HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ETHICS

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for State/Local Government Relations relating to ethics in local government.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Last night, in the debate on the ForestrySA Select Committee, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations accused two South-East mayors of being politically motivated in their criticism of the government's proposed sale of ForestrySA assets in the South-East. He said:

I have no doubt that a major part of this campaign has been motivated by political interests and, particularly, by people trying to line themselves up for future tilts at MacKillop or Mount Gambier, whether that be as Liberal candidates or as Independents...

Later he said:

I think ratepayers have a right to ask how much of their money has been put from local governments into this campaign in order to boost the political careers of individuals.

At a public meeting on 3 November 2010, Mark Braes, the then mayor of Wattle Range Council, successfully moved the following five motions; that the meeting:

record its opposition to the sale;

record its strident view that any sale will have detrimental and irreversible effects on the local timber industry, associated industry, retail and commercial sectors;

insist the government not proceed with a forward sale until the proposed regional impact statement has been considered by the local community;

endorse a deputation of mayors from councils, with Mr Coates added as a union representative; and

if the state government insists on proceeding with the sale, the public meeting endorses that councils and stakeholders take strategies and actions jointly to stop the forward sale.

On 9 November 2010, the Wattle Range Council resolved to contribute $50,000 towards the Save Our Forest Industry campaign. At the time, the Mayor of Wattle Range Council was Mr Mark Braes. Mr Mark Braes serves as President of Country Labor, part of the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party.

Does the minister consider that former mayor Braes is involved in a politically-motivated campaign furthering his own political interests, such that his representation should be ignored, or does the minister intend to run one code of ethics for Labor mayors and one code of ethics for all other mayors?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for Gambling) (14:31): I thank the Hon. Mr Wade for his question. It is typical of the Liberal opposition to try to mischaracterise the comments that I made. It is typical of the Liberal opposition to try to mischaracterise what I said last night in this house in order to try to make a political point, because they know how thin their opposition to any proposed forward sale and their support for the select committee really are, otherwise they would not have had to have the Hon. Mr Lucas come to their rescue last night and jump up and debate.

Obviously, because the Liberal Party has no confidence in any of the other members in here to make an argument, it has to rely on the Hon. Mr Lucas to stand by and hop up to make the case. As you will recall, Mr President, I indicated to you that I intended to speak on the motion before the debate started.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Here, again, all honourable members opposite can do is sit there and throw barbs under parliamentary privilege. The Hon. Mr Lucas likes to say, 'Challenge me to go and say this and say that.' He loves to hop up in here and say that I am lying and that I am misleading the house about whether a decision has been made. I am sure he does not go out there and say that I am a liar in public. He is indeed the master of hiding behind parliamentary privilege.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I did not accuse the mayors of acting corruptly. What I said last night I stand by; that is, political motivations are undoubtedly a part of this campaign. As I acknowledged last night in my contribution, if you read it in full, I said that I accept that people are concerned about this. I acknowledged people's rights to participate in the campaign, to protest here at parliament to make their views known to the government. I acknowledge that absolutely. But to pretend that there is not a single bit of political interest in two former failed Liberal candidates who are mayors running this campaign is, quite frankly, beyond belief.

Are honourable members opposite seriously suggesting that the two people who represented their party in the seat of Mount Gambier at the last two elections have no affiliation, no concern and no interest in the Liberal Party succeeding? Are they seriously saying that they are that weak and disloyal as members of the Liberal Party that they have no interest in the Liberal Party succeeding? They are members of the Liberal Party, as far as I am aware, and they have certainly been Liberal candidates in the past.

To suggest that they have no interest at all in the Liberal Party succeeding in a political campaign on forests is just absurd. It is beyond belief. Let's all act like grown-ups and acknowledge that there is political interest involved when two former Liberal candidates are spearheading a campaign on this issue. As I said last night, if either Mr Perryman or Mr Gandolfi want to publicly pledge that they will not be candidates in a future state election, whether it be Liberal or Independent—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: —if Mr Perryman or Mr Gandolfi want to publically pledge that they will not be candidates in a future state election—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: You see that the Hon. Mr Dawkins and honourable members opposite of course are trying to shout me down on this point because they know that I am perfectly right. They already know. They know that these individuals are either planning to run for the Liberal Party or as independent liberals, either at the next election or even the one after. If Mr Gandolfi and Mr Perryman want to publicly pledge that they will not be candidates at a future state election, as I said last night in my contribution, I will happily apologise to them, but of course honourable members opposite try to shout that down, because they know perfectly well that part of this campaign is undoubtedly to further the political interests of the Liberal Party.

That is why, as I said last night, the Liberal Party and the Liberal opposition are threatening the jobs of the very people they aim to protect and claim to represent. The constant talking down of the South-East and saying that it will have no future if the forward sale of the forests goes ahead; the constant talk that property values will plummet, that 3,000 people will be out of jobs overnight, that constant speculation; that constant talking down the region as if it has no future and has nothing to offer is a great disservice to the people of the South-East.

It is leaving them hanging out to dry to suggest that a government decision, that has not even been taken yet, will ruin their community, and it is already having a serious impact on the morale of people in the South-East and the standing of that community. It is perfectly correct to say that there are political interests at heart in some of the campaigning that has gone on down there, and that has been very clear throughout this whole process.

I do believe that ratepayers have a right to ask how much of their money has been spent on this campaign and how much of their money has been spent on furthering the interests of the Liberal Party. What has this money been used for? Ratepayers have a right to ask what their money has been used for—T-shirts with cartoons of the former Treasurer on them? The so-called community impact statement—all 10 pages of it—with no-one's name and no-one's signature, the community impact statement commissioned by this campaign and assumedly paid for is an absolute joke and embarrassment that it would even be released publicly.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: You can imagine that if the government tabled a 10-page report on a major investment and economic decision, two pages of which were the contents and title page and one of which was a diagram—with no name on it, no date on it, no signature on it—can you imagine that being taken as a credible document? Of course it would not be.

Even looking at that document, it actually says that an unconstrained, no-holds-barred sell-off of the forest assets, including the company and the land, would not be in the best interests of the South-East. Indeed, a no-holds-barred, unconstrained sell-off would not be in the interests of the South-East, and that is why the government has said that that is not what we are going to do. What we are talking about is the possible forward sale of the harvesting rights on forests.

To suggest that if that decision is taken that will be the end of the world for the South-East is irresponsible, reckless and lets down the very people honourable members opposite claim to represent. What it does is try to—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Mr President, honourable members opposite are complaining that I am answering their question.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, they asked the question. They are asking me whether I stand by what I said last night—the answer is yes. Let me make it very clear that I believe that the Liberal opposition is acting irresponsibly and recklessly by talking down the South-East and by trying to put fear into the community there about their livelihood and job security, based entirely on their own political interests and their own concerns about those seats being held by Independents and not being able to win them at state elections. That has certainly been the motivator for Liberal members opposite in this chamber and the Liberal opposition.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: As the Hon. Mr Holloway points out, they certainly had no qualms not only about selling ETSA and the TAB and so on, but they actually sold the mills that they are now saying are going to shut because of this government. What extraordinary hypocrisy! What absolute shamefaced hypocrisy that honourable members opposite are complaining about the possible sale of harvesting rights for forests in the context of a government-owned company and the government maintaining ownership of the land. They are saying that is going to be what will shut down mills in the South-East, the very ones they sold off. One of the key reasons people in the South-East are concerned is that they saw what happened when the Liberal Party and the Liberal government hung them out to dry.

There is concern about this in the community, and I have said that I accept and understand that. I certainly welcome citizens making known their point of view. Some of those are members of the Labor Party as well, and they are entitled, of course, to that point of view. As I said last night, what the government will do is examine the regional impact statement carefully. We will weigh up what is in the best interests of the state, what is in the best interests of the people of the South-East and what is in the best interests of a viable, sustainable forestry industry into the future, which will provide those jobs and that economic activity that is so important. We will weigh up what is in the interests of the state and the South-East and, in particular, what is going to be in the interests of the people of the South-East, and that is the basis on which a decision will be made.

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