Lobbyists (Restrictions on Lobbying) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 August 2019.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:45): I rise today to indicate forthwith that I am the lead speaker on this bill, but Labor reserves its position on this bill. I also want to speak briefly about the process of this bill coming to the parliament and how it has been advised. This is a bill that is a little bit different from some others because there has been a lot of public commentary on this and it appears the Attorney-General has outsmarted herself, which is almost simultaneously a very difficult thing to do but not very difficult. The Liberal Party took a commitment to the last election to:

…amend the Lobbyists Act to prevent any office bearer of the state governing body of a registered political party or an associated entity such as a union from becoming a registered lobbyist in SA.

I will just repeat that last part, directly from a Liberal Party election commitment:

…to prevent…an associated entity such as a union from becoming a registered political lobbyist in SA.

In May last year, it was reported that the legislation now before us was only weeks away. That was reported in InDaily on 31 May 2018—just weeks away from the legislation. Around 12 months later, the legislation finally arrived in this parliament. I think that gives members a sense of just how quickly the Liberal Party is moving on governing, that something that is weeks away takes 12 months to come to fruition. A year later, from what was only weeks away, on 16 May 2019, the news publication InDaily published an article entitled 'Crackdown backdown: Unions escape net in lobbyist reforms'.

I think it is useful for members who are interested to refer to the article, which contains some very carefully crafted quotes from the Attorney-General and member for Bragg, who I think is trying to be very evasive and tricky in the way language is used. I would like to refer to key passages from the article in InDaily on 16 May this year. It states:

However, she conceded today the Bill would take a different form after extensive legal advice and consultation.

'We had to look at questions of constitutional rights of communication,' she told InDaily.

The InDaily article quotes the Attorney-General as having had a look at things like constitutional rights of communication and the Attorney-General conceding the bill would take a different form after taking such legal advice. The article goes on to state:

She said the legislation would carry the same definition of associated entities as under the Electoral Act, which—while it identifies organisations that are 'financial members of a registered political party' or having voting rights within them—does not stipulate trade unions.

'We’ve had to look really clearly at constitutional questions [and] we’ve come back within the parameters of that advice… we have to ensure we’re producing legislation that is enforceable,' Chapman said.

Towards the end of the article, there are the following paragraphs:

But Chapman insists the Bill still represents a 'strengthening of SA lobbying laws', saying: 'Our prohibition will make it clear that a person can be an official of a political party or a lobbyist, but not both.'

'Our election commitment was to prevent any office bearer of a political party, and of associated entities…to lobby government officials—and that's exactly what these amendments do.'

I would like to draw the chamber's attention to clause 7 in part 2 of the bill, which inserts a new subsection (4) that appears to ban associated entities from lobbying unless they are registered. I would not have thought that would capture many unions. So the question is: what is happening here? Is the Attorney-General intentionally misleading In Daily? Has she allowed In Daily to make a mistake and not correct it? I am not sure which, but the Attorney-General should know better than to allow something like that to stand and certainly should know better than to intentionally mislead a news outlet.

It seems that it was always the Attorney-General's intention to capture unions, despite her false change of heart. In the Attorney-General's own second reading explanation, when introducing the bill in another place, the first paragraph states:

Today, I introduce a bill that relates to the government's election commitment to ban any office bearer of the state governing body of a registered political party, or an associated entity such as a union, from becoming a registered [political] lobbyist.

I will highlight that again: 'or an associated entity such as a union'. I presume some poor staffer forgot to update the Attorney-General's speech, or the Attorney-General just did not take the time to read it properly, and evidently the staffer forgot to update the Treasurer's second reading explanation because the same mistake is repeated here.

So we go from a position where there is an extreme commitment to target unions, which is in the Liberal's DNA, to being quoted in In Daily as saying that due to taking legal advice and after consultation they will not be targeting unions to going to the second reading explanation in both chambers now saying, 'We will be targeting unions.' I guess it is a 360 position flip. They have gone from 180 and another 180 back to where we started. It is entirely inconsistent with good government.

We have a bill 12 months late, more if you include the two months it has just been sitting around on this Notice Paper, with an exceptionally sloppily worded and delivered second reading explanation, and the Attorney-General has allowed a journalist to publish an incorrect article. This, even before we start debating in the council, has been an absolute mess.

We are keen to get answers to questions we have asked about the bill that for months and months have been left completely and utterly unanswered. There may be good reason why they are not answered. Maybe the Attorney-General does not have answers or maybe the answers to the questions we have raised will be that embarrassing that the Attorney-General thinks it better not to answer them. I can assure the chamber that we have no intention of passing the bill until the questions we have asked of the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the nature and the effect in practice of the bill are properly answered to our satisfaction.

Again, 12 months late, it has been sitting on the Notice Paper for two months, inconsistent second reading explanations and public statements: this is just an indictment of the way this government conducts its business. I want to be clear: we support a comprehensive lobbying licensing regime, but we cannot form a position on the bill when the Liberal Party themselves have had three positions on what the bill is trying to do, and when we have asked questions about what the nature and effect of it are we can get no answers.

I look forward to having the questions we have raised a number of times answered, because we will be in no position at all to progress the bill any further until, firstly, we are confident that the government understands what the bill does and, secondly, until the government can clearly tell us what the bill does.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.