HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORATE SERVICES

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:12): I move:

That this house condemns the Rann government for hindering members of parliament in carrying out their electorate duties by refusing to allow the purchase of relevant Australian Standards from their electorate office global allowance.

I do not like using the term 'condemn', because it sounds as though they are going to face a firing squad and, the reality is, it is not the Rann government: it is an employee within Treasury who is, in my view, going outside their—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, the tradition is that the government is responsible and accountable for its employees, so that is why I have worded it this way. But it is directed at a practice which I think is unacceptable. I mention one example only: I asked if I could get the Australian standards relating to roadworks, and also in relation to speed cameras—now, remember, my road thing had nothing to do with speed cameras—and I was denied those by Mr Rodney Hobbs. I do not want to make this a personal attack on him, but he is the officer in charge. He said, 'You can get these out of your—'

An honourable member: Electorate allowance?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, he said, 'You can put these in your private library,' or something like that. Now, that is ridiculous. He said, 'You can have the standards for bushfires.' I said, 'I don't want the standards for bushfires. I want to be able to talk to the engineer at the City of Onkaparinga about things like speed humps, chicanes and all that, and be able to talk the same language as the engineer.' He said, 'No, you can't have it.' I tried several times. I don't think the minister looked at the issue thoroughly; he just signed the letter saying, 'You can't have them.'

We are the elected members. What we purchase goes online: the public can have a look at it, my electorate can have a look at it. I am quite happy to defend any of the purchases in my office, and people can have a look at my tax return if they like—I don't care. I have nothing to hide, I don't go in for shonky things. I am not the only member here who has had difficulties with that Treasury officer.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're not alone.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No. There have been a lot of arbitrary decisions—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Was that a voice from above?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it was the voice of me.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I was going to say, 'Thank you, Lord'! Other members can speak for themselves and, as I say, it is not a personal thing. I thought we had reformed the system with a bipartisan committee to allow members to buy things out of the global allowance that were relevant. I can get fridge magnets, which I am not seeking to do at the moment, but I cannot get the Australian Standards documentation that I need to communicate with the engineer and staff of the local council. As you might imagine, we get a lot of traffic issues, and we cannot interact with the relevant police and other agencies if we cannot talk the technical language.

I am saying that those new guidelines do not seem to be working. Other members have said to me, for example, that they have put in an ad, they have waited for approval, and it has come too late; they have lodged the ad, and then they have been told, 'You won't be able to get reimbursement for that.' This raises the wider issue of expenditure by MPs in relation to carrying out their duties. I think it should be controlled by and through the parliament, as is the case in other jurisdictions.

I do not see why a public servant—as I said, with no disrespect to this particular individual—should have the power of veto over an elected member seeking something to help them carry out their duties. Isn't that what we are in here for? I do not believe anyone in my electorate or anyone in South Australia would say that getting a set of Australian Standards is inappropriate. I have stopped reading them on a Saturday night for entertainment. I have moved on from Australian Standards, and I am now getting into Biggles and Phantom comics. Why would I want copies of the Australian Standards at home? It is just ludicrous.

I was going to say that I do not need to labour the point, but it is a Labor point, I guess. This particular practice needs to be reassessed. Some members have had difficulty getting newspapers. In the upper house, they get their papers without any query whatsoever. If you want to have them early in the morning to prepare for radio—and members here would know you are rung at all hours—you have to know what is in the paper. It has been a fight and a struggle to get even something like a newspaper.

A few years ago—and this was when the Hon. Rob Lucas was treasurer—he would not let me have newspapers in the office. He said, 'You don't need them,' and then he found out some of his own members were getting them through petty cash and he had to let me have newspapers in the office. How are you expected to do your job if you cannot have papers? These are not naughty magazines; these are the daily newspapers. If you talk to people in business, they shake their head in disbelief that a member of parliament is not entitled to have a newspaper or get a copy of the Australian Standards.

I move this motion, and I would hope that we get back to what I thought the reform package was about: giving members greater latitude in what they purchase. It goes on the web, so the world can see what you are purchasing, and if you are buying things that are in appropriate there will soon be some journalist who will take note of it and you will be brought to account, so I do not see why we are denied these things. I still have not got the Australian Standards, so I cannot interact with the engineer and the people in my electorate have to go over the humps and bumps without my good guidance.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (12:19): I am in the odd position of having come to this debate intending to vote against the motion but, having heard the member for Fisher, I am now not so sure. I think the member for Fisher has made quite a good case for parliament having control over the global allowance of members, rather than a branch of Treasury. I know many members have had an experience similar to the member for Fisher. The member for Fisher has requested that the purchase of three Australian Standards be paid from his 2009-10 House of Assembly global allowance allocation.

The member for Fisher received approval from the Department of Treasury and Finance for the purchase of two Australian Standards relating to the construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas and the construction of swimming pools, as these matters were held to relate to the day-to-day running of his electorate office. The purchase of Australian Standards for traffic control devices or radar speed detection from the member for Fisher's global allowance allocation was not approved by the Department of Treasury and Finance.

It seems to me that we are given a global allowance, and with the exception of using the global allowance for personal purposes or for commercial purposes to benefit a person personally or a commercial enterprise, it seems to me that we should be able to spend it as we see fit, up to the maximum. Of course, if we spend more, we have to pay for that ourselves.

For myself, I have always been modest in my use of the global allowance. Under the provisions introduced by the previous Liberal government, I have transferred thousands of dollars of it to other Labor Party members. I have a lot of volunteers who are prepared to walk in direct-mail material, so I do not have the costs for postage that other members have, and my electorate is flat and compact.

It seems to me that there are any number of officials in government who are wanting to make judgements about our global allowance, without the benefit of working day-to-day as a member of parliament. So, it is one of those occasions where I have been convinced by the member for Fisher's argument. I do not think the Rann government ought to be condemned in his motion. Perhaps he will consider amending it, but I would like the house to think further about his motion and parliament taking the global allowance back to itself and we governing ourselves and being directly accountable to the public for our expenditure, without the mediation, shall we say, of certain public officials.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:23): The main point I want to make is that the member for Croydon made an extraordinary comment in his opening remarks about the attitude of the opposition. I have no understanding of why he made those comments.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What's that?

Mr WILLIAMS: You said the opposition was coming in here to oppose this matter.

An honourable member: No, he was.

Mr WILLIAMS: Sorry, I misinterpreted what the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And then he said that the member for Fisher was persuasive and he had changed his mind. He was not having a go at you.

Mr WILLIAMS: Sorry, I thought the member was—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Mr WILLIAMS: I apologise; I misunderstood.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You missed that rare moment of bipartisanship.

Mr WILLIAMS: I thought the member was having a gratuitous slag at the opposition. I am pleased to hear that.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You deserve to be slagged, though, regularly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, would you like to talk about the particular motion at all, member for MacKillop? I am sure you have some interesting things to share with us.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am sure I can come up with some interesting things to say about this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, do.

Mr WILLIAMS: I, too, am somewhat persuaded by the member for Fisher's comments.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Dissuaded or persuaded?

Mr WILLIAMS: Persuaded. I think probably every member of this house has had an experience with—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: —an unnamed bureaucrat—

Members interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, an unnamed bureaucrat who, I think, has a misguided attitude to his role in keeping us out of trouble and protecting us from ourselves.

I think every member runs the gauntlet of public odium on a daily basis. That is what keeps us honest. That is what keeps us on the straight and narrow. With regard to the expenditure of global allowance, the arbiter should be public opinion. I think we should be open about what we spend our global allowance on.

There have been a number of instances where I have been frustrated by this process, and I will refer to one. When I became Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I thought it appropriate that I have that position highlighted on my business cards. When handing out my business card—some members put on them that they are the shadow minister, or whatever—I thought it would be appropriate to report the fact that I was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I did not understand why, but my office contacted an unnamed bureaucrat and was told that it was out of order for me to spend global allowance on a business card which had on it the fact that I was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a position recognised by the parliament. In fact, there is a substantial salary associated with the position and it is a position within the house.

It fascinated me that I was unable to use my global allowance to print business cards. However, the unnamed person suggested that there was a way out. He said that as of 1 July (last), the rules were changing somewhat and I did not necessarily need his permission; I could run the gauntlet of public opinion and print the business cards notifying that I was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition after 1 July. So, that is what I did. I did, in fact, print the business cards, and I suspect I have some in my pocket now. Here we go, with my name—Deputy Leader of the Opposition, member for MacKillop. How outrageous that I would print that on a little card to hand out to people to let them know who I was and how they might contact me.

I did have them printed and I forwarded the account to the electorate office, and it was duly paid. Having taken the opportunity to speak to the member for Fisher privately, I am somewhat disturbed. I said, 'I don't know why you didn't just go and buy the things and send the account in.' He said, 'Well, I tried that and they wouldn't reimburse me for the cost.' I think that is outrageous. I do have sympathy for his position, and I am somewhat glad that I was reimbursed for my business cards. I think this is an issue that members of the house need to think about and resolve.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pegler.

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