HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (14:27): My question—

Mr Koutsantonis: Go on, tell off the kids.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Koutsantonis: Come on, take the point of order, like you said you would.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Heysen.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, again, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General agree that, if a developer pays a significant amount of money by way of donation to an individual or organisation charged with the assessment and approval of the developer's proposal, either the recipient of the funds should not in any way be involved in or take part in the consideration of the development proposal, or the decision regarding the development and the payment of the funds should be open to scrutiny by an independent body to ensure the process was not corrupt?

Today, the member for West Torrens said on radio that he:

...sees corruption being this...there is a piece of property a developer wants to develop, the developer then pays the council illegally or gives them some benefit to approve the development—that is corruption.

Is this the agreed position of the state Labor government?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations) (14:28): The issue of political donations is one that is well canvassed publicly and, under incredibly strict requirements of the federal and state electoral acts, political donations are extremely well publicised.

That is unlike a period when I was in opposition, when my then wife and I spent two days in the corporate affairs offices in Hong Kong doing a search of microfilm to uncover a web of companies called Catch Tim. I think there were 50 companies. You had to get one microfiche and one company and go back to the line. Of course, those who can reflect back will remember the then president of the Liberal Party (now Deputy Leader of the Opposition) running from the media because she would not stop and face scrutiny over this issue when she was outed as the mastermind behind this elaborate architecture to hide donations from corporate donors to the Liberal Party.

I can certainly see why the member for Heysen has asked this question and not the architect of Catch Tim, which was designed to hide from public and any other scrutiny some serious donations leading into earlier elections.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes; it was quite a unique experience. Again, I have some experience and history as a member of the opposition during a time of the Liberal government, and we well know certain donations that were made to the then Liberal government and projects that subsequently followed. I do not think we actually tied one in with the other. I think we were very generous in what we did do in that area in terms of accepting that we would entrust upon the then Liberal government due accountability and due good process to ensure—

Ms Chapman: Rubbish!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes; we shouldn't have done it, I agree. I can talk to you about some water contracts, if you would like. We can give you some nice little bits of information about the water contracts. As it relates to the government, we have an incredibly tight code of conduct for ministers; and all ministers, if they have either a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest, absent themselves from that decision in cabinet.

The Hon. M.D. Rann: And donations are declared according to law, not disguised.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: And donations are declared according to law, not disguised as it was with Catch Tim. Equally—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop will come to order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: How much did John Howard raise when he was here a little over a year ago with his quiet dinners at certain people's houses? I remember John Howard hosting very private dinners at the homes of prominent South Australians at a very high price. We did not hear much about that from members opposite.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It was made on the basis that it not be spent on the state Libs.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is right; yes: it was made on the basis that it not be spent on the state Liberals. Individual members have a responsibility that, if they believe there is a real or perceived conflict of interest when they are considering a matter, they would refer that matter to another minister. I have certainly done that on a number of occasions and, equally, I have acted for other ministers when they have felt either a real or a perceived conflict of interest. I would argue quite strongly that the level of ministerial accountability, transparency and responsibility far outweighs anything that we saw under the last government by a country mile, and I am quite confident that the processes we have in place ensure a very accountable and properly administered government.

I would strongly suggest to the opposition that both sides of politics in Australia and in South Australia do receive significant support from the private sector. Now, if members opposite are suggesting that should no longer occur, then let us have that debate. If members opposite do not wish to receive corporate donations, so be it; that is their decision. I am happy to have a debate about the role of donations from the business sector, if the opposition wants to have a serious debate and if they wish to say that we should not be doing it. However, I am confident as Treasurer of this state that this government has a very good code of conduct and accountability, and the appropriate ministers would absent themselves from any decision where there is a real or perceived conflict.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT