Ministerial Travel

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:13): As I indicated earlier this afternoon, the Liberal Party position is that we support reasonable expenses on overseas travel for ministers, as long as it is being conducted for official business. I indicated that, in relation to minister Bignell, the public controversy was because of unreasonable expenditure and the fact that there were many unanswered questions. Minister Bignell has sought to defend himself last week and again today by making a number of claims. Today he said words to the effect of:

That's incorrect that statement to say that it wasn't publicly disclosed. Everything that we spend in our office is put up as soon as possible, usually at the end of the month when the expenditure has taken place.

Last week, he said:

The reason that the member for Unley only has the receipt of my bill is because he only FOI'd me for that particular travel and not any ministerial advisers. The reason there is nothing for August 2014 in my disclosure about my credit card is because it was not used in August last year.

I note that the minister got it wrong. It wasn't actually Mr Pisoni who was making the FOI requests, there were other Liberal members, but we will put that to the side. I want to quote what the actual government policy is, as opposed to the minister's claims. Circular PC035, Proactive Disclosure of Regularly Requested Information, is a DPCC circular and states:

Cost of travel—means any expenses related to the travel, excluding salary costs, paid for out of the budgets of Ministers and/or agencies…This policy provides that the following information will be proactively disclosed to the public by online publication:

1. Details of credit card expenditure for all cards held by Ministers, Ministerial staff and the Chief Executives of agencies subject to this policy.

2. Details of Ministers' overseas travel arrangements, including the cost of travel paid for out of the budgets of Ministers and/or agencies.

Those rules make it quite clear that minister Bignell, as I said, has been a serial offender and has been engaged in a systematic breach of the government's policies in relation to disclosure. The claims from minister Bignell, both last week and today, are demonstrably wrong, and I note that this particular claim has been supported by Speaker Atkinson who has tweeted in the last few days:

F for fail, @DavidPisonMP: He FOIed Minister's hotel bill & tried sleazy imputation but forgot to FOI staffers' bill. Came a gutzer (again).

Both the minister and Speaker Atkinson are wrong. The government's rules require disclosure of all overseas travel by ministers which relates to any expenses in regard to their travel, including salaried costs. The total costs have been released, and the minister argues that the costs of the staff member together with the minister have been included in the overall travel costs, but the detail of that expenditure—the invoices of hotel accommodation, rooms booked, limousines etc.—has not been released, as required, under that particular policy. Some information has been gathered through FOIs from Liberal members of parliament.

As an example, in July and August of last year when the minister headed to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and Edinburgh, minister Bignell's credit card for July and August shows no credit card activity at all. That is, the claim is that the minister did not use his credit card at all for any cost of expense whilst travelling overseas. There is no accommodation listed on minister Bignell's credit card account.

His ministerial adviser for July and August has lodged returns, but those returns indicate no invoice or account for accommodation for either her or for the minister. So, for July and August on this particular trip, contrary to the minister's claims and contrary to the policy that requires it, there is no invoice or detail for the accommodation cost, the nature of the expense of that particular aspect of the trip.

I give another example: in the minister's stopover with his adviser in Frankfurt, FOI has revealed that $494 was spent on a limousine service for the minister and his ministerial adviser, but again that particular $494 cost has not been revealed on the minister's account or, indeed, on the staffer's account in relation to that particular aspect of the travel. There are many other unanswered questions that only minister Bignell can respond to, and if minister Bignell will not provide those answers, the Premier must direct him to provide those answers and be publicly accountable to the people of South Australia.