Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Members of Parliament, Non-Parliamentary Employment MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, NON-PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:56): I move: That this council— 1.	Notes with dismay the decision of the Hon. Patrick Conlon MP to take on three days per week private employment in addition to his parliamentary and electorate duties; 2.	Recognises the right of all South Australians to be represented in parliament by full-time representatives who are not distracted by outside employment commitments; and 3.	Calls on the Premier to urgently develop comprehensive guidelines for appropriate behaviour of members of parliament in relation to outside employment and the performance of parliamentary and electorate duties. On Saturday night I attended a production at Her Majesty's Theatre as part of the Adelaide Festival, a most excellent play entitled One Man, Two Guvnors. Little did I think on Saturday night, as I was enjoying that production, that that would be the news item of the day the following Monday morning. I refer, of course, to the decision of the Hon Patrick Conlon MP to take on three days' employment with a private law firm in addition to his parliamentary and electorate duties. I think it is fair to say that that announcement has been received with close to universal condemnation amongst those whose opinions have been sought, whether they be members of the public or political commentators. What people are asking is: how is it possible for a member of parliament to devote himself or herself to their parliamentary and electorate duties and, at the same time, conduct a three-day-a-week outside employment arrangement? I think those commentators are right: I do not think it is possible for a member of parliament to devote themselves fully to their duties. What was interesting about the Hon. Patrick Conlon's response to the criticism was that part of his defence was that he declared that in his electorate they would see more of him than they had over the past decade. He was, of course, referring to the fact that he had been a minister for a considerable period of time and that his ministerial duties meant that he may not have spent as much time in his electorate as he would have had he not been a minister. However, that is really arguing the point the wrong way around. Whilst he has not confessed, in so many words, that he has neglected his electorate—he has not said that—the fact that he is now a backbench member of parliament should mean that he has more time to devote to his electorate; in fact, he has at least a five-day standard working week to devote to his electorate plus whatever extra time he chooses to spend, as we all do. The second part of my motion refers to the right of all South Australians to be represented in parliament by full-time representatives who are not distracted by outside employment commitments. That raises the issue of what level of outside commitments would be a distraction, what level of engagement in a private business or farm, or managing of investments, might be appropriate. A number of the commentators have referred to the rules and, whenever they talk about the rules, the first thing they say is, 'Well, there aren't really any.' In fact, the Premier has said, when his response was sought, that the Hon. Patrick Conlon MP is not breaking any rules. Of course, as members here would be well aware, the only real rule that goes to a person's eligibility to remain a member of parliament is their obligation under the Constitution Act to attend the parliament on days that business is being conducted and, whilst there is an expectation to attend all days, the legal requirement, effectively, is to attend at least one day in 12 unless you have sought leave. That rule comes from the provision of the constitution which says that if you do not attend for 12 consecutive days without having obtained leave you lose your seat. As members here know, attending parliament involves, effectively, attending for any part of the day and having your name ticked off. So, in terms of the rules for how much time a member of parliament must devote to parliamentary duties, when you do the sums it works out that if you turn up for five minutes once every two months you will probably avoid falling foul of the constitution and losing your seat. That is no rule at all, obviously. That is an ancient fallback position to make sure that we do not have people abandoning completely their responsibilities. The question, then, is: if we are to have rules, how are they best devised and what should they say? That brings me to the final part of this motion which calls on the Premier to urgently develop comprehensive guidelines for appropriate behaviour of members of parliament in relation to outside employment and the performance of parliamentary and electorate duties. Of course, that is only one approach, the idea of the Premier preparing guidelines. We could seek to have a legislated approach, but I have no doubt that that would be a difficult thing to do. One of the things we all discover as members of parliament when first elected is that there is no formal job description. There is no set of minimum hours in relation to hours of attendance or the proportion of time that a member should spend serving their electorate, as opposed to dealing with parliamentary business. There are no clear rules. But I think that the situation of the Hon. Patrick Conlon has reminded us that it is not good enough simply to leave it to people's own good judgement because that judgement can be found lacking, as I believe it has in this case. I will refer to one comment I received from a Liberal member of the other house, whom I will not name because it was a corridor conversation and it is not my practice to repeat corridor conversations. This particular member of parliament thought that maybe members of his or her own side should lay off a bit on the poor old Hon. Patrick Conlon MP 'because we all have farms and other businesses'. I must admit that I was surprised that that was the member's response because I certainly do not have a farm and I certainly do not have any other business, and I think that is probably the case for the majority of members. But we do need to make sure that we get rules in place that respect the primacy of the South Australian people and the fact that we are in an honoured position of trust to serve them and their best interests. In my definition, that means devoting oneself full-time to parliamentary duties. The idea of the part-time politician is an idea whose time has not yet come. I certainly understand that in the old days, before members of parliament could draw a salary (they were not paid at all), you, in fact, had to be independently wealthy or maintain other employment simply to get by, but these days that is no longer the situation. We are paid, in my view, a more than adequate salary, and that should be enough for any person or any family to get by on. With those words, I urge honourable members to support this motion, and I am hoping that at the end of the day we will see a set of rules that does put the primacy of the public ahead of the desire of individual members of parliament for personal return. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.