CONSTITUTION (ACCESS TO MINISTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 July 2012.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:01): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate that we support the intent of the Constitution (Access to Ministers) Amendment Bill 2012, that is, improving the transparency and accountability of the government; however the Liberal opposition is unable to support this bill.

The bill proposes to insert section 73B into the Constitution Act 1934 to provide that 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 in association with the event.

The Hon. Mark Parnell rightly argues that it is important that the parliamentary system is not just clean, but is seen to be clean by the public. In the days following the bill's tabling, political scientist Dr Dean Jaensch commented in the media that businesses donate money to political parties to get something in return and that voters should have a right to know how much an organisation is donating to a party so they can decide whether undue influence is involved.

In this regard, I acknowledge the special concerns of the Greens. As the recipients of the largest donation in Australian political history—a donation of $1.67 million—the Australian Greens know how important it is to maintain transparency and public confidence in the face of donations. Dr Jaensch indicated that he considers the Greens' bill to be a good start but that it is vulnerable to being worked around.

As parliamentarians, we are elected and remunerated by taxpayers and the state. Each citizen has a right to access their elected representative free from further payment or other obligation. Likewise, ministers are representatives of the Crown and have a duty to fairly receive and consider all information relevant to a decision. Across all their activities, political parties must ensure that their activities enhance rather than inhibit citizens' access to their parliamentarians and ministers. Public confidence in democratic processes can be significantly undermined if citizens feel that government processes are about access and that access can be bought through political parties.

In March 2012, British Conservative Party co-treasurer, Peter Cruddas, resigned after he was secretly filmed by the Sunday Times offering access to the prime minister and the chancellor in exchange for payments of up to £250,000. Following the scandal, political donations dropped and general reform regarding the funding of political parties was promised. I think that highlights to us all that transparency and accountability in the funding of political parties is actually important for the public's ongoing confidence in those parties and the ongoing funding of the parties.

In May 2012, the Weatherill government was heavily criticised when it was revealed that, frustrated at his inability over 18 months to secure a meeting with the health minister, the Chair of the Keith Hospital Board, James de Barro, attended a $650-a-head ALP fundraising dinner with the Premier. Soon after the function, the government gave the Keith Hospital a one-off $350,000 grant.

Such events in the UK and in South Australia undermine public confidence, but the issue today is whether the Greens' bill will protect our system and, therefore, protect public confidence. Unfortunately, the view of my party is that the Greens' bill will not be effective to stop the inappropriate provision of special access at events. After all, it only prohibits promoting an event in a way 'that suggests special access will be given to a minister'. In reality, the bill will only prevent events from being clumsily advertised. It will spawn a renewed focus on carefully worded publicity materials.

The term 'special access' is vague and may extend to implicit assertions, for example, an invitation to 'a dinner with the Premier' may be taken to imply special access without any special claim. On the other hand, it may not. The bill focuses on ministers and fails to recognise that the stakeholders want to influence parliamentarians, especially those in the Legislative Council, including Independents and, to be frank, including the Greens. The Liberal opposition welcomes efforts which will substantially improve the transparency and accountability of the parliament. The Liberal opposition cannot support this bill as, in our view, it will not do so.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:05): I will sum up and I commence by thanking the Hon. Stephen Wade for his contribution. I thank him in the context of the fact that he is representing the Liberal Party and they have seen fit to put their view on the record compared to the people on the other side of the chamber in the Labor Party who have decided not to engage in this bill at all. They have such contempt for the South Australian people that they are not prepared to put on the record their defence of their dodgy fundraising activities. They know that this bill is aimed at them; they know that is it aimed at SA Progressive Business. They know that they sell access to ministers as a party-political fundraiser and they know it is wrong, and they do not have the courage to come into this chamber and defend their behaviour.

We could have avoided a division on this bill but we are going to have to divide on it now because the government has not put their position on the record. I will at least insist on them voting one way or the other. If they have had a road to Damascus and they have a pleasant surprise for me, I wait to see in a few minutes. I am always prepared to be surprised. It is an appalling situation that the government is not prepared to defend its position, defend its record and honour the democratic processes of this house.

Having said that I am appreciative of the Liberals having put their position, I am disappointed that they are not prepared to accept this bill. The Hon. Stephen Wade has said that he endorses what we are trying to do—he gets it. Clearly, he gets that there is a problem, yet he has not seen fit to support this bill. My invitation to the Liberal Party would be that some time very soon, well before the next election, put on the record what you would do; put on the record how you think integrity should be applied to party-political fundraising, because whilst it is fine for the Liberals to welcome the Greens' attempts, if they are not going to support these attempts, they need to make their own.

I do not accept the criticism that the bill is so full of loopholes as to be unworkable. As the honourable member said, all it does is draw attention to the quality of advertising and the clumsy advertising of political fundraisers will be caught, but clever advertising will not be. I think the South Australian people expect more of us than that. I think they expect that we do the right thing and that any attempt to wriggle around this bill (were it to pass) would be heartily condemned by the South Australian community.

With those brief words of summing up, I do urge all members to support this bill and, as I have said, in the absence of the government putting their position on the record, unless I win it on the voices, a division will be necessary.

The council divided on the second reading:

Majority of 8 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.