir. He is just talking nonsense. The wine club was well and truly over by 7.30.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: That's not your point of order. What's your point of order?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The point of order is just relevance. Of what relevance is it?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I think the members of the council are well aware who has taken pairs during the business of the council.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I will now read an email from a resident which some members will have received and which expresses the situation in this council area, the Hon. Michael Atkinson's involvement and the sentiments of the residents much better than I ever could. The email states:

It would be much appreciated if you could support this motion as from my understanding it relies on being passed by the Independents. It just means that residents like myself and many others will be able to come out with our evidence and explain the techniques (and they are quite heavy handed, nasty and relentless) which the Hon. Atkinson and his staff members at his electorate office use on residents to undermine any type of campaign in the area unless it is by people he/they endorse and usually, as a PR campaign for the person to gain a portfolio so that they can then be elected onto council (as I have witnessed and come to understand).

If the opportunity is granted, residents will come out and speak about what has happened to them. I personally feel threatened by him...the Charles Sturt Residents and Ratepayers forum), the website has been pulled down as it was continually being hacked and he was on the site attacking residents for engaging in community conversation about the St Clair swap...

I spoke to one of the administrators the day before the site was last hacked...and his property had been damaged the night before and he had been targeted and attacked. It's just creepy.

If the motion is passed, it just means that many of us will be able to present evidence to our complaints...

The nastiness of these people and how low they would go; threats, defamatory e-mails, running counter pamphlets when our pamphlets were just coming out, being spied upon and personally attacked. And of course, you say why bother. The experience was so negative...

Why would Michael do this, attack residents who had for so many years been loyal to him? I'm just one person, but there are so many more of us out there from his electorate who are also scared. Seriously, we basically have to go undergrown just to be able to participate, communicate and contribute in our neighbourhood.

I hope this helps you in deciding...

Many people I know are really hoping that this motion is passed as it's believed that this is our opportunity to come out after so many years of threats. Seriously, it is like being the exiles in George Orwell's Animal Farm...

Can you please not distribute this e-mail because residents have warned me that he sues everyone. This is my experience and I thought it might give you an idea of what some of us have gone through. When or if the opportunity comes to show documents, then clearly you will see that this is not a farcical smear campaign. This is for real.

The Hon. Michael Atkinson claimed in several case he has minimal influence over Charles Sturt council. A very credible local source puts the number of councillors assisted by Michael Atkinson over the past decade (and Michael Atkinson claimed he had helped one or maybe two councillors get elected) in double figures. One local resident stated Mr Atkinson had run a smear campaign against a candidate he did not support, including direct mail to all residents in the ward concerned. Mr Atkinson's preferred candidate was a volunteer in his office. This is demonstrating close interest and involvement. Is there a reason to believe that Mr Atkinson offers benefits to councillors?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Atkinson, or the Attorney-General.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: The Hon. Mr Atkinson; I am sorry. Two witnesses claim that one councillor was offered a position as a chair of a council committee if he rejoined the ALP. The chairmanship of this committee attracted a payment of $3,000. One councillor who had opposed the land swap recently changed his vote late in the piece. Residents assert that this was because he had been promised the Hon. Michael Atkinson's support for a Labor seat. So, it is clear that there is good evidence of close involvement by the Hon. Michael Atkinson in the day-to-day running of council and ongoing community campaigns in the area.

There are also several allegations—and, in my view, one of them is extremely credible—that he actively offers benefits to councils. It is worth highlighting the seriousness of these offences. The Criminal Law Consolidation Act—and I read here from an attachment to the ministerial code of conduct—refers to offences of a public nature. Certain kinds of conduct, if undertaken by people who hold public office, constitute a criminal offence. A member of parliament is a public officer. The offences are as follows:

251—Abuse of public office

(1) A public officer who improperly—

(a) exercises power or influence...is guilty of an offence.

And:

253—Offences relating to appointment to public office

(1) A person who improperly—

(a) gives, offers or agrees to give a benefit to another in connection with the appointment or possible appointment of a person to a public office...is guilty of an offence.

The penalty for the first of these is seven years' imprisonment, and the penalty for the second is four years' imprisonment.

If these allegations are correct—and we have to go to someone like the Ombudsman to test them—the Attorney-General, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, the man supposed to uphold the law, has, arguably, systematically broken it, or at least staff employed by him have. If these allegations are true, the member for Croydon, a man supposed to defend the working people of the western suburbs, has systematically bullied and manipulated them.

It might be of interest to know that I used to be a member of the Labor Party. I have a little bit of a feel for the tradition and culture—now long dead and long gone.

The PRESIDENT: You used to be a member of the Democrats, too.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I did, more recently. Process of elimination, Mr President. This is worse than corruption, in my view, because it is a betrayal of the people he is supposed to defend, while the party, as a whole, has stood by and let him do these things to the good-hearted people of the western suburbs.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Why don't you go out there and say things about me? If the ALP does not stand for these people, it does not stand for anything: it stands exposed as pursuing power without glory and power without principle. It is a sad, soulless shell of a once great Australian institution. In 1949, Ben Chifley coined the phrase 'Light on the hill' to capture the way in which the Australian Labor Party gave hope to ordinary people—

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member should stick to the motion.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: —like the people I have been speaking to.

The PRESIDENT: We are very well aware of the history of this wonderful Labor Party.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: If these allegations are true, the light on the hill has gone out.

Motion carried.