Motions

Ministerial Diaries

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:43): I move:

That—

1. The Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council lay on the table of this council no later than five sitting days after 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October each year, a letter of advice that all ministers’ official appointment diaries, covering the periods 1 October to 31 December, 1 January to 31 March, 1 April to 30 June and 1 July to 30 September respectively, in accordance with paragraph 2(c), have been published on a single government website.

2. The official appointment diaries referred to in paragraph (1) must indicate:

(a) each meeting (regardless of format) held by the minister with external persons who seek to influence government policy or decisions. However, a meeting with external persons does not include:

(i) internal meetings held by ministers exclusively with other state ministerial staff and/or state government officials;

(ii) strictly personal meetings;

(iii) electorate meetings;

(iv) party political meetings; or

(v) public or strictly social events.

(b) the attendees at each meeting, including:

(i) individual’s name/s;

(ii) organisation name/s;

(iii) where an individual attends a meeting in a non-official capacity and does not represent any organisation, the individual’s name, except where publication of the individual’s name could cause harm to the individual, e.g., a whistleblower’s name or a police informant’s name; and

(iv) where a third-party lobbyist is present at a meeting, the name of the lobbying firm, the name of any personnel present at the meeting and the name of the client on whose behalf the third-party lobbyist is present.

(c) a brief description of the topic/purpose of the meeting (however, the topic/purpose of the meeting does not need to be disclosed where there is an overriding public interest against disclosure, in which case the nature of the harm must be provided); and

(d) the city/town where the meeting occurred, and:

(i) where publicly funded travel is involved—for travel outside of South Australia or beyond 30 kilometres of the minister’s normal electoral office, the mode of transport (e.g., regular public transport flight, special purpose flight, charter flight, COMCAR, hire care, etc), and

(ii) where meeting attendee funded travel is involved—the mode of transport (e.g., charter flight, private flight, chauffer driven car, etc).

3. This order takes effect the day the motion is passed in Legislative Council.

This motion requires ministers to make their work diaries public. Nothing sinister should be read into this because the move is all about government accountability and transparency, something that the Malinauskas government seems to be sidestepping on a regular basis since its election nearly two years ago. One of the Premier's big transparency promises that he has not delivered, and I doubt ever will, is the banning of political donations.

It is all well and good for the Premier and his ministers to talk up all their feel-good achievements in delivering on their expensive election promises. Good government is not only about delivering footy feasts, festivals, car races, golf tournaments, aquatic centres, road tunnels, hospitals, hydrogen projects, uni mergers, schools and other job creation schemes. It is also about how these projects are delivered, whether taxpayers' funds have been appropriately spent and, importantly, just who government ministers meet with and are influenced by.

South Australians and voters across the country are tired of how powerful and influential lobbyists have become in shaping Australia's political and policy landscape. Many are former MPs and ministers. Meanwhile, others cannot get near a minister because they are not influential enough. Lobbying expert George Rennie, of the University of Melbourne, says current ministers are more likely to grant access to former ministers lobbying them and show a bias in their decision-making process. We, the taxpayers, have a right to know who is greasing the wheels of government to promote their own interests.

Disclosure is a vital transparency and integrity measure for any government. As the Auditor-General told the Budget and Finance Committee recently, his work as an independent auditor has been frustrated by this government because he was unable to access documents to determine whether transactions involving 18 projects, valued at more than $20 billion, were undertaken properly. This is disgraceful. Mr Richardson also said the government, and he, should have been able to look at the business case, if one exists, for the merger of the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia.

South Australia is lagging behind other jurisdictions, including the New South Wales, Queensland and ACT governments, where ministers are required to disclose their diary entries. In New South Wales, this has been in place for nine years and came from a 2010 New South Wales ICAC report into the risks of lobbying which stated that publishing ministers' diaries was a key anti-corruption measure. Similar schemes also operate in New Zealand and the United States, where the President releases and publishes White House visitors logs. The Prime Minister has also recently agreed to an FOI request to release 197 days of his official diary entries, following a dogged fight with former Senator, and now transparency warrior, Rex Patrick.

In his review of the culture and accountability in the Queensland public sector in June 2022, aptly titled 'Let the sunshine in', professor Peter Coaldrake AO recommended strengthening lobbying regulations with a register of all professionals offering paid services, a more transparent description of meeting purposes, an extension of ministerial diaries to include staff meetings with lobbyists and explicit prohibition of lobbyists 'dual hatting' as political campaigners.

Publishing ministers' diaries should be a standard and transparent accountability and anti-corruption measure, along with political donations reform. It is in the public interest for ministers to declare meeting appointments they have with various organisations, including unions, influential businesspeople—including property developers and entrepreneurs—and their lobbyists.

The motion seeks the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, the Hon. Kyam Maher, to table the information four times a year. Information to be disclosed includes:

(i) individuals' name/s;

(ii) organisation name/s;

(iii) where an individual attends a meeting in a non-official capacity and does not represent any organisation, the individual's name, except where publication of the individual's name could cause harm to the individual, for example, a whistleblower's name or a police informant's name…

(iv) where a third-party lobbyist is present at a meeting, the name of the lobbying firm, the name of any personnel present at the meeting and the name of the client on whose behalf the third-party lobbyist is present.

(c) a brief description of the topic/purpose of the meeting…[unless] there is an overriding public interest against disclosure, in which case [a reason]…must be provided…

(d) …where the meeting occurred…

(i) where publicly funded travel is involved—for travel outside of South Australia or beyond 30 kilometres of the minister's normal electoral office, [including] the mode of transport…and

(ii) …where funded travel is involved…

Ministers would not be required to disclose:

(i) internal meetings held by ministers exclusively with other state ministerial staff and/or other state government officials;

(ii) strictly personal meetings;

(iii) electorate meetings…or strictly social events.

This motion is consistent with the opposition's Public Finance and Audit (Auditor-General Access to Cabinet Submissions) Amendment Bill 2022, aimed at granting the Auditor-General more power to obtain government documents. It follows a bill by Greens MLC, the Hon. Rob Simms, in 2021 for the disclosure of ministerial diaries, which is still languishing in the House of Assembly. It is also consistent with One Nation MLC the Hon. Sarah Game's bill that would halve to 45 days the current disclosure rules requiring ministers to report their travel expenses within 90 days of their travel.

I can point out that One Nation, the Greens and the Teals supported a similar motion to mine recently in the Senate, introduced by Senator Jacqui Lambie, but which was disgracefully voted down by the Labor government and the coalition. Ironically and hypocritically the current Labor federal Attorney-General, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, supported public disclosure of diaries when in opposition. But Labor's tune changed when they went from opposition to government—surprise, surprise—and it is no different here. Labor's clarion calls for transparency from the previous Liberal government have now fallen silent.

Shamefully, Labor in this place will not support this motion and you must only ask why. They will come up with a pitiful excuse that the same information can all be obtained through FOI applications. While we do have freedom of information, and I currently have applications either pending or completed for each of our 15 ministers to produce their diary entries, I can tell you from experience it is a frustrating instrument that can and has been abused to cause long delays in accessing the information sought.

I have received eight so far. While some information is provided, it is basic diary entry stuff. There are many redactions which omit the names of organisations or individuals and the purpose of their meetings, using the odd excuse that they are out of scope. That is quite ludicrous, because they actually should be in scope. The least transparent diary entries are those from the Premier and his deputy, Dr Close. The Premier's dairy is for 85 days from 10 July to 19 October, and contains 219 meetings with unnamed stakeholders—that is about 2.6 a day. There are no other details, no names of his meetings with departmental staff or ministers. I seek leave to table that document so that other members can look at the lack of any information that is forthcoming.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Premier's FOI was sought by Mr Patrick, and quite rightly. He has now rejected the scant information disclosed or not disclosed and is seeking a review by the Ombudsman. I have some advice for the Premier and this government. I know Mr Patrick very well and his steely determination to get to the bottom of things he tackles. Often he surfaces as the winner, and I have no doubt he will surface as the winner here.

Dr Close is just as secretive as her boss, which is ironic really. Just this morning she distributed a media release backing the Hon. Sarah Game's laws to increase—and I quote—'transparency around ministerial travel arrangements in publishing spending reports every 45 days for ministers'. It is a payback, no doubt, for the member's vote for the university merger and not supporting an inquiry into the government's hydrogen project. Let me quote from Dr Close's press release:

Our Government seeks to hold the highest standards when it comes to disclosure, transparency and accountability.

Really? How hollow is that statement? Do they really think that washes? As for the Hon. Sarah Game, I imagine she is just so chuffed to get her first bill through that she will do Labor's bidding to suit their agenda. Here is some of what she said when that bill was first put into this place. Again I quote:

During a time of rising inflation, rising interest rates and rental and housing crises, South Australians deserve to know that politicians are accountable for their taxpayer dollars…Politicians are servants of the people who elect them…The South Australian public is entitled to proper transparency as to how their taxpayer dollars are spent overseas and on interstate trips.

It should not just apply to that, and quite clearly she makes that inference that it should not just apply to that. She goes on further to say:

I believe this amendment is the bare minimum the public are entitled to know regarding the interstate and overseas travel expenses of government ministers. It ensures all ministers report to the same standard. One Nation calls for politicians to be accountable to voters, and I believe we should be using taxpayer money frugally and conservatively in regard to travel.

I am informed that the Hon. Ms Game will not be supporting this motion either even though she backed the Hon. Mr Simms' bill. The hypocrisy of One Nation, considering their federal counterparts' support for this measure, is overwhelming. It is overwhelming that the Hon. Ms Game is not supporting this motion. I would say that it would damage her credibility as a transparency advocate.

State debt levels are ballooning, and this government is spending like drunken sailors, yet taxpayers are unable to see if proper processes are being followed by the government with its spending and its decision-making and who it is seeing about those decisions. If government members do not support this initiative, one must ask why. What have they got to hide? This Premier fears scrutiny, which is at total odds with his views when he was in opposition. Again, one must ask why. I commend the motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:57): I rise to indicate that the apparent hypocrisy of the Hon. Ms Game is about to be backed in by my own opposition to this motion. Perhaps it is for very different reasons, but I would challenge anyone who questions my reasons on the basis of any deals done to be careful prior to making any such assertion.

At the outset, I might say that my position on this motion remains unchanged from when it was first flagged in this place. Indeed, I think the sense of urgency for which it was first raised has fallen away. Even if that is not the case or the mover's position has changed, there has in the interim been the opportunity or at least time to draft a bill—and there remains time to draft a bill—in preparation for next year.

I stand by my position strongly that a motion is not the appropriate tool for ministerial diary access. I do not do that because I told the Premier that I would do that for anything to do with the merger or for anything to do with the hydrogen bill or any other bill that Labor wanted to get through. I do that because I do not think this is an issue that should be dealt with via a motion moved in this place. If this is an instrument that we want to have, then let's have a full, frank and robust debate via a bill that is the subject of scrutiny and consultation. That is what we are in the business of doing: scrutinising legislation.

The mover says that it is consistent with at least three bills which have been introduced in this place: one by the Greens, one by One Nation, and one by the opposition. That may very well be the case, they may be consistent in terms of what they are seeking access to, but all of those three things were introduced in this place not via a motion but via a bill. They were introduced via a bill that we have all had the benefit of scrutinising, of consulting with stakeholders over, and considering during what are sometimes robust debates in this place. They are not consistent, by any stretch of the imagination, with respect to something that is being proposed as a motion.

There is a huge difference between a motion and a bill that ultimately makes its way on to our statute books. If we are serious about having this debate—and these are bills that I have supported wholeheartedly, including the opposition's bill, which I advocated for very strongly—if these are issues that we want to take seriously in this place, then let's get a bill before us and let's have that full, frank and fearless debate, and ensure that there are, for one thing, no unintended consequences, because we cannot control the consequences of a motion.

We cannot even control whether the motion will be enacted in any way. We can dictate to the government what our desire is as a parliament, and that is the will of this parliament, but we cannot ensure anything beyond that. If there was a piece of legislation here which actually had access in there, and a full set of parameters around it, then that is something that the government would be forced to comply with.

That is a proposal that I have said from the outset I am ready, willing and able to contemplate. I am ready, willing and able to contemplate it on the basis that I will not be concerned—or there may be concerns about unintended consequences which can be dealt with appropriately via a bill. They can be dealt with appropriately via amendments to a bill if that is necessary. That cannot happen with a motion. All we have before us are terms of references which, if this parliament approves, will apply regardless of the consequences. It has not been the subject of any robust debate, and that is not a motion that I am willing to put my name to.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that if you supported either or any of those previous three bills then you ought to be supporting this motion. As I said, that is not comparing apples with apples. There is a huge difference between a piece of legislation which ultimately makes its way on to our statute books, and a motion that is passed by this place.

I want to make one other observation because when I first read this, I thought that we had underestimated the potential unintended consequences of such a motion, without having given thought to how to overcome those. I was thinking of the sorts of examples that sprung to mind for me about meetings that people could be possibly having that could result in unwarranted attention and questioning, and how we would deal with those.

I will be the first to say that I think there are stakeholders who would be extraordinarily concerned about access to all meeting diary entries, given the sensitivities around some of those issues. I understand that there are provisions in the motion that try to address those sensitivities. I would equally be concerned if a minister was having a meeting with an ICAC, or an ombudsman, or a public integrity body, or a child protection body, or a SAPOL body, a police body, and they were having to disclose those in their diaries in a roundabout kind of way, and the sorts of inferences that can be drawn from those once they are published.

These are not fanciful things. These are serious things which impact people and they should be dealt with appropriately. A bill is the appropriate vehicle to deal with those things. A motion is not an appropriate vehicle to deal with those things. Regardless of any criticism that is levelled at me—and I will take it from anyone who wants to give it—I will not be supporting this motion today, but my not supporting it is on the basis of the points that I have just made.

If we want to have a debate about the merits of access to ministerial diaries, why we would be limiting that just to the upper house and two ministers, or whether indeed we could have the ability to extend it beyond the upper house and two ministers, is also one of the issues that remains unclear to me. How and why remain unclear to me. Why I would want to see the Attorney-General's diary but I would not want to see the Treasurer's diary remains unclear to me. How I could see both via a motion that is moved just in the upper house also remains unknown to me.

There are lots of unknown quantities about this motion and whether or not you agree with the principle, whether or not that is a debate you want to have next year, is a separate consideration. I will not be supporting a motion that seeks to do something that is not consistent with those other three transparency measures that have been referred to because those, ultimately, if they pass this place, will end up in our statute book and we will know the parameters within which we are working.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (18:06): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting the honourable member's motion. I want to thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for bringing forward this important motion. This important motion is about being transparent with the South Australian people and we believe it should be supported by every single member in this chamber.

The Malinauskas government's pre-election rhetoric around transparency absolutely rings hollow, as their actions consistently betray their true intentions. Their repeated failure to provide the public with vital information and engage in open dialogue exposes their hypocrisy. Instead of fostering transparency, they often conceal critical information, decisions and processes, leaving this parliament and the public in the dark. This double standard erodes trust in the state Labor government and undermines the democratic process.

Publication of the names of people who lobby any government is vital and it helps to ensure transparency and integrity for this place, the Legislative Council of South Australia, and the other place, the House of Assembly. I think it is important to point out that much of this information is actually already available.

As ministers of the Crown, the items placed in the motion by the honourable member are attainable under the Freedom of Information Act, but would it not be helpful if the South Australian public did not have to wait for the opposition or the crossbench or the media to drag it out of the government? Would it not be helpful if the government of the day was already transparent about their dealings? Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, that is not where we are at with this current Labor government.

Instead of continuing to drag them out of the shade and into the visibility we, the opposition—as I have already stated—will be supporting the honourable member's motion. We were transparent when we were in government. I am not sure why this government finds it so difficult and it begs the question what is there to hide, as I asked the Minister for Primary Industries in question time just this afternoon.

As with many things, we are simply calling on this government to show best practice: best practice in disclosing travel costs in a reasonable period of time, and I note the bill that was passed today; best practice to review the response and recovery of the biggest flooding event in over half a century; and best basic practice in this instance today, to be transparent about political meetings, the attendees, topics, where it was held, and how it may have been funded.

This motion moved by the Hon. Frank Pangallo is consistent with the opposition's Public Finance and Audit (Auditor-General Access to Cabinet Submissions) Amendment Bill 2022 aimed at granting the Auditor-General more power to obtain government documents. The Auditor-General only a few weeks ago gave evidence before the Budget and Finance Committee, where he warned that he was unable to determine the bona fides of 18 projects worth an eye-watering total of $20 billion because he has been repeatedly denied access to the relevant documentation by this current Labor government.

The government may try to spin the line that the policy has not changed since the previous government, and that may be true, but the big difference is that, under our watch, when the Auditor-General asked for the documents, he got them because we held transparency and accountability as a high priority as a government.

In fact, in the Executive Summary of the Report of the Auditor-General into the access to cabinet documents, there is a handy table which clearly states that from March 2019—which is when the former Liberal government changed the guidance from the previous cabinet policy to PC047, subject to the approval by the Premier—to March 2022, access was granted to cabinet submissions and attachments under PC047. It also states that under the same guidance principles since March 2022—that is, since the change of government from Liberal to Labor—there has been no access granted to the Auditor-General. Zip, zero, zilch, as the Leader of the Government might say. All requests declined or unresolved.

So it may be the same policy, but the way in which the policy is interpreted and delivered is completely different between Liberal and Labor. Liberals were transparent when we governed this place, Labor are not. The Leader of the Government, and indeed all of his Labor colleagues in this place, should hang their heads in shame because it is effectively a middle finger to the Auditor-General, and a middle finger to the public of South Australia.

This is deja vu of 2022, and that is why we are once again calling on the government to be accountable to the public that voted them in. As I said earlier, it is disrespectful to the people of South Australia, it is disrespectful to the Auditor-General, and it is disrespectful to their positions as representatives of the Crown.

It is absolutely in the public interest for ministers to declare meetings and the appointments they have with various organisations and business leaders. It should not matter if they are developers, entrepreneurs or lobbyists, and it should be this way for every government. As I said earlier, it is globally noted in Western democracies as simply the basic best practice. What a sad state of affairs when the Malinauskas government refuse to participate repeatedly—time and time again—in basic best practice.

It is indeed lamentable when the opposition and the crossbench have to force the government to be open, accountable and transparent to the people of South Australia. The Hon. Frank Pangallo has the full support of the opposition, and we look forward to voting in the affirmative for this motion today.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (18:13): I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting the motion from the Hon. Frank Pangallo regarding the publication of ministerial appointment diaries. I understand the Legislative Council does not have the capacity to do what the motion seeks to do. I am not aware that the Legislative Council has the power to require House of Assembly ministers' diaries to be published, and if it is the case that the motion only seeks to have the diaries of upper house ministers published, for what purpose?

Whilst no doubt unintended, it is a significant risk to require ministers to publish the names of individual members of the public they have met with, without the consent of those members of the public. The motion does not contain the safeguards put in place under the Freedom of Information Act protecting personal privacy and security and, similarly, it does not set out the level of detail as was set out in my Public Sector (Ministerial Travel Reports) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the ministerial travel reports bill is to ensure greater transparency for ministers, and I do not believe this motion will achieve this without unintended consequences.

Last year, I drafted the members of parliament work diaries bill 2022 and received the following comment from the Hon. Frank Pangallo:

I have been made aware and have now seen your post regarding the working hours of MPs and your proposal to have legislation drawn up that would require MPs to keep a log of their work activity. I am not aware of your work commitments, nor would I be interested in asking about them, as I would assume you are doing your job as an elected representative. I am not sure why all this has arisen now.

In response to a few specific comments from the honourable member regarding the university merger, I do not need a deal to do the right thing by the South Australian public. With regard to the voting on the hydrogen bill, I do not need a deal to take away the Greens' voting power within this chamber on extreme energy policies. I note that the Liberal Party have supported this motion. I would suggest they talk to their lower house colleagues about their passion for transparency, because when my ministerial travel bill passed this morning, the mood from the Liberals was far from jubilant; in fact, it was fairly sombre.

I do not know whether that had anything to do with the amendments that required that the law also extend the same transparency requirement to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in both houses. With regard to closing this motion, I just want to say I am not sure why all this has arisen now. Perhaps it is because the honourable member who has moved the motion feels he has lost his own negotiating power with the government.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:16): Firstly, I speak in favour of the motion on behalf of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this. I know a lot of speakers have alluded to the fact that the government will not be supporting this motion, but given the position that they have adopted on the Hon. Sarah Game's bill in the lower house, I can only assume that they would be supporting this motion, great fans of transparency that they are.

I would be very shocked if they were to favour a bill of the Hon. Sarah Game over a bill put forward by myself dealing with transparency that has been languishing in the lower house for some time. I cannot imagine why they would not support my bill, yet they are so attracted to the bill of the Hon. Sarah Game. I cannot imagine why that would be. I have been very pleasant to deal with this week and every week. I cannot imagine why they would be so attracted to the bill of the Hon. Sarah Game that they opposed so vociferously when it was first announced.

Indeed, I remember hearing a number of Labor ministers lining up in the media to indicate that the bill was not needed and that it was a bridge too far. This week, they have enthusiastically supported it. I know it is Christmas season and we talk a lot about Secret Santa, but what about secret deals? Has there been a secret deal done? I asked the government about this back in November when we were talking about the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill. I read from Hansard. I said at that time:

I am advised that in the other place a bill from the Hon. Sarah Game relating to ministerial travel has now been moved up for debate for the next sitting week. Earlier, the government advised that there had been no deal done with the Hon. Sarah Game. Is that still the government's position?

The honourable Minister Scriven replied:

…the crossbench in this place made statements to the effect that they had not engaged in any deals. I think the line of questioning is quite offensive.

I do not mean to cause offence to the minister, but the community has a right to know. If there has not been a secret deal, then it is incumbent on the government in their remarks to indicate why they are so attracted to the Hon. Sarah Game bill and why they are so lukewarm on, so repulsed by, the Greens bill that they would leave it to languish there for 12 months.

I note the comments made by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game that a motion is not the appropriate measure. Well, motions are a statement of intent. Motions indicate the views of this chamber, and my understanding is that this would have the potential to compel members of this chamber, ministers, to reveal their diaries.

It would, as a result, put more pressure, I think, on the government in the other place, and that is the role of the opposition and the crossbench. It is not simply to say, 'Oh, well, it's all too hard, and we're not going to go there.' So I am disappointed in the position that the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game have taken in this regard.

In terms of the substance of the motion, this has been a long-term priority for the Greens. As indicated, we have a bill that has passed this chamber, calling for ministerial diaries to be made available, bringing South Australia into line with Queensland, with New South Wales and others.

For me, personally, this has been a long-term campaign. Indeed, back in town hall I initiated a developer contact register so the community could see who local councillors were meeting with. Unfortunately, that move was opposed by the Hon. Sandy Verschoor, Lord Mayor at the time, and the co-leader of the Team Adelaide faction, Alex Hyde. They prevented that transparency measure, but I kept pushing, also trying to get access to diaries from the Lord Mayor, and we have continued that fight here in state parliament.

I commend the Hon. Frank Pangallo for the position he has taken on this and really urge members to get on board. That said, I am optimistic the government will support it, because not to support it would be so inconsistent with the position they have taken on the other bill on a similar related matter that I think it would be very disingenuous for them to oppose this move by the Hon. Frank Pangallo, and they could leave themselves open to charges of hypocrisy were they to do so.

Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (18:22): I rise on behalf of government members to make some brief comments on the motion from the Hon. Frank Pangallo. At the outset, I indicate that, while the government appreciates the intention behind the motion, we will not be supporting it. I note that the motion is, I believe, word for word identical to a motion that was moved in the Senate by Senator Jacqui Lambie on 22 March 2023 that was opposed by both Labor and Coalition senators.

A significant reason for our opposition to this motion is a procedural one. We believe that in passing this motion the Legislative Council would risk and would likely be acting beyond the powers available to it and seeking to infringe on the privileges of the House of Assembly.

This motion would fundamentally require me, as Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, to create a regime for the proactive disclosure of all ministers' diaries. There is no way for me to comply with this motion without creating such a regime. If this was to be the requirement, then it ought to be created by legislation, duly passed by both houses of parliament. Passage through one house alone is not a particularly appropriate vehicle for such a regime to be created.

As members would be aware, Erskine May provides commentary on the procedures of the House of Commons and other Westminster parliaments, including ours. The most recent edition, at page 157, notes that the power to send for papers extends to papers which are in the possession of ministers or which ministers have the authority to obtain. As Leader of the Government in this house, I neither hold the diaries of other ministers nor have the authority to obtain them.

I also note that the motion calls for documents which do not currently exist. While ministers would each, obviously, have their own diary, they are not in a form sought by the motion, which would therefore require new documents to be created. Finally, I note that this motion would functionally require me to produce the diaries of ministers in the other place. As I have said, it is an important principle of Westminster parliaments that the two houses are independent of each other and have their own powers, privileges and immunities.

I do not believe it is within the power of this council to order something from members of the other place. That is why, for example, the lower house seeks the leave of this council for upper house ministers to appear before lower house estimates. Beyond these procedural points, there are also practical considerations. The motion contains no safeguards in the way that legislation like the Freedom of Information Act does. As it stands, I am advised that the motion would require ministers to publish the names of members of the public they meet without any necessary right for those members of the public to have a say on whether they want their names to end up on such government websites.

It is the government's view that, if this sort of scheme were to be established by the parliament, it ought to be done by legislation, not solely by a motion of one house. For example, that is what the Hon. Sarah Game, as has been discussed, has sought to do with her Public Sector (Ministerial Travel Reports) Amendment Bill. For these reasons, we will not be supporting the motion.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (18:25): I have to say that I have never heard such disingenuous claptrap in this place in regard to something as vital and important as this when we discuss transparency. I would like to acknowledge all the contributors and I specifically would like to thank the Hon. Robert Simms. I think we are on the same planet where the sun shines, Mr Simms, because others do not seem to be there. They seem to be in the dark shadows of secrecy that are being promoted. I want to address the dissenters, particularly the—

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I beg your pardon.

The PRESIDENT: Interjections are out of order. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, continue.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to address the dissenters. Firstly, the Hon. Ms Game's statement is quite alarming. I just wonder whether she actually wrote that because it seems to have been quite similar to other comments I have heard. Regardless of that, it is quite alarming to see her about-face on this issue. She is so passionate about openness and transparency, but suddenly it does not seem to wash in this place with her.

I will point out to her that these measures are in place in other states and those comments in relation to the unwitting consequences that may arise are absolute rubbish. In fact, I have the honourable Attorney-General's diary and in it he tells me in places who he has met with. He has met with the ICAC and he has met with the Chief Justice. He has regular meetings with him. He meets with the police commissioner and others. There is nothing wrong with that. At least we know. But the Premier will not tell us who any of those 219 stakeholders were or what that was about.

It differs to what you see in other states, particularly New South Wales. I have actually emailed copies of an example of what New South Wales has been doing for nine years. There is no issue there. There is nothing to worry about.

Ms Game also tried to refute claims of any deals that might have been done with the government. I do not know why she decided to raise that. Coincidentally, after she voted against the Hon. Rob Simms' select committee into the hydrogen bill, suddenly her bill in the other place is prioritised by the House of Assembly and, lo and behold, it gets passed today and all these amendments—incredible. As for the Hon. Connie Bonaros, I just hope her no vote was not one that was done in spite. I hope not because she supported the Hon. Rob Simms' bill.

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It does not make any difference. This is all about openness and accountability. Her reasoning just does not ring true. I will tell you why it would not ring true, because her mentor, the Hon. Nick Xenophon—

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: All I would say is—I am not getting dirty; I am just saying that—

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Ms Bonaros!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Hon. Nick Xenophon was a champion for openness, transparency and accountability.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Introduce a bill, Frank.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, we already have a bill.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Introduce a bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We already have a bill.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Introduce a bill.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Anyway, I am just addressing the comments that were made, if I can do that.

The PRESIDENT: Continue, please.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Going on voting trends and exchanges in this place of late, it now appears that Labor has two new SA besties that it can rely on to side with in their place. It is a strange new dynamic.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Keep going.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: There is no conceivable reason for both members to oppose this motion. Their reasoning does not pass the pub test and I am confident it would not have the support of a majority of South Australians. If they were able to be informed about what we have discussed today, they would be outraged. This all smacks of a repugnant collusion to appease the government of matters that it finds uncomfortable to confront. I would challenge the Premier to declare that he and his government have no fear of being open, accountable and transparent. They are not showing that.

Just to address some of the comments that were made in relation to what this motion does or does not do, it is a motion ordering production. That is what it does. This is a process that goes back centuries; Erskine May will attest to that. The order for production reflects what is in this place in other jurisdictions. The 'unintended consequences' is an absolute furphy. My motion does not call for these types of meetings. It is clear: it excludes intergovernmental meetings.

The motion covers all diaries. The chamber can actually order documents from any minister. It would require all ministers to disclose, because the two ministers in this place are also representing all the other ministers in the other place. In a 2015 Administrative Appeals Tribunal judgement from the now High Court Justice Jagot, Her Honour made it clear that disclosure of ministerial meetings is a matter of public interest. This chamber is not restricted to oversight of portfolios of ministers in this place. I commend the motion.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.