Motions

Workplace Bullying and Harassment

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (20:10): I move:

That this council expresses its dismay at the toxic culture of bullying and harassment of staff that exists within the offices of Labor MPs and the lack of leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas MP, to take any action against his Labor MPs.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: the motion does not refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his seat. The motion is incorrect in its description of the subject of the motion. It incorrectly refers to Peter Malinauskas rather than him by his seat, and it needs to be reworded and, I think, perhaps further amended.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am advised that it is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to be addressed as the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You would think after 12 years, or however many years it is, the Hon. Tammy Franks would know that. As I said, I have moved the motion and I have read the motion standing in my name. In introducing this contribution, it is no more apt than we have just seen in that tawdry attempt by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber to attempt to shut down debate on this particular issue. I am delighted that the rights of private members, long recognised that it is up to a private member to control his or her particular motion or bill in this chamber on private members' day, which is the Wednesday, has been a long held—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: I draw your attention to standing orders 186 and 367 regarding prolixity. We have heard this already for the last two hours. I do not think we need to continue to hear it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, with due respect, I really have not heard much at all just yet. He has only just started.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This is a repetition of a debate he has just had.

An honourable member: No, he didn't.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, it is.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Again, the Hon. Ms Franks, I am sorry, but I cannot rule in that favour because I have only just started to hear what the honourable Treasurer is saying. Treasurer, please continue, but be mindful of the concerns.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am very mindful, Mr Deputy President. The Hon. Tammy Franks is mortified that she did not get her way earlier in that particular debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, please just continue.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: the Treasurer does not know what my way is, or what it is that I want, and I ask him to not refer to me in the debate as he continues to do. Again, I draw your attention to prolixity.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sure the Treasurer is going to be drawn back to his motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It would be a first if you were not allowed to refer to any member in this particular chamber during a debate. My brief notes in relation to this motion to commence it was that the fish rots from the head down in any organisation, and I think that is an apt description of the Australian Labor Party in this state. The fish rots from the head down in relation to the subject matter of this particular debate.

It is sad to see over so many years the way Labor MPs have treated and disrespected their staff within their electorate offices in particular, and also the people who have worked for them. It is a sad blight on the Australian Labor Party in this state. For all the platitudes that we have heard over the last 12 to 18 months in relation to issues of harassment and bullying in the workplace there is a toxic culture within the Labor Party.

There is a toxic culture within the way some members—and I am quite open about this, not all members of the Labor Party—disrespect their staff in the way they treat their staff, and the people they employ. I intend to name the members of parliament, the Labor MPs, on behalf of the staff members who have raised concerns at the way they have been treated, bullied, harassed, or disrespected in relation to the operations of those particular Labor MPs.

This is not a one-way debate as it has tended to be in the national environment or the national climate, and in South Australia on some occasions. There has been rightful criticism of any member of parliament—some formerly members of my own party, some members of the crossbench, I think at the national level some members of the Greens, for example—where there has been quite comprehensive criticism of the bullying and harassment of certain staff in MPs' offices.

So at the national level all parties, and at the state level, but in South Australia there seems to have been this unhealthy focus on the former members of the Liberal Party or members of the Liberal Party and others, and no-one is prepared to speak out on behalf of staff who have been crying out for help for many years within Labor MPs' offices at the way they have been treated and disrespected.

My first example was, as I said: the fish rots from the head down in any organisation, including the Australian Labor Party. I do want to refer originally to an ICAC report in relation to the behaviour of the member for West Torrens, the former minister, in relation to his treatment of people who worked for him as a minister. This is a factual reproduction of the ICAC report in relation to evidence that was given by a senior bureaucrat in relation to his treatment by the former minister.

This is the evidence of Mr Michael Buchan in that ICAC report. He was being questioned by the former ICAC, or people representing the former ICAC commissioner, or the ICAC commissioner himself, I am not sure. The ICAC question was:

Q. Is that right—because of his conduct?

The answer from Mr Buchan was:

A. Yes, the Minister—

and this is Minister Koutsantonis—

the background, Commissioner. The Minister and I did not have a good relationship. When he became my Minister, my first meeting with the Minister was something alone the lines of 'Oh, Christ. I did not know I got you with the agency—if I had known that I would have got the [f-ing] street—the brooms organised and you could go down on North Terrace and do something useful and sweep the leaves for me.' That was my first meeting with the Minister.

Q. When was that?

A. That was when he took over the portfolio…

So the very first meeting the minister had with a senior bureaucrat, that was the nature of the interchange with the minister. Further on in the inquiry evidence, he was asked whether Minister Koutsantonis actually directed him to bring the result about. This is about the Gillman deal. He said, and the answer was:

A. The Minister did not direct me to create an approval for the transaction. And again, Minister Koutsantonis and directions are a difficult matter, they are not explicit, 'I sit here and formally require you to do A, B, and C.' It was more along the lines of a raft of expletives and followed by a 'Pull your finger out and get it done for me.'

Q. Can you use exactly what the language was that he used?

A. He would essentially swear at us as individuals and as a collective, as the organisation, and suggest effectively, you know, 'If you can't do these things, what do you exist for? Why are you here?' So on and so forth.

Q. Did he do that in relation to this transaction?

A. He did that in relation to most things.

Q. What sort of language did he use: I do not want to embarrass you; I think the ladies here have unfortunately heard the language before? If you would not mind telling me exactly what he said?

A. He would call you, um 'what the f—

a four-letter expletive—

would I employ you for? Are you a bunch of useless c—

a four-letter expletive—

or not? Hurry up, get things done. For Christ's sakes, what are you doing?' Da da da da da. That would be the run of the mill meeting with the Minister.

Q. Did he do this in relation to this transaction?

A. Yes, in relation to this one. It was particularly, if I can say, on the first rejection. It was, you know, for—excuse me.

Q. What did he say? Tell me.

A. It is very uncomfortable.

Q. I appreciate.

A. I appreciate you have asked me. I recall him saying, 'For Christ's sakes, would you hurry up and get this done. It is not that hard, pull your fingers out, make the contacts. Don't make assumptions. Get on with it.' That is it very simply the way he would do it—

There is a lot more colourful language that is included in that ICAC report. But what it demonstrates is the disrespect right from the top, senior ministers of the Crown at the very first meeting with a senior bureaucrat, that there is that sort of disrespect, and abuse frankly, harassment and bullying of senior staff within the minister's department. That was the sort of treatment that was commonplace by Minister Koutsantonis. There are any number of other staff within Minister Koutsantonis's department who would be able to tell similar stories in relation to his treatment of them in that particular portfolio or, indeed, any other portfolios that he was involved with over the years.

As I said, consistent with this theory that fish rots from the head down—we talked there about Minister Koutsantonis—I now want to talk about former Speaker Michael Atkinson. Whilst I will not go through all of the detail again because I addressed this issue in part in a speech to this house in August of 2017—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Go on.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Go on.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you. This is one that the Hon. Ms Franks is probably interested in because she and my colleague have on a number of occasions raised bullying and harassment accusations against the former Speaker.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: I lodged an Equal Opportunity Commissioner complaint actually.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Indeed, the Hon. Ms Franks reminds us that she wrote to the then Equal Opportunity Commissioner about the issue, but I will leave that for her to prosecute. As I said, without going into all of the detail of that speech, for the assiduous or religious readers of the Hansard, it was on 9 August 2017.

In that particular speech, I referred to freedom of information requests that I had lodged naming two former staff members of Mr Atkinson. I do not intend to name the staff. My issues are in relation to members of parliament where there is a power imbalance between members of parliament and a staff member. There are any number of examples all across the place where staff-to-staff conflicts are engaged and are involved—and they can be traumatic, problematic and raise significant difficulties, of course—but my issue is particularly in relation to MPs and the way they do or do not treat their staff respectfully.

In relation to former Speaker Atkinson, I lodged two freedom of information requests as to whether or not documents that referred to claims of bullying against Michael Atkinson MP would be released. The answer I got back from Treasury and the various other agencies was that there was one document—there were two documents, actually, in relation to the two requests. I lodged one naming one staff member and one naming another staff member.

In both cases, I received an answer that said, 'There is one document that matches what you have said'—that is, a complaint of bullying against the former Speaker—'but we are not going to release it in the public interest,' or for whatever the reason was that it was not released. Nevertheless, there was a confirmation that there had been two bullying complaints lodged in relation to the attitude of Mr Atkinson and his staff. At that particular time, I was provided with a bucketload of information and documents in relation to complaints on behalf of staff who were concerned about former Speaker Atkinson's attitude towards them and also another Labor MP to whom I will refer later on.

Some of the complaints raised by the staff in that particular bullying complaint in their concerns were—as I said, I think some of the other issues have been raised, but they raised some more significant issues. Certainly, in the complaints that were lodged with me, trainees were being sent out to letterbox in 40° heat when they felt that was unreasonable, and a staff member was required to regularly cook lunch for the Hon. Mr Atkinson MP in the electorate office kitchen, a regular occurrence.

The major complaints clearly related to what both complainants described in their claim as bullying that was aggressive behaviour and yelling directed at staff. One particular staff member said that, on occasion, the Hon. Mr Atkinson had become red in the face and frothing at the mouth, causing her and others in the workplace to be terrified. Another staff member, who was not one of the two who had lodged a complaint, indicated that the staff member had been upset at the Hon. Mr Atkinson's treatment on a number of occasions, causing that particular staff member to burst into tears on a number of occasions.

There were a series of other complaints. One related to alleged—I hasten to say that this was alleged—inadequate management of a complaint of sexual harassment against a volunteer; that is, a staff member was complaining that the volunteer was sexually harassing the staff member, and the staff member did not feel adequately supported in terms of having raised the allegation of sexual harassment by a volunteer in the office against the staff member. I hasten to say there was no allegation of sexual harassment against the member. It was an issue between a staff member and a volunteer working in the member's office in relation to that.

The reason I raise that is I have said in this house before that there are any number of what I call single-case examples of where an individual within a member's office has a falling out and there is an ongoing dispute in relation to that individual and the MP. Whilst that is not to be either condoned or accepted, I think where it becomes worrying is when it meets the threshold of where there are a number of staff who raise similar issues against the same MP. Under that old adage: where there is smoke, there is likely to be fire. It is not necessarily provable, but there is likely to be fire.

So I do not discount the single complaint by one person against an MP, and it should not be, but I am not raising those issues here, even though I have had those sorts of complaints raised over the years. I am raising issues where a number of staff have raised issues over a period of time against a person in a more powerful position, in this case a member of parliament, as an example of where it would appear that there are ongoing issues being raised of criticism about the disrespect or mistreatment of staff members by some members of parliament.

At that same time, I was given significant other documentation not only in relation to complaints against the Hon. Mr Atkinson but I was also given significant documentation at that time, in and around that time, about the bullying behaviour of another Labor MP, which led to another freedom of information request that I lodged. In that speech in August 2017, I referred to some of that information, but not all of that particular information.

My freedom of information request was a copy of a workers compensation claim lodged by, and I will not name the staff member, in August 2015, which includes claims of insulting language and spreading rumours against Katrine Hildyard MP. The response I got was that there was one document that conformed with the freedom of information request I had, that is, there was a workers compensation claim lodged by this particular staff member in August 2015, and that particular document was refused to me.

I then subsequently lodged another freedom of information request to ask what the total payment was, if any, to this particular staff member to help settle a workers compensation claim lodged in August 2015. Again, the freedom of information officer replied and said, yes, there was one document that referred to a total payment paid to this staff member to help settle a workers compensation claim lodged in August 2015, but access to that particular document was refused at that particular time.

The documentation I was provided with was, as I said, significant in quantity—not by FOI, but documentation I had been provided with unofficially that led me to lodge these particular complaints. The complaints lodged by this particular staff member against Ms Hildyard involved that she had been subjected to abusive, insulting or offensive language or comments, unjustified criticism or complaints, excessive unreasonable workload and a variety of other issues as well.

In the documentation, there are descriptions of a long series of unfortunate incidents. To be fair, the information I was given was that the member obviously rejected some or all of the complaints that had been lodged by this staff member, albeit that with some of them that staff member had corroborating evidence from another staff member in the investigation of that particular complaint. That staff member raised the issue that a one-on-one meeting in August ended up with Katrine yelling, screaming and throwing a chair across the office, which was heard by two other staff members, who I will not name—a very unfortunate set of circumstances, as described by that staff member, in terms of their claim for workers compensation.

There is another description of a very unfortunate series of events in relation to a number of meetings with staff and the member of parliament, one of which occurred in January 2015, I think, which led to a staff member saying to Ms Hildyard, 'I felt like you were abusing me when you were yelling at me about the invitation.' It led to angry scenes and, in the view of that particular staff member, Ms Hildyard storming out of the meeting, locking herself in the office and a more senior staff member trying to coax Ms Hildyard out of her office for a period of time after that.

In the evidence of this staff member, the member then refused to speak to that staff member and another one for a number of days. The only communication that was entered into between the member and the staff member was by email. There are a whole series of other examples of concerns the staff members were raising about what they believed to be abusive and disrespectful behaviour by the member. These issues were raised with me and led to my lodging those applications in and around that period of 2016-17.

When I became Treasurer again in March of this year, I guess I was horrified when one of the very first documents I had to sign as the Treasurer was a negotiated resignation of another member of staff in Ms Hildyard's office and to authorise a separation payment in relation to that staff member. That staff member was not one of the staff members I referred to earlier in relation to 2016-17. This was a different staff member.

As I said, it had obviously been going on for some period of time because, as the new Treasurer, I was asked by Treasury to sign off on a negotiated settlement payment to that staff member in settlement of an ongoing dispute with Ms Hildyard. It is interesting that with the document that I signed/approved I insisted that no confidentiality clause be included because all these settlements were coming with confidentiality clauses incorporated in them.

The concern I had, as I said earlier—accept is not the right word—I can understand an occasional difference of opinion between a member and a staff member. In some cases the staff member will be wrong; in some cases the member of parliament might be wrong, and that is the challenge. Where there is an issue of concern is when there is a continuing series of complaints of a similar nature being made against the same member of parliament.

It is in those circumstances that those staff are entitled to have the nature of their concerns, without their names being mentioned—because, frankly, there have been so many staff members within those two offices over the years that you lose track of the number. Members of parliament need to be held to account in relation to their behaviour. It should have always been the case, but it is even more so given the debates that we have had in this chamber over the last 12 to 18 months or so and given the debates that have been conducted nationally over the last two years or so as well.

On 4 June this year, I issued a press statement based on the results of a freedom of information request the ABC had lodged with Treasury, which sought documents released under freedom of information to the ABC that revealed a series of staff grievances and/or dispute avoidances in the electorate offices of Labor MPs Jayne Stinson, Katrine Hildyard, Nat Cook and Tony Piccolo. According to those documents, which the ABC released and Treasury obviously put onto their website as well because they were released, the member for Light had had four formal grievances lodged by electorate office staff with the Department of Treasury and Finance: two trainees, an office manager and a casual assistant.

I will come to Mr Piccolo in a moment because some of those grievances, I believe, were between staff and staff and not from staff to members. There was one well-publicised case where there was an allegation against the member, and I will refer to that in a moment. I do hasten to say that I understand that some of those four occurrences or complaints raised by staffers related to other staff members within the office.

There was an instance of one for the member for Reynell (this is all in the period from 2018-19 I think it is that we are talking about) and for the member for Badcoe, Jayne Stinson, as well, and there was even one reference to the Hon. Tung Ngo in this chamber in relation to a dispute with a staff member. Again, I said at the time—and the point of raising it this time is that I have seen no action or no tangible results of any action—that really it required leadership from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, in relation to these particular issues.

There was clearly, as I described it, a toxic culture within the Labor Party and it did require leadership from Mr Malinauskas. The way the Labor Party and Mr Malinauskas have endeavoured to handle one of the other complaints, which I will come to in a moment, is a sad indictment on the way the Labor Party addresses these issues when they occur in their own backyard. If it occurs in somebody else's backyard, they are full of holy platitudes, demanding transparency and accountability. When it occurs in their own backyard, they are quite happy to have their own internal, in that case Labor Party oriented, inquiry.

In relation to the lack of action from the Leader of the Opposition, I refer to the complaints that were made against the member for Badcoe, Jayne Stinson. The revelations attracted some publicity as a result of freedom of information requests and, I think, scuttlebutt generally within the Australian Labor Party. There are a number of staff who had worked at various times with Ms Stinson and who had been openly expressing their concerns about the disrespect they had received from Ms Stinson and about what they portrayed as bullying, aggressive, or abusive and disrespectful behaviour by Ms Stinson in relation to their employment.

There were documents released under freedom of information, I think to The Advertiser in this particular occurrence, which related to a trainee staffer's concerns about her treatment within the office of the member for Badcoe. It was around about the time Ms Stinson said she resigned from the opposition frontbench for personal reasons.

At that stage, I challenged the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, to say there were clearly very serious questions to answer about what appeared to be a toxic culture within the Labor Party, but sadly there did not appear to be any response. On other issues where it did not occur in Labor Party members' backyard, the Leader of the Opposition had publicly proclaimed that he would not be a leader who looked the other way or swept things under the carpet, but when challenged or asked as to what in fact he had done about some of these concerns raised by staff members, 'crickets' was broadly the response that we saw from the Leader of the Opposition.

I am advised that the employee had raised some concerns about her treatment in Ms Stinson's office, but what assistance was offered ultimately only the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, can indicate. I can indicate that Electorate Services within Treasury did provide support and assistance to this particular trainee, and ultimately a satisfactory resolution was engineered, where her remaining period, I think, was served out by her being assigned to the member for West Torrens' office for a period of time.

I was advised at that particular time that over the last three years or so there had been a number of issues raised by staff in Ms Stinson's office to the Electorate Services section of Treasury. A number of those staff had subsequently left, which had resulted in some turnover in her office. So this was not a one-off issue. This had been a continuing series of issues against Ms Stinson. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, and other senior powerbrokers within the Australian Labor Party had been aware for some period of time, but contrary to their public platitudes they had done nothing in relation to protecting the position of staff, including trainees, within that member's office.

On 1 March, I issued a further statement in response to further questions from The Advertiser on this particular issue. I said:

I have been advised that it is correct that an employee did recently leave Ms Stinson's office and has now been assigned to another Labor MP's office. I have also been advised that the employee did raise some concerns about her treatment in the Member's office but, at this stage, I don't propose to ventilate publicly the details of these concerns out of respect to the employee involved.

Again, I repeat, I am not going to go into the details of what I am aware of in relation to those circumstances. I then went on to say:

I am assured that appropriate support was provided to the employee, that is, by Electorate Services within Treasury, and it was only when a satisfactory resolution could not be achieved that she was assigned to the other MP's office.

I am also advised that over the last three years, a number of issues have been raised by staff in Ms Stinson's office to the Electorate Services section of DTF (Department of Treasury and Finance). These staff have subsequently left, which has resulted in some turnover in Ms Stinson's office.

I now want to turn, finally, to the issue related in part to some of the allegations made against the member for Light, Mr Piccolo. As I instanced earlier, there had been four complaints, not all of those against the member, I again repeat. Some were staff-to-staff complaints in relation to what had occurred in that office.

In November last year, I was asked by the media for commentary in relation to some of these issues, and I said:

In August I was made aware of disturbing claims of intimidation and bullying by Labor MP Tony Piccolo against a young trainee, Mr Bradley Johnson.

The only reason I use Mr Johnson's name is that he publicly identified himself and has adopted a public profile in relation to this issue. He indeed gave, I think, an extended interview to the Adelaide Advertiser and was photographed as part of his complaint.

Mr Johnson publicly outlined his allegations in a media interview with The Advertiser, published on 16 August. Mr Piccolo has been publicly accused by his former trainee, Mr Johnson, 22, of months of escalating harassment and alleged abuse, both verbally and via email, culminating in his forced resignation in 2018, one month before his government-funded traineeship was due to be completed.

I subsequently referred the complaint to the Department of Treasury and Finance for investigation and legal advice. The department has a zero-tolerance approach to conduct of the type alleged and, as a result and based on legal advice, has commenced an investigation into the allegations which have been raised. As this matter is currently under investigation, it is not appropriate for me to make any further comment at this time.

Further, in and around about that particular time, I was asked again by other sections of the media, and I said:

This alleged forced resignation meant that Mr Johnson was unable to receive his Certificate III in Business qualification.

That is, his employment concluded just a month before his traineeship was concluded. It continues:

It is interesting to note that back in June an ABC TV news report in relation to formal staff grievances lodged within offices of Labor and crossbench MPs noted there had been four staff complaints made in Mr Piccolo's Gawler-based electorate office of Light. At the time, Mr Piccolo reportedly told the ABC, "The grievances all related to interpersonal relationship matters between staff. Three of the complaints were about another staff member. The fourth, I understand, does not relate directly to me either."

Clearly, as publicly outlined by Mr Johnson as a trainee, that cannot have been correct. So while some of the complaints within Mr Piccolo's office were staff to staff, Mr Bradley Johnson went public in terms of his concerns about what he claims to have been bullying and harassment by the member in that media interview with The Advertiser.

At that time, I asked the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment whether there was an offence under section 53 of the Training and Skills Development Act 2008 which applied at the time and how that should be investigated. That section made it clear that it is an offence under the act to pressure someone into the termination of a training contract, such as a traineeship.

It is at that time the Labor Party, I assume with the full agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, launched its own independent review into the claims. How laughable, given the platitudes that came out of the mouths of House of Assembly Labor MPs in relation to other issues about the need for independent inquiries, the need for transparency and accountability, that when there is a significant accusation by a young trainee against one of their own they have their own in-house independent inquiry to look into it.

That is the nature of the toxic culture that exists within this political party in South Australia, which needs to be raised. Well-meaning people within the Australian Labor Party ought to be doing something about it. They ought to be placing pressure on the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, to actually do something about these members, or at least investigate in the first instance and do something about members who are continually having allegations of bullying and harassment made against them by a stream of staffers. That is an issue for Mr Malinauskas, the Leader of the Opposition, to address.

Soon after that, on 16 August, I received an email from Maggie Dawkins. All members of the Australian Labor Party will be well aware of Maggie Dawkins' status within the Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch) in South Australia. I received an email from Maggie Dawkins directed to me. I hasten to say, I do not believe I have ever met Maggie Dawkins. If I did, it must have been a long time ago. The email was as follows:

Dear Mr Lucas,

I write to seek your advice in regard to an article published in The Advertiser online this evening with the headline 'Labor move to investigate former staffer's bullying claims against Light MP Tony Piccolo'. It is my understanding that the member of parliament interviews candidates for the trainee position, but the trainee is employed and paid by the Department of Treasury and Finance. Is that correct? If it is correct, the trainee is not employed by the political party or the member of parliament, so why is the Labor Party conducting an investigation into Bradley Johnson's allegations and not a government agency?

Yours sincerely, Mrs Maggie Dawkins.

A pretty reasonable question from Maggie Dawkins. I then replied to Mrs Dawkins in the following terms:

Thank you for your email dated 16 August regarding the investigation of allegations made against the Hon. Mr Piccolo by his former trainee, Mr Bradley Johnson. Mr Piccolo has been publicly accused by Mr Johnson of months of escalating harassment and abuse, both verbally and via email, culminating in Mr Johnson's forced resignation in 2018—one month before his traineeship was due to be completed.

As you have correctly stated in your email, trainees such as Mr Johnson are employed within the Department of Treasury and Finance. The South Australian government takes allegations regarding the bullying and harassment of public sector employees extremely seriously. I have referred the matter to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, who will provide me with advice about options to have the allegations investigated. In particular, I have also asked the Commissioner whether there may have been a breach of section 53 of the Training and Skills Development Act 2008 which applied at the time, and how that should be investigated. Section 53(2)(d) makes it clear that it is an offence under the act to pressure someone into the termination of a training contract such as a traineeship.

Whilst nothing prevents the Labor Party from conducting its own investigation, it is my view that these complaints cannot be properly dealt with by an internal review which is not truly independent but conducted by Labor-appointed investigators into a long-serving Labor member of parliament and former minister.

Trainees are public sector employees and it is appropriate that the government take steps to investigate any reported allegations of bullying and harassment. I would encourage employees working in political offices, such as Mr Johnson, who may be hesitant to raise any such allegations with their direct manager to contact Electorate Services, Department of Treasury and Finance, or the Office of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. Thank you again for writing to me about this important issue.

Those who know Mrs Dawkins know that she is not easily deterred, and soon after that Mrs Dawkins copied me in to, or provided me with a copy of, emails that she had sent on 19 July—so a month before this public revelation by Mr Johnson of his concerns—to Senator Don Farrell, Senator Penny Wong and Mr Reggie Martin, who, depending on the numbers, may well become a member of the Legislative Council after the next election.

This email that Mrs Dawkins provided to me, headed 'Subject: Encourage and support volunteers and staff in Labor offices to go to SA Police Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team', is as follows:

Dear Don, Penny and Reggie,

I write as a person who has successfully campaigned for the establishment of the West Australian state government Inquiry into the Response of Government Agencies and Officials to Allegations of Sexual Abuse: How the System and Society Failed Our Children. I have supported adult survivors at the Federal Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sex Abuse. I was honoured to receive an award from adults surviving child abuse.

Recently, I have been made aware of party members and staffers who say they are afraid to provide information to the SA Police Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team for fear of being labelled disloyal to the party. Apparently they feel that if they contact police they may spoil Labor's chances of winning the next state and federal elections.

Bernard Finnigan, a former Labor government minister for industrial relations, local government and gambling, who had also acted as police minister, was convicted of obtaining access to child pornography and sentenced in December 2015. Benjamin Waters, a member of the party and a staffer who has worked in a number of your offices, has pleaded guilty to child sex abuse crimes. It appears that there are staff in the offices of MPs who fear reprisals, including losing their jobs, if they expose others within the party who are also involved in child sex crimes and are exploiting young, vulnerable men.

Five years after Finnigan, there is now Waters. Apparently, there may be others. Apart from Nat Cook's 'shock horror' public response to Waters' arrest, I have seen no public condemnation by the party of Waters' sex abuse crimes against children.

Volunteers and staff should be encouraged to reveal what they know and be protected in doing so. I suggest it is more damaging for the party to attempt to close ranks and turn a blind eye. I ask that you provide party volunteers and parliamentary staff with the very clear message that it is not a stark choice between putting in jeopardy the chance of winning the next state and federal elections or cooperating with the Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team of SA Police.

It appears that state and federal parliamentary staff were involved in creating false identities for a social media campaign that defended Bernard Finnigan once charged and ahead of his trial and conviction. Apparently, the messaging included he was innocent until proven guilty and he was sexually abused as a child, which somehow made it reasonable for him, a Labor government minister, to watch children being sexually abused.

The social media campaign assisted in buying Finnigan over four years of salary and perks at taxpayers' expense. I ask you to consider how it is not morally reprehensible for staff in positions paid for by taxpayers to be employed to conduct such activities which have nothing whatsoever to do with the electorate service they are paid to provide.

Please think of the children who have been tortured and damaged physically and psychologically beyond repair from these videos made for the sexual gratification of men like Bernard Finnigan and Ben Waters. Be the leaders you are elected to be. Show leadership by creating a safe environment for volunteers and staff to come forward. Voters expect no less of you, individually and collectively. The South Australian Labor Party cannot condone silence. Whistleblowers in the party and on your staff need support and protection.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Maggie Dawkins

To be fair, I think Mr Reggie Martin responded, as I understand it, to Mrs Dawkins. It is for him, I guess, to explain the nature of his response, but I think he indicated that people should go to the police—as they should—in relation to many of these issues that have been raised. On 20 August, I then received from Mrs Maggie Dawkins another email directed to me as follows:

Dear Treasurer,

I provide email correspondence, which I sent to all SA Labor members of parliament—

I was not aware that it had gone to everybody—

and Senators Don Farrell and Penny Wong, who are prominent faction members in the federal parliament. I included Reggie Martin, SA Labor State Secretary. I wrote to them as a result of a story which appeared in the Sunday Mail, which named Ben Waters, a former staffer of Nat Cook, who is convicted of child sex abuse crimes.

I draw your attention to the email I received from shadow Attorney-General Kyam Maher on behalf of all members of the Labor Party. Today I was contacted by Tom Richardson, a journalist for InDaily, who had received from another source the letter you sent me in regard to former trainee Bradley Johnson. The purpose of my correspondence to Labor Party representatives and the State Secretary was to ask that they provide encouragement and support to volunteers and staff who work in their offices to assist those who may have information that involves or implicates others who have bought, shared or viewed child exploitation material, to approach the SA Police Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team.

While I understand that the Electorate Services section of the Department of Treasury and Finance is unable to assist Labor volunteers, perhaps your department may find ways to assist the staff of Labor members who are employees of the state government.

The Labor Party once protected and advocated for all workers without fear or favour. It appears that is no longer the case. There are a number of staff who fear retaliation if they assist police with their inquiries. That there is even one member of staff who feels that they may contribute to the party's electoral demise at the next election is a sad indictment on the current state of the party. The Labor Party, to which I once belonged, would have considered it would have enhanced its standing in the community by purging itself of any party members who have engaged in accessing child abuse pornography.

Child sex exploitation pornography is not a victimless crime. Children in the videos are tortured, damaged, physically and psychologically often beyond repair, for the sexual gratification of men like the former Minister for Police Bernard Finnigan and Ben Waters. If there are others who are in the party I will do all I can to assist those who may have information to come forward without the apprehension of losing their jobs.

Mr Lucas, I ask you to consider if there is anything you can do to encourage, assist and protect the staff of Labor MPs who may have knowledge or suspicions which may assist the police as they are after all employees of the state.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Maggie Dawkins

Mrs Dawkins also copied me in to responses she sent to Kyam Maher on 19 July, as follows:

Dear Kyam and Reggie,

Thank you for your response which appears to have missed the point entirely. There are volunteers and staff with information that should be provided to the police and they do not feel supported by the party.

I suggest that you write to all volunteer and paid staff in Labor offices encouraging them to take any information they have to police and assure them that they will be supported and should have no fear of retaliation regardless of those who may be the subject of their information.

I do not see my role as taking information to the police on behalf of volunteers and staff. It is my role to defend their right to freely approach the police, and I encourage you to do the same. This is exactly the role I played in relation to the Blaxell inquiry in Western Australia.

Yours sincerely,

Maggie Dawkins

I have been copied in to a series of emails from Mrs Maggie Dawkins to various people within the Australian Labor Party and, as I said, I have placed on the record her direct pleas to me to speak out on behalf of staff in Labor MPs' offices. I hasten to say I do not know Mrs Maggie Dawkins. I have read of her formidable reputation within the Australian Labor Party in, I think, the InDaily article by Tom Richardson and others.

What I do want to place on the public record to Mrs Maggie Dawkins and to the staff within Labor MPs' offices she is speaking on behalf of is that, as a result of not just the pleas from people like the honourable Mrs Dawkins but the issues that were addressed in relation to other inquiries that the equal opportunity commissioner and then this parliament and others in relation to respectful treatment of staff within all MPs' offices, as advised to the parliamentary committee the electorate services section that manages the staff within members' offices has just released the Respectful and Inclusive Behaviour Online Learning proposal for all staff—not just Labor staff but all staff.

My attention has been drawn to an example module outline and content referred to as the 'bystanders module', which is to be a module that provides advice to people as to what they should be doing not only in the circumstances Mrs Dawkins has outlined but also in other circumstances. This module as part of the Respectful and Inclusive Behaviour Online Learning proposal for all staff in all offices—not just Labor offices but all offices—is to try to provide some advice, clarity and guidance on where people can go if they need support.

The point Mrs Dawkins is making, and others have made to me as well, is that if you are in an electorate office and you have a complaint against either the MP or the office manager and you are the trainee you might not want to raise the issue because you just do not feel capable of confronting either the MP or the office manager about concerns of bullying and harassment or whatever it is.

The plea from some Labor staff members—sorry, I am raising Labor staff members tonight, but I am sure all staff members—is about where they can go to get support and advice as to what they need to do if they find themselves in that unfortunate circumstance. It is obviously much tougher if it is the actual MP who is the one who is the subject of the bullying and harassment allegations. It is obviously much tougher in relation to knowing what to do.

Nevertheless, this respectful and inclusive behaviour proposal, and the modules included within that, are seeking to try to provide some assistance and guidance for those staff members who do not feel they can speak to someone in their immediate workplace, given that members' offices are extraordinarily small in terms of the number of staff. It may well be the case that there are only one or two staff or a maximum of perhaps three or four staff within an office.

As Mrs Maggie Dawkins highlights, I do not and we do not have too much control—we have a little bit of control, but not too much—over the volunteers, whether they be Labor volunteers within Labor MP's offices. We can provide guidance to the employed staff, but that is where Mrs Dawkins' pleas go to the Leader of the Opposition here (Mr Maher), the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Reggie Martin and others to say, 'You're the ones who should be able to provide advice, guidance and/or directions to volunteers within your political organisation who might be working within various electorate offices.'

There is a brief segue and crossover between Mrs Maggie Dawkins, who obviously raises the issue as it relates to Mr Johnson in Mr Piccolo's office, and then the issues of Mr Ben Waters, who was a staff member of Nat Cook. In a series of emails, she traversed both those issues in some way.

Returning briefly to the member for Light, the concern I have—and, again, I think this a lack of leadership from the Leader of the Opposition—is that we are now many months down the track of not having a Labor Party inquiry into the concerns raised by Bradley Johnson, but we have appointed an independent investigator. As of close of business today, I am told that Labor MP Tony Piccolo has still not agreed to be interviewed by the independent investigator. Various staff have been interviewed, but up until today, as of close of business at 5 o'clock today, I am advised by Electoral Services that Mr Piccolo had still not agreed to be interviewed in relation to these serious complaints that have been raised by his former staff member.

I publicly say to Mr Piccolo that you owe it to your former staff—frankly, you would owe it to your political party—to front up and make yourself available for an interview with the independent investigator in relation to this issue. Frankly, this is where the lack of leadership from the Hon. Mr Malinauskas is apparent. He has been aware for some time, as there was a story back on 17 December 2021, nearly two months ago, when the headline was 'Independent probe into bullying allegations stalled because Labor MP Tony Piccolo has not agreed to be interviewed, Treasurer Rob Lucas says'.

Mr Malinauskas cannot say he is not aware of it. He was quite aware, at least from that date and probably before then, that Mr Piccolo had not agreed to be interviewed. Mr Malinauskas—if we could believe the platitudes that he mouthed in relation to related issues in the House of Assembly—should be directing his own MP to respond to the request for an interview so that he can give his side of the story to the independent investigator. I wrap it up there.

As I said, the issues I have raised have not been issues where it has been a staff-to-staff dispute. The issues I have raised have been where it has been staff, and a number of staff, raising issues with an MP—in this case, Labor MPs. I have also ventilated the concerns and worries that Mrs Maggie Dawkins has both publicly and privately sought to ventilate in terms of seeking assistance from me, as the person responsible for Electoral Services, and I have given that undertaking or outline of what we are doing, and her request to the Australian Labor Party to provide support to those staff and volunteers within Labor MPs' offices along the lines she has outlined in those emails, not only to me but to all the power brokers within the Australian Labor Party.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (21:14): Tonight, I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the Hon. Rob Lucas that this council expresses its dismay at the toxic culture of bullying and harassment of staff that exists within Labor offices and the lack of leadership displayed by the opposition leader, Mr Peter Malinauskas. We have heard enough about what Labor did whilst they were in government, but what is even more atrocious is their behaviour in opposition, where they think they are unaccountable.

Last year, a number of explosive documents were released, highlighting the multitude of complaints in several Labor MPs' offices. A shocking collection of serious allegations of extensive bullying and intimidation remain unanswered by the Leader of the Opposition and his party. FOIs revealed that there are several Labor MPs, including current and former members, who had multiple formal complaints from their very own staff.

One of the most concerning issues occurred in the member for Badcoe's office, in the other place. One FOI specifically asked about complaints or concerns arising from her behaviour. While the documents were heavily redacted, they revealed, 'The Badcoe EO since 2018 has experienced a higher than expected turnover of staff.' Believe it or not, 2018 is when Ms Stinson became the member for Badcoe.

FOIs also revealed that a staffer from the member for Badcoe's office had to be removed and sent to the member for West Torrens' office. It is now understood that the staff member involved was a trainee. This trainee was a person with a disability, and the reason the trainee was removed from the member's office was an incident involving the use of restrictive practice by the member for Badcoe.

For those of you in this place who are unsure what restrictive practice refers to, it is defined as 'any practice or intervention that restricts the rights or freedom of movement of a person with a disability'. Ironically, prior to the member for Badcoe's time in parliament, she was the Chair of the Victim Support Service. It was, however, marred by bullying.

When asked about the horrific incident, the Leader of the Opposition diverted comments by claiming the member for Badcoe had 'undisclosed personal issues'. What do personal issues have to do with staff complaints? Does the Leader of the Opposition think that personal issues justify harassment and bullying? It appears that the leader of the so-called workers' party has forgotten about the workers in the member for Badcoe's office and other Labor MPs' offices. Despite the unacceptable behaviour, the Leader of the Opposition has stated in this building:

I won't be the leader that looks the other way when I see people conduct themselves inappropriately. I won't be the leader that sweeps things under the carpet. If I see someone do the wrong thing, particularly if I form a view that it's potentially unlawful, then I will report it to the appropriate authorities.

What has the leader done in relation to the InDaily article revealing an employee has 'witnessed and experienced abusive behaviour, bullying and emotional manipulation' from the member for Reynell? The Leader of the Opposition needs to explain how he convinced himself that his members have been behaving appropriately with their staff. What has the Leader of the Opposition done about the staff complaints? Has he spoken to the staff directly to verify the nature of their complaints?

How many complaints from staff does the Leader of the Opposition think is enough to warrant him showing leadership and taking action? Is four enough, like the member for Light had in his office? It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to stop sweeping complaints under the carpet, fix his broken promises and come clean about bullying and staff complaints in his Labor MPs' offices. If Labor can get away with this behaviour in opposition, what will they get away with in government?

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.A. Simms.