Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Gibson Electorate Office Gibson Electorate Office The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition Gibson Electorate Office The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): Supplementary arising from the original answer: I ask the minister responsible for electoral services, is it permissible for any member of parliament to employ a family member in their office? The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council Gibson Electorate Office The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:29): The guidelines are quite clear in relation to—the guidelines make it clear that members of family are not allowed to be employed. The Hon. K.J. Maher Legislative Council The Hon. K.J. Maher: Oh, dear! The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, not 'Oh, dear', it makes it quite clear— The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The leader might want to listen. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The issue is how far an extended family goes in relation to an employment of a staff member, so how far removed the guidelines issued under the former government just make it clear in relation to—they actually don't even list siblings and uncles and aunties in terms of it. They do say it's not actually an exhaustive list. But what the guidelines at the time, I am advised, said is that family is deemed to be both immediate and extended and includes but is not limited to spouse, de facto, parents of either spouse, grandparents, grandchildren, children, stepchildren or equivalent or same-sex domestic partner. The Hon. K.J. Maher Legislative Council The Hon. K.J. Maher: Not even siblings, according to your earlier statement. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That's right, and it does include uncles and aunties. But it says it's not exhaustive. So the issue is whether or not the, I assume the correct descriptor would be—I think the individual that was concerned here on a casual basis was the wife of the brother of the member's wife, whatever that correct descriptor is. That's not specifically listed there. There may well be an argument one way or another as to whether or not that's included in the definition of 'family'. The quick legal advice I got from within my office is that it could be argued either way. It's not specifically excluded in relation to employment or not in relation to those circumstances.