Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Constitution (Access to Ministers) Amendment Bill CONSTITUTION (ACCESS TO MINISTERS) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:49): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Constitution Act 1934. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:50): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The practice of the ALP in selling special access to ministers of the Crown as a fundraiser for their political party is an abominable breach of democratic principles. This is not a new matter and the Greens have raised it in this place on many occasions, most recently in question time on 30 May. What is remarkable is that the Labor Party is yet to be shamed into abandoning this model of fundraising, and it has made no effort to clear the air of the stench of nepotism and corruption that surrounds these practices. Their Labor colleagues in Queensland and New South Wales finally got it and they acted, but not soon enough or decisively enough to avoid a thrashing in the polls. After so many years of dodgy fundraising practices, the electors in those states were not ready to trust Labor again so soon. Members should not really need me to explain why the practice of selling special access to ministers for party fundraising is wrong, but let me just say the following: ministers of the Crown are appointed by the Governor as a key component of the executive arm of government. As such, they have a duty to the community to make decisions according to law and to act fairly and in the best interests of the community. As ministers, they should not be used as bait by their political party and they should not allow their party to sell access to themselves for political donations. Whenever this matter is raised in the media or in parliament, ministers routinely answer that their doors are always open and that there is no need to donate to the party in order to get access. Someone should have told the chair of the board of the Keith hospital that, because he told the media a month or so ago that he registered for a Labor fundraising dinner because he saw it as the only way to get access to the minister. The second predictable response from ministers when challenged about the link between political donations and government decisions is to claim that they have no knowledge of donations and, even if they do, they never allow the fact that someone is a major donor to influence their decisions. In fact, they even get quite offended when faced with clearly smelly situations, such as the Walker Corporation sponsoring fundraising events for Labor at precisely the same time that the Labor cabinet is about to decide on the approval of the Buckland Park development, a development that has been universally condemned as appalling town planning. Of course, who could forget the now notorious interview on ABC 891 where John Blunt, the CEO of the Makris Group, was asked about donations to political parties. During the interview Mr Blunt gave an extraordinary insight into the way in which development decisions are made in this state. In responding to a question from David Bevan about why the Makris Group chose to donate to Labor, John blunt replied: I mean, we have got business interests, as well, so we want good governance. We want to see things happen in this state. Matthew Abraham interjected, 'You want to be looked after, too?' In response, John Blunt agreed and said: Yeah, we want to make our projects happen, that's for sure, but, you know, that's a part of the way the system—you know, politics—works here. In response to a question that I asked of former planning minister Holloway on 2 May 2007, the very day of the interview that I just referred to, former minister Holloway replied as follows. Referring to me, he said: The honourable member can make any accusation he likes, but I repeat the comment I made on radio: my door is open to any developer in this state who has a good project and, if a proposal stacks up, I will listen to that proposal and I will decide on its merits. I do not know how much money is given by any developers to the party. The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjected, 'Yes, you do.' Minister Holloway responded, 'No, I don't.' I am sure no-one believed former minister Holloway then, as no-one should believe any minister who participates in these SA Progressive Business fundraisers and makes the claim that they do not know that donations are being made to the party. Do Labor ministers really expect us to believe that they do not know that the people sitting next to them at the dinner did not pay through the nose for that access? Do they expect us to believe that those sitting next to them and chewing their ears with even greater relish than they are chewing their steaks have somehow won a lottery or just happen to be wandering past and this was the only seat left? I said before that the current practice of the Labor Party in relation to these donations is corrupt, and let me elaborate. If you are a member of the executive and you accept money for special access and influence, then that is corrupt, and if you are caught you will be punished. If you are minister and you say, 'Give me money and I'll give you an approval,' well, that is corrupt; you will go to gaol. But if you are minister of the crown with legislated power to grant approvals, permits, dispensations, or exemptions, and you say, 'Give my party a lot of money and you can have my undivided attention for an hour or two,' and then if you just happen to grant approval or a permit, etc., to that person's business doesn't that also ring corruption alarm bells? A minister's only escape from a charge of corruption is to pretend (a) they did not know that money had changed hands for the access, (b) to claim that they never discussed the proposal in question, or that (c) the proposal was so meritorious that they would have approved it anyway regardless of the donation that was made. I do not think that explanation should satisfy anyone. In relation to the contents of this bill, it is really straightforward. It is an amendment to the Constitution Act. The operative provision reads as follows: A person must not promote an event intended to raise funds for a political party in a way that suggests special access will be given to a minister at the event or an association with the event. Maximum penalty $20,000. So, it is a very simple provision which is designed to prevent selling access to ministers at a party fundraiser. It is also important to point out what the bill does not do. It does not stop members of parliament participating in party fundraisers. There is nothing to stop members of parliament participating in such fundraisers, even if they are a minister, provided the fundraiser is not promoted as a vehicle for access to a minister and to influence executive government. Also, the bill is confined in its operation to party fundraisers. There is nothing to stop charity fundraisers, including promoting the fact that ministers will be there. If by their status ministers can promote altruism and philanthropy in the community then that is a good thing. For example, on Friday night various well-heeled people at the Midwinter Ball in the Adelaide Town Hall will bid at an auction to spend time having a drink with the Premier or a barbecue with the Leader of the Opposition, or even the chance to punch the Treasurer on the nose in the boxing ring. The proceeds will go to the Salvation Army or to the AIDS Council, and I hope they make a lot of money. These types of activities will not be affected by this bill because the recipients are charities and not political parties. I would like to just refer now to some of the practices of the Labor Party's fundraising arm, SA Progressive Business. I recently received a list of some of the functions they have coming up. The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting: The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Brokenshire says that it was an invitation. I think it was an invitation. I will not pretend that it was addressed to me personally, but it came into my hands. We have got twilight drinks with the Hon. John Hill, Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse and Minister for the Arts, and the Hon. Ian Hunter, Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Youth and Minister for Volunteers. Then we have more twilight drinks with the Hon. Patrick Conlon, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and Minister for Housing and Urban Development, and the Hon. Chloe Fox, Minister for Transport Services. Then we have a leadership dinner with Premier Jay Weatherill and the Hon. Grace Portolesi, Minister for Education and Child Development. Following that, we have got more twilight drinks with Premier Jay Weatherill and the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy and Minister for Small Business. More twilight drinks with the Hon. Martin Ferguson—they are bringing in the big guns from interstate—the federal Minister for Resources, Energy and Minister for Tourism. Again, minister Tom Koutsantonis puts in another appearance. Then there is the annual Premier and cabinet dinner, and then the Premier's end-of-year drinks—and these are all fundraisers for the Labor Party. Even though the literature does not actually make that explicit, we all know that is exactly what they are. SA Progressive Business also invites people to join. In a letter from Nick Bolkus (in this capacity not honourable), the Chair of SA Progressive Business Inc., when you pay (I think it is the sum of $750 for an individual membership), it states: Your annual membership will also give you and your business the opportunity to host senior government ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Premier, in your boardroom. The access that is being promised in return for donations to the Labor Party is absolutely astounding. Another letter, this time under the signature of Emily Bourke, the Director of SA Progressive Business, refers to two events—I have referred to them before—one of which is on 27 July (next week): lunch with Premier Jay Weatherill and minister Tom Koutsantonis. Then there is twilight business drinks with minister Patrick Conlon and minister Chloe Fox. But what is interesting is the next paragraph, which states: SA Progressive Business is grateful to both the Motor Trade Association and Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd for hosting these important business discussions. [Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:47] The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: Before the dinner break, I made reference to two of the forthcoming SA Progressive Business Labor Party fundraisers, being a lunch with Premier Jay Weatherill and minister Tom Koutsantonis on 27 July and twilight business drinks with minister Patrick Conlon and minister Chloe Fox on 2 August. I mentioned that, in their invitation, SA Progressive Business says that they are grateful to both the Motor Trade Association and Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd for hosting these important business discussions. Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd is a firm that receives vast numbers of government contracts in the construction field. As well as the massive Royal Adelaide Hospital build on North Terrace, there is a range of other projects where Hansen Yuncken is doing work for the government. I will just run through some of them: the regional police stations and courts contract, $40 million; Queen Elizabeth Hospital redevelopment, $120 million; SA Water fit-out for Victoria Square (the VS1 building), $38 million; Lyell McEwin Hospital redevelopment stage A, $91 million; Lyell McEwin Hospital redevelopment stage B, $66 million; Adelaide Entertainment Centre, $52 million; super schools, $323 million; Gilbert Building redevelopment, Women's and Children's Hospital, $28 million; Glenside Hospital, $130 million; Adelaide Film and Screen Centre, $43 million; Youth Training Centre, Cavan, $67 million; GP Plus Super Clinic, Noarlunga Centre, $23 million— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: —and the new ward, Gilbert Building, Women's and Children's Hospital, $64.4 million. So, this is a major construction company in South Australia in receipt of extensive and lucrative government contracts that is, in fact, sponsoring Labor Party fundraising dinners. I can see no assessment of that situation other than this is a wrong and, I would say, corrupt way for the political party in government to be raising funds. It raises so many questions about propriety and, certainly, the government will hide behind various Procurement Board decisions and whatever you have. The fact is that here we have a company doing government work and also doing fundraising work for the Labor Party. Of necessity, the target of this bill has been the Labor government and its fundraising arm, SA Progressive Business. This is the organisation, as I mentioned earlier, that raises funds from memberships, and the membership fees are $750 for individuals, $2,500 for corporations and $10,000 for foundation members. It routinely charges $1,000 a seat for fundraising dinners or $10,000 a table—massive amounts of money. However, just because the target of this bill at present is the Labor Party does not let the Liberal Party off the hook. This bill—and how the Liberal Party votes on this bill—is a test for how they will behave if they are elected to government in the future. Will the Liberal Party say, 'If it was good enough for the previous government, it's good enough for us,' or will the Liberal Party take a principled stand and vote to do away with this corrupt practice of offering ministers of the Crown as bait for party fundraisers? The numberplate logo that most of us have on our cars talks about South Australia being the 'Festival State'. However, it could just as easily be a new slogan, a different slogan, and that slogan would be 'South Australia—the best democracy money can buy', because that is the direction that we are heading in if we do not reform these laws. The bill before us gives all members in this place an opportunity to support better standards of political behaviour. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.