Integrity Framework

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:31): I rise on a matter of importance regarding the integrity framework that underpins our democracy. I have a document that I wish to refer to, so I seek leave to table the document.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am sure all members share my strong commitment to our decision-making processes being transparent. We have important rules in place to ensure the conduct and actions of participants in public debates, policy decisions and the allocation of taxpayer resources are fair and impartial. We know that ministers, parliamentarians, their staff and public servants must operate within a framework that ensures our personal interests are disclosed, conflicts are declared and managed, and that we do not use our privileged positions for gain or profit for ourselves, friends or family.

I am therefore deeply concerned to be in possession of a document which would seem to clearly breach these integrity standards and raise serious questions about a former staff member to a member of this place, her husband's business dealings with government and what appears to be the use of a privileged position of influence to attempt to achieve personal profit from the allocation of taxpayer funds.

I have been provided with an email that was sent from Mr James O'Hanlon to his wife, Ms Cressida O'Hanlon. It is from his business email account to her personal email. The date of this correspondence is 7 February 2023, during the period when Ms O'Hanlon worked for the Hon. Reggie Martin MLC. The email represents a request from James O'Hanlon for Cressida O'Hanlon to secure him a meeting with a government minister so that he can discuss securing taxpayer funds for his business, Citadel Secure. This correspondence has equally raised a broader issue regarding the business Citadel Secure, Mr James O'Hanlon and the requirements of the Lobbyists Act 2015.

A review of the company's website shows that this company promotes with pride its connections and networks with government decision-makers. This is a direct quote from the business's website, accessed by me today:

We have built broad and productive bipartisan networks with key decision makers and influencers in Australia and NZ to maintain a clear picture of government priorities and future policies.

Our team is respected for its integrity and accountability in all its engagements with government.

The accountability and integrity they boast does not extend to being registered under the Lobbyists Act and disclosing any of their interactions with government through that process, the sole point of the Lobbyists Act. The registration and declaration of relationships, clients and meetings with government officials, ministers, parliamentarians and their staff is the central point of the register.

The penalties for potential violations of the Lobbyists Act range in fines of up to $30,000 or two years' imprisonment for individuals, and up to $150,000 for corporations. This matter invites clear and serious questions:

1. Was a parliamentary staff member, Cressida O'Hanlon, using her position of privilege and networks in government to secure preferential treatment and access for her husband and his business to seek to earn profit from government decisions and taxpayers' funds?

2. What meetings were sought and/or occurred between this business, Citadel Secure, and any state or commonwealth minister, staff member or government official, and what was discussed?

3. Why is a business that promotes its activities in government relations and networks with decision-makers not registered as a lobbyist and not providing disclosures of meetings and interactions with government as the Lobbyists Act requires?

Answers to these questions will determine what future action is taken to escalate these issues with SAPOL and other high-level investigative bodies. I make no suggestion of any awareness of the alleged actions of this staff member by her employer, the Hon. Reggie Martin MLC, or anyone else in government, state or federal.

I believe this chamber, and South Australians, are entitled to an explanation for these revelations. If true, they demonstrate a breakdown of the necessary protections of government decisions from personal preferment and the improper use of privileged access to senior government decision-makers.