Minor Parties in Parliament

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:24): I move:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges unique challenges facing new members from minor parties to establish their parliamentary office within Parliament House and that the government needs to protect their functional establishment in order to uphold democracy;

2. Acknowledges these small parliamentary offices need special protection from major parties that have the potential to operate like a cartel with small business to functionally eradicate them;

3. Acknowledges that members of parliament have the right to be psychologically protected from staff employed in their offices to assist them with their parliamentary duties and that this is especially true in a small parliamentary office where the ability to shift and trade staff does not exist;

4. Acknowledges that independent members and minor parties play a critical role in holding major parties to account and their offices need to be able to run effectively to fulfil their duty to the taxpaying public;

5. Acknowledges that members of minor parties are particularly vulnerable to opportunists who may wish to exploit these employment opportunities for their own gain; and

6. Acknowledges the enormous and critical role that positive, competent parliamentary staff play, especially within a small parliamentary office.

This motion is a result of my own personal experience as an individual attempting to my best abilities to simply earn my keep and do my job, at times successfully, with the assistance of fabulous staff, and at times finding my parliamentary office thwarted with incompetence or deliberate derailment.

The taxpayer deserves better, and members of parliament deserve better too. Unfortunately, these types of employees are found throughout the workforce and wreak havoc on the mental wellbeing and financial viability of business owners and indirectly question and challenge productivity in the Australian economy. If we want a productive economy, we need productive people. If the public want an effective, productive parliamentary representative the member cannot accept lazy, disloyal staff.

Invested, competent staff are invaluable in a small parliamentary office. These dedicated staff deserve significant acknowledgement. Their role is often extremely diverse and involves the ability to be flexible, to multitask and to change focus and direction nimbly. These loyal, steadfast staff are essential in assisting members of parliament to hold firm and survive the storm and solar winds that can be switched on at a moment's notice by major parties.

Establishing a small parliamentary office as a new member with a new party, it seems, is fraught with difficulties. As the first One Nation member of parliament in South Australia, I was warned that the media would try to take me down. Let us be clear: in my opinion it is not the media that are a threat to the establishment of minor parties. Within Parliament House major parties can operate like sharks and cartels, protruding many tentacles overtly and covertly to destroy a new parliamentary office.

I will be shedding insight at a personal level of what has shaped my outlook, but much greater issues are at stake than my own wellbeing. Minor parties play a critical role in holding major parties to account. The members are voted in by the people, and to rob them of their ability to function within Parliament House is to rob the people of their democratic right to representation. When opportunists and cartel-like parties come together, minor parties are particularly vulnerable in their ability to preserve their functional survival for the people who elected them.

Members of parliament with small parliamentary offices that find themselves working intimately with disloyal opportunists, aggressive personalities or incompetent employees who misrepresented their abilities do not have the luxury of larger offices where that individual can be subtly shifted to a new work environment. More flexible employment options are needed for members with small parliamentary offices, and the government needs to consider mandatory psychological testing and full background checks for staff who work alongside members of parliament.

Employment law, from my observation, operates to protect lazy, disloyal, incompetent staff working alongside members of parliament, while the member of parliament is left hindered in their duties and at risk of being hung out to dry. Let us be clear: the stories that shape my suggestions have been generated by only a few bad eggs. Unfortunately, one bad egg in a small office can have catastrophic consequences.

Politicians are, in my opinion, on a generous salary. This sentiment seems to be shared by the public, and the public and media hold politicians to account and rightly so. What is not so commonly discussed are the generous salaries of staff assisting parliamentary members. What is not scrutinised publicly is the value-add or not to the member and the public of these people paid by the taxpayer.

And, perhaps, why should they be scrutinised? It could be argued they did not sign up for a public position, but perhaps when these staff themselves seek the media out for their own agenda after not having their contract renewed, this thought holds less weight. Either way, the right staff are essential to proper representation of the people, and that is the heart of the matter.

It is important to acknowledge the recent Advertiser article in which I featured: 'Game of moans: Ex-staff rebel'. I thank The Advertiser for choosing flattering photographs and for seeking and publishing my comments. But it is important for the wonderful staff past and present in my office, in light of that article, to be acknowledged from the outset. These staff, who went above and beyond, do not deserve to be mixed up with complainers who could not do a standard week while pocketing the automatic after-hours loading.

One recommendation is establishing a code of conduct that prevents major parties from employing staff from minor parties for a period of time. Treating the office of minor parties as a free recruitment service is inappropriate, amoral and destructive for democracy.

As a member of parliament who does not work in my staff office and, due to my work commitments, am often not in the parliament building, it is essential to have total trust in one's staff. Initially, I thought having my staff on the same floor as the Liberals seemed like a good thing. But as time went by the One Nation staff office turned into an endless revolving door for Liberals to drop by. Chatter about weekend texts with other Liberal employees began, and joint office tearoom hangouts became the norm for my hand-picked staff.

One of my employees commented to me, 'I am your office manager, but it doesn't matter which party I work for.' I wish I could have dismissed them on the spot. The work from these staff remained competent but the knowledge that I was a lone member without the real support of the people I had chosen to give employment opportunities to hindered my ability to trust my staff, an essential need especially in a small parliamentary office.

When I was informed of my father's death while I was at work, I walked restrained to my staff office to calmly inform them of the event, asked them to cancel a scheduled evening podcast, and with the direction to please not come into my private office, where I sat alone for hours. I knew that I was not amongst friends.

Ultimately, I was proved right, not paranoid, and they left smoothly and jointly to the Liberal Party with well-established relationships. It was unfortunate timing that their effective joint resignations were communicated to me on the day of my father's funeral. I am extremely proud of soldiering on to represent the people of South Australia and to try to restabilise the office. I am not sure many people could have continued to show up to work after such a family tragedy and see their entire former full-time staff on the same work floor employed with a competing party.

I chose not to advertise and not to commit to long-term contracts in this time. I employed several people on short-term contracts to assist me. I remained on good terms with all new employees who I employed at that time. Unfortunately, earlier events would come back to haunt me down the track with a subsequent employee observing and communicating to the staff office, 'If we ever don't like it here, we don't leave, let's just see what's on offer down the hallway.' It has to be on the record because I do not expect the voting public would expect their elected member to have to continue relying on such an employee until their contract ended. Things need to change.

Small parties do not have the capacity for a smooth recovery after a total office wipeout, like the one my office experienced. It should not be allowed to happen, both for the instability created at the time and the ongoing ripple effects. Some might say that is politics, I call it theft from the taxpayer when an elected member's staff, employed to aid the parliamentarian's office, in fact spend their time grafting for employment with a rival one.

There needs to be greater flexibility and short-term contracts in order to safeguard the member from issues such as disloyalty, incompetence or changes in office resource requirements. The public and media rightly demand the ability to hold politicians to account but when due to employment law or work/office setup the member cannot hold their staff to account, the member is set up to fail.

It is often cited that if the pay were better the public would have better calibre politicians. I disagree, but I do argue that high-quality hardworking people will not stay or be attracted to positions over time if their staff cannot be held to account. The hanging around of well-paid staff doing the minimum until their contracts end has the potential to corrupt a small office in which the member does not operate. Why should the member put up with it, and why should the taxpayer?

I was warned, when writing this, that the public does not care about the feelings of politicians. I am not sure that is true. My nine-year-old son commented sadly, 'Mummy, there was a very bad article about you in the paper. They said bad things but they must be wrong.' He had overheard another adult. My daughters chanted supportably, 'You're the best mummy in the world.' Still, I am a human being, to state the obvious, and my greatest concern will always be my children. I tried to relate to my son, 'This is how some adults behave when you say no to renewing their contracts.'

If you care about politicians' feelings or not, the greater issue here is the waste of taxpayer money when there is a distraction of deliberate chaos by unstable, lazy or disloyal employees. It was reported in The Advertiser that my staff office was a shambles. I do know that these comments were ironically made by staff whose contracts I had chosen not to renew, and that is an important part of the context, which I thank the journalist for reporting.

Parliamentary privilege allows me to name the staff who have taken advantage of me, One Nation and the taxpayer, but today I continue to allow them the privilege of anonymity. I must admit, reading The Advertiser comments, I cast my thoughts to the person I employed to manage and mentor the office, but who lost the respect of the entire team by announcing they were off for a long lunch with a Tinder date while the others slogged on.

This new team manager, team motivator, failed to do a full working week, which was quickly noticed by their colleagues. Their employment resulted in a verbal argument between themselves and another staff member so serious that I had to pull to the side of the road and seek one of them urgent mental health assistance. The ripple effect was their inability to function within the same office as the team they were managing.

I have had staff decide to work from home at whim, come late, leave early as suited, and from whom I am too scared to request their leave forms for fear of the tantrum that may ensue. Staff refuse to complete leave forms, declaring they will work on the plane as they venture interstate on a holiday. Something has to change.

The risk of reputational damage lies currently solely with the member of parliament. If appointments are incorrect or phone calls not returned, the employee is protected by employment law while the member is hung out to dry. As one stakeholder advised of one employee: 'Be careful. They're a self-promoter', an observation they made. The only option seemed waiting out their contract.

In my opinion, it is true that as a minor conservative party, One Nation has been particularly vulnerable to opportunists and, frankly, imposters pretending to be supporters when the true intention was simply obtaining parliamentary access for their own networking and career opportunities.

It has been raised with me that staff should get psychologically tested. I am not an expert on what that entails, but it seems worthy of consideration. Either way, it is not just staff who have a right to be psychologically safe at work. So does the member. I continue to be harassed and intimidated by a former employee to the extent that I have gone to the police. So serious is the matter, I have decided not to comment further at this stage, for fear of this individual. Psychological testing would help the media also be assured they have greater credibility when talking to a disgruntled ex-employee.

Recruitment is a vital part of getting it right, and while I admit my optimistic outlook on people has played a role, I am not a recruitment expert, and recruiting the right person is difficult even for experienced recruiting firms. It must be acknowledged that once given the keys to Parliament House, and the member is out, attitudes of an employee can change. When this happens, the member needs greater rights to make decisions to preserve their own wellbeing, and that of the office.

I have current hardworking, vibrant employees who have been a great support and full of great ideas, but I ask those few employees who went to The Advertiser to ask themselves their role in the situation that they speak of, and perhaps that is why I chose not to renew their contracts.

In closing, the office of minor parties faces unique challenges, including being particularly susceptible to the bad practice of major parties like a cartel wiping out a small business. Small offices are heavily damaged by people who insist on being a square peg in a round hole until their contracts end. I call on the government to ensure that members of parliament in these environments have adequate protection for their own wellbeing and so that their office serves the taxpayer and voting public effectively.

I will be introducing to this chamber legislation that prohibits major parties from employing staff from independent or minor parties for at least six months after completion of their contract. This is to safeguard the taxpayer who assumes their elected member has staff supporting them, not misusing work time to scaffold themselves to a rival party. Secondly, I will be introducing legislation that requires staff working for parliamentarians to be psychologically tested and to have a full background check in the same manner as many other workplaces require before employment.

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