Motions

Labor Members of Parliament

Adjourned debate on motion of the Hon. R.I. Lucas:

That this council notes with concern the actions taken by Labor MPs and statements made by Labor MPs both inside and outside the parliament.

(Continued from 9 August 2017.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:43): I rise to put some remarks on the record in relation to this motion. There are some behaviours which have been taking place which need to be highlighted and placed on the parliamentary record. Over many years, the member for Croydon, currently the Speaker in the House of Assembly, has taken great delight in taunting people whose views he disagrees with.

The nature of these exchanges I would describe as follows. He always pretends that he is acting in the best interests of his electorate or particular aggrieved people. He frequently accuses those he disagrees with of being motivated by disregard for his electorate or a particular group of people. For those who engage in debate with him, he does his best to use their words against them and does not let the truth get in the way of his story and always has to have the last word. He often also resorts to the threat of legal action as a final way of silencing others, and I think this has been particularly effective with the media.

As my friend and former colleague the Hon. Robert Lawson used to say, the member for Croydon has spent more time in a courtroom representing himself than he ever did representing clients. There is also a disturbing targeting by the member of women. These have included female elected members of the previous City of Charles Sturt, including former mayor Kirsten Alexander, the current member for Adelaide, Ms Rachel Sanderson, and most recently, my Legislative Council colleague, Tammy Franks, and me among others.

I would also like to raise the matter of a Liberal staffer who works for the member for MacKillop, Ms Kristie McTernan, who was a candidate for the seat of MacKillop recently. She was subject to a tweet from him. After she had been unsuccessful, he said the following on Twitter: 'Candidate for MacKillop Lib pre-selection living in Brompton returns to Croydon roll after sojourning in South-East. Reunited with partner.' Kristie says it (those comments) 'made me uncomfortable. Mr Atkinson's tweet was factually incorrect and creepy. How did he know I had moved back to that address? If it was from access to the electoral roll through his position as a member of parliament, I think it is totally inappropriate for him to be tweeting that sort of information.' I agree. I would add that there is a subtext that he is basically saying, I know where you live and what your electoral roll activity is.

The bill which has been before the parliament to amend our sex work laws has provided a particular opportunity to the member to engage in his preferred sport. After the Legislative Council select committee recommended the bill unamended, then it was passed by a clear majority in this place in July, he decided to stir up his own constituency. Despite the bill having been a matter before the House of Assembly since May 2014, tabled in the Legislative Council in July 2015 and then subject to a select committee for nearly two years, it took until July of this year for him to letterbox a number of suburbs in his electorate about the bill.

My colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks and I received an email from his office on 11 July asking us to check the contents of a document that he was about to letterbox. We were given an hour's notice to provide corrections. I responded with six points, and given the hour, I will not read them all. My final sentence was, 'I trust that you will correct these inaccuracies in the interests of not misleading our constituents.' I then got a response—I will not go through the entire contents—but he has basically accused me of being the author of the select committee report, which is not true, and a range of other things. He said:

Your request that you and Mr Darley be given no more prominence in the letter than the 11 others who voted for your Bill reveals an uncharacteristically shy and modest side to you. In any event, I draw your attention to the sentence in the letter that reads: Some Liberal MPs and some Labor MPs, I am ashamed to say, voted for this. This addresses your objection. I will have more to say about the 11 others in due course and in a relevant context.

Which I suspect has not happened. But I note that the Hon. Mr Darley, the Hon. Ms Franks and I have featured by name many times prominently in his missives to his electorate and great omissions of other members who both supported the bill and had supported the contents of the select committee report in full. The member then demanded a few days later on 14 July that a number of MLCs attend street corner meetings organised by him in his electorate. My response to him was as follows:

Thank you for your letter.

It is generally not the practice of Members of Parliament to attend other political parties' street corner meetings.

In any case, I am already in contact with a number of our constituents in those particular suburbs.

This was the response I then received from the member:

In the interests of reasonable publication, I give notice that I will be issuing flyers and a D.L. with these remarks of and concerning you. This gives you an opportunity to comment on the remarks before they are letterboxed:

The mover of the proposed law to legalise street prostitution is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council, Michelle Lensink, of Bridgewater. Michelle Lensink refuses to attend any of these public meetings in the affected area and she told me in writing:

'I (Michelle Lensink) am in contact with a number of constituents in those particular suburbs. (Athol Park, Mansfield Park, Woodville Gardens & Woodville North)'

Has Liberal Party deputy leader Michelle Lensink been in touch with you in the past 14 years that she has been a Member of Parliament about her proposal to legalise street prostitution or any other matter?

I then replied:

Once again, your communications are inaccurate, misleading and mischievous.

My preference is that you publish my previous response to you in full.

You may also wish to explain to our constituents why you failed to advise them of the proceedings of the select committee over the last two years so that they could make representations about their particular concerns with the Bill which is now before the House of Assembly.

I note that you made no representations to the select committee either.

What the member has attempted to do is say to his constituents that it is, in effect, my job to communicate with all of them. We did get a couple of people phone my office. I also had other people who contacted me to say that they were very upset about his implication that I had not been in touch with them. He replied to the email, of course, asking me to outline where he had been dishonest, but also ignored the issue of his own failure to engage his constituents until very recently after the select committee had wrapped up and that matter had been voted on in the Legislative Council.

I took the view that this exchange of emails was all part of a game that I would not participate in. My office receives calls from people every day who need help with very serious problems and we have made them our priority. As I said, we did receive communications from people in the member's electorate who have been given incorrect information and also from several who expressed their anger and dismay at the local member's inaccurate statements. The Premier knew about the communications between the member for Croydon and myself. I have never heard from him about these matters.

We then come to the recent issue, which made it into the media last week. The original tweet from the Sex Industry Network was on 11 November. I never saw it because I have over 1,700 accounts that I follow and I am not the sort of person who spends a lot of time trawling through the feeds. The member replied to the tweet and tagged in the Hon. Ms Franks and myself. Because we had been tagged, it then became something that we were notified of. I found his actions offensive on several levels. Firstly, there is the image itself. Members of parliament should not be sending images like this for any reason in 2017; it is not acceptable for members of parliament and not for senior office bearers of parliament.

Secondly, in typical belligerent style, the implication of the member is that Ms Franks and I are somehow responsible for the Sex Industry Network's communications and that we are therefore seeking to mock people of strong religious convictions. This is also not correct. On Sunday 19 November, the Hon. Ms Franks sent a tweet to the member asking him to take responsibility for his behaviour. I also sent a similar tweet to the Premier and the Labor Party to take responsibility for his behaviour. The member printed an apology—I use that word advisedly—on Facebook, which is really just a self-justifying rant, which continues to peddle things that are not true. He says that:

Tammy Franks & Michelle Lensink have long been advocates for the Sex Industry Network (SIN) in Parliament.

We are not advocates for the Sex Industry Network: we are advocates for a model of legislation. He says:

They brought in a Committee Report…

Well, the committee brought in a committee report. Again, he has targeted two people who coincidentally (not) are the two women who served on the committee. He continues:

They brought in a Committee Report and legislation that fully adopted the SIN position on reforming the law on sex-work in SA and they have a close and mutually supportive relationship with SIN.

Which is also not true.

MPs who support the Lensink bill retweet SIN tweets with approval (but not this one).

I do not think I have ever retweeted any of their tweets, but I stand to be corrected on that. He goes on:

Although I too want change in our sex-work law, I think the decriminalisation of street sex work without restrictions goes too far. SIN regards me as an adversary.

He then goes on to describe what he did, saying that SIN has been mocking traditional Christianity. He says:

I received this tweet from SIN and it appears in our twitter feed—

and repeats his comments. He has just really justified his position, although he makes some reference to an apology towards the end of that post.

I think in some ways I am quite used to this behaviour from the member for Croydon, although he certainly crossed the line on this occasion, for which I was offended, but what I found equally disturbing is that the Premier has not actually spoken to him, as far as I can tell. He had not spoken to him on Sunday when this news broke out. He said he hoped that he would put his phone away and understood that he had apologised. It is hard to understand whether he had actually read that particular apology to make a judgement for himself, but obviously as Premier it is his job to monitor the behaviour of his members.

On Monday 20 November, when the Hon. Ms Franks and I had called for the resignation of the Speaker, his comments were that he would not resign, as he had not done anything wrong. As reported in The Advertiser the next day he says:

When I say I've done nothing wrong, I mean that in the very objective way that blokes think.

It is very hard to not see that as another slur towards all women. I was quite heartily sick of all this gutlessness from the Premier by this stage and sent a tweet on Monday night, because it had been reported that an apology had been made, which I did not read as an apology at all, particular not in combination with the member's comments. Then we finally received some form of apology on Monday night.

I point out that in any other workplace this sort of behaviour would result in a reprimand. It was good enough for the Premier to intervene when the Treasurer used foul language to Renewal SA employees, which he described as 'conversational swearing', yet when female colleagues have been attacked by him, he has done absolutely nothing. I am not quite sure who has authority to bring this person into line if the Premier and the Labor Party will not do so.

I used the word 'bystander' in my tweet on Sunday, because this is a very important context. White Ribbon has advice to men that includes the following:

Holding other men accountable to women

A critical step towards accountability is for men to hold other men accountable to women rather than relying on women to call men out when they are being sexist.

It also says in relation to men who are in positions of power:

Men with influence and privilege can be powerful advocates for the prevention of violence against women. Senior male leaders can be effective champions for violence prevention in their organisations, using their personal influence.

I feel very let down by the senior members of the Labor Party on this matter. It is hard to see that if this had been a Liberal or a member of any other party that there would not be a full hue and cry coming from the Premier in particular, but I think he has been gutless on this occasion. I am very disappointed. I think the member for Croydon is not fit to be Speaker and he should have faced some form of reprimand other than the Premier saying that he was hopeful that the member would put his phone away.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (22:59): I rise to make a few comments on the motion moved by the Hon. Rob Lucas:

That this council notes with concern the actions taken by Labor MPs and statements made by Labor MPs both inside and outside the parliament.

Most people would know me in this place as being pretty easy going, not being offended very often and pretty much letting things roll with the punches and getting on with the business of being a member of parliament. However, one action that I need to make some comment about has been the total denial of the member for Elder for her involvement and her understanding of the 'You can't trust Habib' flyer, and the disgraceful attack by the South Australian branch of the Labor Party on Caroline Habib at the last election in the electorate of Elder. Ms Annabel Digance, the member for Elder, often says, 'Oh, I didn't know anything about it'. Well, she has never said that to me, but she has said it to other people: 'I didn't know anything about it'.

In fact, when confronted when she was doorknocking she said she didn't know anything about it. Yet, in the four years that she has been a member of this parliament she has had ample opportunity to put on the record who did it, because we know that she knows who did it. Her husband used to confront volunteers prior to the election, saying, 'We've got dirt on your candidate, we're going to destroy her', and a whole range of other adjectives that went with those sorts of attacks on a quality young woman.

The Labor Party often criticises the Liberal Party for not having enough women in parliament, yet they are very happy to stoop to a particularly low point to try to defeat—and did successfully defeat—Caroline Habib. I think we need to bring to the attention of the people of Elder this denial by the member for Elder. She constantly says that she knew nothing of it, yet her family did; she benefited from it. She has never said that it was wrong and has never acknowledged that it was an unprecedented attack on another women running for parliament.

We on all sides of politics try to encourage quality women to run for parliament, yet the Labor Party unleashed one of the most unpleasant attacks we have ever seen on another candidate. We see this pattern of behaviour on the eve of the election. There was an incident described by Mr Greg Digance, Annabel's husband, that one of their volunteers, their daughter, had been assaulted by a Young Liberal and they called the police. So the police are there and witness statements are being taken. I was fortunate enough to get the CCTV footage from that school after the election: it was absolutely false. But, again, here we have a pattern of behaviour of people denying that they know anything or making things up for their own benefit.

We look at the classic misleading of the electorate by Annabel Digance with the Repat. Often at a polling booth on polling day people would be saying, 'Here, vote for Annabel, she's a nurse. She'll look after you.' Of course, in her election propaganda there were plenty of photographs with Annabel Digance under the Repat sign saying, 'We're going to look after you.' We know that was all false: the Repat is now closed; she is the local member.

It bordered the electorate of Waite. It is somewhat concerning that the member for Waite and Minister for Veterans' Affairs was happy for that facility to close on his watch as well, but this is more about Annabel Digance and her saying one thing and doing another. It is a pattern that has emerged right the way through her time in this place. As I said, she has had four years to put on the record those who were responsible for the actions. She says that it was not her fault, she did not do it, others did it. Well, she had an opportunity—four years—to correct the record, to put on record who did it and to try to clear her name, but she won't—she is not game to.

Whatever the election result, something that Annabel Digance will take to her grave is that she was the person who benefited from a particularly nasty and unpleasant racial attack on another fellow candidate. Only two nights ago—she still cannot help herself—there was a forum with the Minister for Transport and the member for Waite in relation to the Springbank Road/Daws Road intersection. A member of the public, a woman, said that she had been doorknocked by the member for Elder, Annabel Digance, and she had told her that the new intersection would have an overpass. Minister Mullighan said, 'I have no idea where she would have got that from; there is no such thing happening.'

So, again, there is a pattern of Annabel Digance saying things that are not true to try to mislead the electorate of Elder into believing that she is actually out there fighting for them. Over four years, we have never seen any admission that she did anything wrong, or that she put on the record the people who were responsible. She could do that tomorrow, but I would be very surprised if she does. She has had four years—probably nearly 300 sitting days over those four years—in which she could have easily corrected the record, but she has chosen not to. I think that is a mark of the person who we see in the seat of Elder: that she will say anything to get elected. With those few words, I commend the motion to the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (23:05): I simply want to record a few words and particularly make note of the auspicious occasion of the valedictory speech that was given in the other place today by the Speaker—the outgoing Speaker—and outgoing member for Croydon, who is well known to me through his missives, both on Twitter and on email. Indeed, I wish to thank him. He was in the gallery just a few short minutes ago. I want to thank him because I know he will be paying great attention to the words in this council. He should pay great attention to the words of this council because, as he boasts on his bio, he boasts of bringing greater civility to this parliament in his role as Speaker. He would do well to learn from the current President, the presiding member of this place, because I think the civility in this place is a big step up from the civility exercised in the other.

I particularly wanted to thank the member for Croydon, the Speaker in the other place, not for his tweets of a faux vagina, sent to me at 11 minutes before 11am on the 11^th of the 11^th this year—when he, as I understand it, was late for the Remembrance Day ceremony to lay the government wreath—but for his response to the Equal Opportunity Commission complaint I lodged. In it, I had identified 16 incidents in which he had presided over slighting or slurring of me in the other place, where points of order had been raised about imputing an improper motive and he had dismissed them and where points of order had been raised about it being out of order and he had claimed that he was being entertained and so had dismissed the points of order.

There are those 16 incidents, but I note that the member for Croydon, the Speaker in the other place, has actually helped me identify a 17^th. In his media response to my complaint, he noted that an incident in November last year, during a nuclear waste debate, was the only one he could identify through his significant trawling through five years of Hansard in the other place that he thought that perhaps I had been slighted under his watch as presiding member and, indeed, should have asked him for an apology.

In acknowledging that particular incident, which I had not yet identified because it did not name me by my full name—it simply used my Christian name, and I had searched for my surname—I note that I now have 17 incidents that I will frame in my complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission. So, I thank the Speaker for his diligent research.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (23:08): I thank honourable members for their contributions to this particular motion. I rise to speak briefly in conclusion. In my earlier contribution, some time ago now, I raised a range of issues. I referred in that contribution and in some others to issues that relate to the government handling of the Gillman project. In doing so, it is illustrative of the government's actions—Labor MPs' actions and government actions as well—that we have just received one Auditor-General's report on the Adelaide Riverbank Festival Plaza development that raises significant damning criticism of the government.

Suffice to say that there were only two question times in two days to actually question ministers. My understanding is that questions directed to ministers in the House of Assembly today were diverted by minister Koutsantonis and Attorney-General Rau by referring them to minister Mullighan, who, of course, was not involved at the time of the decisions taken in relation to the Walker Corporation development.

The Auditor-General's report is damning. I do not propose to go through that at this late hour. In summary, he says on page 2, in relation to the negotiations the government had with the Walker Corporation, 'As a consequence, the integrity and probity of the process could not be clearly demonstrated.' He makes other damning criticisms of the process.

I want to place on the public record the information that has been provided to me about this particular process. One background point to note is that on the day the government entered the caretaker period prior to the 2014 election, which I think was 11 February 2014, it signed off on an agreement with the Walker Corporation, the first of a series of agreements with the Walker Corporation, which effectively, from the government's viewpoint, locked in any future government, whether it be a re-elected Labor government or, more particularly, a future Liberal government, to the Walker Corporation as a proponent of the redevelopment at the Riverbank precinct.

Soon after the election Attorney-General Rau became the responsible minister, and the information provided to me is that he was concerned about the processes that had been engaged in by the government leading up to the election and in particular processes overseen by minister Koutsantonis. The Attorney was so concerned about that that he actually appointed a private counsel, a QC, to provide him and the government with an opinion about all of the activities managed by the government and in particular minister Koutsantonis prior to this agreement entered into on 11 February, the day the government went into the caretaker convention mode.

We had the unprecedented step of a new minister appointing a QC. The government should really answer the question as to why the Crown Solicitor, for example, or Crown law, was not asked. It may well be that there was a judgement that there was a potential conflict of interest there. If that is the case, who was the QC and what was the cost of that particular opinion?

The advice I have been provided with, in terms of the independent QC's opinion, essentially was that the government was, to use a colloquial expression, locked in as a result of the discussions and negotiation and that initial agreement signed on 11 February 2014 and that there was therefore no alternative, because of the processes overseen by minister Koutsantonis and others leading up to the 2014 election, to proceeding with the Walker Corporation after the 2014 election.

Members have endeavoured to ask questions in the House of Assembly in relation to some of these issues, but as I said the minister and the government are obviously working on the basis that the parliament will close down in the next 24 hours, and if they ignore the questions they will not need to place on the public record what might be information embarrassing to the government.

I am also advised that minister Koutsantonis had a meeting with the Walker Corporation on 26 November. I am advised that no notes were kept of that meeting, which is highly unusual, and I think minister Koutsantonis needs to answer the question as to whether that is indeed correct and, if that is the case, why were no notes kept of that particular meeting? I do note that the Auditor-General comments generally about a lack of necessary documentation or the absence of documentation to support decisions that were made. Whether he is referring to this particular matter or not will be a matter that the Budget and Finance Committee will be able to explore with the Auditor-General in 10 days or so when he gives evidence to the committee.

It is important to know whether or not Mr Lang Walker raised serious concerns about the way the expression of interest process had been handled in that meeting with minister Koutsantonis. It is important to note that the Auditor-General does refer to the fact that Mr Rod Hook, who had been a member of the assessment panel established by the government, during that process had gone outside the process and had a separate meeting with Mr Lang Walker. It is important to hear from minister Koutsantonis as to whether or not he was aware of that meeting prior to it occurring. If he was, did he sanction it or approve it? Equally, for example, did he direct Mr Hook to speak to Mr Lang Walker outside of the formal process?

It is fair to say that the Auditor-General's Report is quite critical of the fact that a member of the assessment panel was meeting with one of the proponents outside the formal assessment process, and he makes that quite clear in his report that has been tabled. So there are many, many unanswered questions in relation to this process. Clearly, the government is not going to respond to these during question time. I intend to pursue those issues and many others that have now been provided to me by a number of whistleblowers within government in relation to this process.

As I said, the Auditor-General will appear before the Budget and Finance Committee on Monday week, and this will be one of a number of issues that we intend to pursue in some detail. With that, I thank honourable members for their support for this motion.

Motion carried.