HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Members, Accommodation Allowances

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:10): I seek leave to move this motion in an amended form.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The amendment I make is after the words 'That this Council requires the President to table' to replace the words 'on the next day of sitting' with 'Tuesday 21 July' and further, after the words 'no later than 5pm on Friday 3 July 2020' replace the words 'Friday 3 July 2020' with 'Tuesday 21 July'. In effect what that does is that the date that the forms were required to be tabled moves from the next day of sitting until Tuesday 21 July, and in addition the date that copies are to be made publicly available moves from Friday 3 July also to Tuesday 21 July. Having sought leave, I move the motion in an amended form:

That this council requires the President to table on Tuesday 21 July 2020, and make copies publicly available by no later than 5pm on Tuesday 21 July 2020, all Country Members' Accommodation Allowance claim forms that have been submitted from 20 March 2010 to 30 June 2020.

I will not speak greatly about this as we have traversed matters to do with this and it has been publicly debated in the media over the last few days. It is important that we have confidence in our institutions and that we are abiding by the rules that govern those institutions.

I appreciate the Premier's new-found conversion to openness, accountability and transparency on the radio this morning when he said that the Liberal Party would be supporting this motion, so I look forward to support from across the political divide. Having discussed this with a number of members of the crossbench, I look forward to this passing so that we can make sure that everything that has been claimed is, in fact, the case, and that we have as much accountability, transparency and openness as possible.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:12): I am also pleased to support the motion as amended. At roughly $30,000 a year, I think the public does have a right to know who has received these payments, that the claims were validly made, and that the payments were validly made. I think this is an important matter of trust and confidence, especially once issues like this have hit the public realm.

Beyond this particular motion, which is an exercise in disclosure, I am also interested in how on earth these rules were developed in the way they were. I have certainly had no part in them. I understand that they are not part of the formal standing orders. In fact, when elected to this place, one is given two brown loose-leaf books, the standing orders book circa 1999—that is the version I have—and there is a thing called the Members' Handbook. It is in the Members' Handbook that many of these rules are contained. I do not know whether my version is up to date—I expect it is not.

I imagine that there are rulings of the Remuneration Tribunal that may have changed some of the contents, but the point still remains, and it is a rhetorical question: who wrote all these rules? Where did they come from? Who decided it was 75 kilometres? I understand the dollar amount, the Remuneration Tribunal decided that. Did they decide the 75 kilometres? It is not a receipt-based system but should it be a receipt-based system? That is certainly a lot more onerous, if someone is obliged to produce receipts. It would also disadvantage people who perhaps live in their own home rather than renting a hotel. When renting a hotel it is easy to get a receipt; living in your own home, it is more problematic.

So I think these rules do need to be rewritten. I am delighted that we will have in the not-too-distant future a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. Whether that committee is also the appropriate body to start looking at these various rules, I do not know, but I would certainly like to discuss that issue with fellow members of the committee.

But for now and for today, the motion is quite simple. These records should be produced, and they need to be made public, and that goes to accountability. I appreciate that in the corridors and in various offices over the last several days there have been many discussions about whether further amendments to the motion might be required. I am not proposing to move any further amendments.

There were a lot of questions in question time today about whether members were comfortable with their home addresses, for example, being publicly declared. I would imagine that there are some former members who maybe have not yet had that opportunity to have their say. If the amended motion passes, then we do have more time.

I do not know whether the mover of the motion wants to undertake to approach as many of those former members as can be found to determine whether or not they are happy to have their addresses or their former addresses put on the public record, if in fact those personal addresses are part of the records that will be disclosed.

With those words, I am happy to support the motion. My colleague has some additional remarks to make. I look forward to seeing what is produced, and I look forward to the public having confidence that this system is being properly administered and that all claims have been validly made.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:16): I echo the words of my colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell and indicate that we will be supporting this motion. I note its amended form in terms of ensuring that public servants are not made to burn the midnight oil uncovering pieces of paper. I have expressed some concern that particularly some members of parliament may not wish their street addresses to be published.

I am certainly not somebody who wants my street address published. I am not a country member and I am not subject to this allowance, but as somebody who has received death threats and rape threats to my office, it is not the sort of information that I think is appropriate to release far and wide. I have a silent number for that reason; I have a silent enrolment for that reason—not for any nefarious reason but simply for my own personal safety.

So I ask members to just be cognizant of those, I think, very valid concerns. When we pursue matters like this without thinking of those concerns we do actually reduce the pool of people who might consider running for parliament because of this level of, I think, undue personal reflection. If we are getting into a sphere where we will endanger people's personal safety, I am not going to stand by and let that happen, and I am not going to be browbeaten that I am not standing up for public accountability simply because I call for ensuring personal security and safety.

Having said that, this motion is a good start, but we can go a lot further. I have called before for an accountability commissioner so that parliamentary scrutiny can be applied independently, as it is in many other jurisdictions. I know the Hon. Frank Pangallo and I have had corridor conversations about this. I have previously called for this in the media.

For example, there is an $11,000 allowance, I believe, afforded the Labor Party in addition to any allowance the Greens might be able to access or that SA-Best might be able to access and in relation to which there was some concern because Reggie Martin of Labor Party HQ was authorising the materials the parliament paid for under that allowance.

I have no idea what the rules are around that allowance and I have no idea of the expenditure within that allowance, but this is public moneys and all allowances should be able to be audited appropriately, scrutinised appropriately and subject not to political game playing but indeed to proper public governance.

An accountability commissioner, as operates in the ACT for example but in many other jurisdictions in Australia and indeed the UK, can look at these matters in an independent way that understands the very nature of this particular workplace and work environment. With that, I say I hope this is not the end of the matter. The Greens will always stand for more transparency and not less, but we certainly will not be buying into witch-hunts and sacrificing people's personal security and safety for the sake of a media grab.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:20): I rise on behalf of government members to indicate support for the motion, but in doing so acknowledge that I am advised the Speaker in another place this morning indicated that he had taken action, without the need for a motion, to announce the release of similar documents for House of Assembly members going back over a 10-year period.

Mr President, I acknowledge the fact that you, at the outset of question time today, indicated you had already taken action with the staff of parliament to be in readiness for the release of similar documentation in relation to Legislative Council member claims going back over a similar period (10 years) and indicated your support for the release of such documents. The actions taken by you, Mr President, and the presiding member in another place, are consistent with the position the Premier outlined this morning.

I will not take the criticism of the Labor Party, as I think the Leader of the Opposition used the conversion to transparency and accountability, given that it comes from a party that was in government for 16 years, had presiding members in both chambers for 16 years, and refused to release one single document in relation to these sorts of issues during that 16-year period.

The Liberal government for two years continued that particular convention or practice, but given the recent public scrutiny the decision has been taken to support greater transparency and accountability. We note that it is a Liberal government that has taken this particular action, after 16 years of inaction by former Labor governments.

I note in passing some comment that other members have made in this debate that this action is potentially a little unfair on former MPs. I know the Hon. Ms Franks has raised the issue about security, and I acknowledge that particular issue, but I think there are other issues too. There are long-retired members of parliament, who are probably quite grateful they are out of the public focus of parliamentary debate and the argy-bargy that sometimes goes with that, and their personal affairs may well be trawled over by the media and by others, when they have long since retired and left the parliament.

Mr President, a former predecessor of yours, the Hon. Bob Sneath, a country member, will possibly be caught up in this because he certainly lived in the country. I am not aware of whether or not he claimed the country members' allowance, but on the surface of it he would appear to have been entitled to.

Members like the Hon. Bob Sneath, who I think retired in about 2012—so he has been long gone and is probably fishing and enjoying himself—may well find themselves the subject of scrutiny in relation to claims made almost a decade ago. I certainly suggest no wrongdoing, because I have no knowledge of the circumstances. I am just saying that he is a retired member and as a result of this particular focus claims that he made many years ago will be the subject of potentially close scrutiny.

The other intriguing one, given the earlier claims, is that this particular motion now will also cover one of the shining superstars of the shoppies union in South Australia, a very close friend of the Hon. Mr Maher, the Hon. Mr Bernard Finnigan, one of the many shining superstars the shoppies union has launched upon the state parliament. He was a minister of the Crown, and he was also no less than the leader of the government in the Legislative Council.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And he was acting police minister at the time of his arrest. He left the parliament in 2015. Again, I am not aware of the particular claims he may have made but he certainly comes from God's own country—as the Hon. Mr Maher would know—the South-East of South Australia, and he certainly had a city address, because we saw that on television, so he may well have been making claims.

I think the Hon. Ms Franks implored that the Leader of the Opposition might contact former members, and the Leader of the Opposition nodded his head furiously in agreement, so we look forward to that. He appears willing to contact not only the Hon. Bob Sneath but also his close friend the Hon. Mr Finnigan, in accordance with his agreement—by nodding—to the suggestion by the Hon. Tammy Franks. There may well be others who will be covered by this particular motion—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Hunter is showing a great deal of sensitivity about one of his—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —former colleagues, one of his very close friends, the Hon. Mr Finnigan, for whom he showed great support when he was in this chamber. We will take no criticism from the Labor Party in relation to this particular issue.

The Hon. Mr Parnell raised some questions in relation to who makes these rules, etc. I suspect that in relation to the 75 kilometres they were initially made by cabinets and governments in the long distant past, but in recent decades the rules have been made by the Remuneration Tribunal, the independent tribunal. The Hon. Parnell appeared with me on an occasion in the past, and he is aware of the independence of the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to these issues.

I think there has been some misinterpretation of some of the issues in relation to allowances, and I want to place on the record some facts that might be useful in relation to what the tribunal has actually determined. What is called the Country Members Accommodation Allowance, about which many of the more recent questions have been directed, is now called the Members Accommodation Allowance.

However, up until November 2018, when a decision was taken by the tribunal—so in the period now the subject of release of documentation, 2010 to the end of 2018—the guidelines under determination No. 13/2017, for example (the most recent one before the 2018 determination, but the preceding years are the same), says, under Country Members Accommodation Allowance:

A member of either house of parliament:

a) whose usual place of residence is more than 75 kilometres by road from the General Post Office at Adelaide (by the most direct route); and

b) who is required to stay in Adelaide overnight—

which is the key criteria—

in order to attend not only to parliamentary duties but also to the member's duty to be actively involved in community affairs and to represent and assist constituents in dealings with governmental and other public agencies and authorities,—

The key requirement in subclause (b) is 'who is required to stay in Adelaide overnight'

shall be paid an accommodation allowance of $225 for each such night…

This was in 2017. The key elements of that particular test for the country members' accommodation allowance is that clearly they have to live more than 75 kilometres away, but if they are required, as a country member, to stay in Adelaide overnight to do certain things they are entitled to an accommodation allowance of $225—full stop. That is what it said for the first eight years of 2010 up until the end of 2018.

It raises the very pertinent issue the Hon. Mr Parnell raised, as a lawyer, that there are particular elements if you have a system that requires invoices and purchases. He quite rightly raised the issue, if you are in your own home in the city or you are purchasing your own home in the city, of invoices and purchases, etc.—and not on a regular basis. You may well be able to demonstrate, for example, a mortgage repayment or whatever it might be, but it is different if you are staying in a motel or a hotel, which is the point raised by the Hon. Mr Parnell.

I suspect it is for those reasons that the Remuneration Tribunal, in its determinations, has basically said that the test was if you live beyond 75 kilometres and you are required to stay overnight, then you just get paid an accommodation allowance of $225. That was the test in place right through until November 2018. In November 2018, the tribunal slightly altered the test for members of parliament. In 2018, it was still called the country members' accommodation allowance. The first subsection, which related to the 75 kilometres, was exactly the same as that of the 2017 determination. Subsection (b) was changed slightly by the insertion of additional words and then read:

b) who is required to stay in Adelaide overnight, and incurs actual expenditure, in order to attend—

and then it refers to the various jobs you have to do, parliamentary duties, etc—

…shall be paid an accommodation allowance of $230 for each such night.

What that has inserted into it is that you will get paid an accommodation allowance, in that year, of $230 if you met two tests: one is that you were required to say in Adelaide overnight, and, secondly, you incurred actual expenditure. It does not say of what particular element or amount. It just says that there two tests: that is, you have to stay in Adelaide overnight and you incur actual expenditure, and then you are entitled to an accommodation allowance of $230 per night.

I will talk a little bit later about the work of the Auditor-General. I am sure the Auditor-General and his office will apply their attention to the actual requirements of the determination. That is the rule, that is the law, that applies to the applications by individual members for the country members' accommodation allowance. If they meet those tests—the first test up until November 2018 and then the two separate tests after November 2018—they are entitled to an accommodation allowance of whatever the sum was in those particular years.

That is the law. What then has transpired is that both houses of parliament, in slightly different ways, have produced forms for members to sign. I hasten to say that the law is the law. The forms that are produced by the Clerks cannot change the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. It is incumbent on both houses of parliament to have correctly interpreted the law in terms of the individual claim forms that have been utilised.

The claim form that has been used in the Legislative Council, so I am advised for a period of time, very closely reflects the determination of the tribunal. There is a claim form which says:

TO: The Clerk, Legislative Council—

I hereby make a claim for a Country Members' Accommodation Allowance…

And then it lists various other clauses. It then says, 'I certify that my usual place of residence is', and then it says, 'which is more than 75 kilometres by road', which is one of the tests, 'in order to attend not only to Parliamentary duties' which is one of the other requirements. Then it says:

…I was required to stay in Adelaide overnight, on the dates shown above and that I incurred expense in so doing.

It does not refer to any particular amount. It says, as the determination required of it: I stayed in Adelaide overnight to do certain works in relation to parliament and that I incurred expense in so doing, without referring to any particular amount. Again, as a non-lawyer, I think that very closely reflects the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal both in the pre-November 2018 determination and the post-November 2018 determination. The House of Assembly acquittal form, however, is slightly different.

The other point about the Legislative Council one is the table that members fill in evidently, and I might hasten to say to members that, even though I am originally from God's own country in the South-East, I have never been a claimant of the country members' allowance because, for all of my parliamentary career I have lived in the metropolitan area. The Legislative Council form just says 'Nights claimed at (currently) $234.00 per night'. The House of Assembly form, under the country members' accommodation allowance form part A currently has 'Claim up to $234 per night', which is different to the Legislative Council claim form. It then has much the same as the Legislative Council one, and then says, in slightly different wording, 'and that I incurred the expenses claimed above in so doing'.

It is my humble submission, ultimately, to members of this chamber, but I would hope the Auditor-General and others might read the debate that is here because of the work that they are about to do, that the Legislative Council form more closely reflects the determinations of the tribunal than does the House of Assembly form. That is obviously a decision or an issue that the Auditor-General and his staff will need to address.

Finally, in relation to information for members—and it carries, in legal terms, much less weight—in my view, the law is the law, which is the determination. The application forms are informative but if they do not fairly reflect the law, then in the end it is the law that prevails, not the application forms, in my view. Then, much less significant in terms of legal effect is the handbook which is produced for members of parliament when they are first elected.

The Legislative Council handbook, I am so advised, under the country members' accommodation allowance—I would have to say, it is slightly out of date, Mr Clerk, and it might do with some updating in terms of the dollar amount because it still refers to $225 and I think it has now risen to $234, but putting that to the side—essentially says 'a member of either house of parliament', and it then reflects subclauses (a) and (b) for the determination and then says 'shall be paid an accommodation allowance of' whatever that particular sum happens to be. So I think it fairly reflects the determinations of the Legislative Council.

Interestingly, the Legislative Council handbook actually says 'a member of either house of parliament', so it is guidance. We are very generous in the Legislative Council, obviously. We are not only providing guidance to the Legislative Council members but to the House of Assembly members as well. The House of Assembly handbook is slightly different. I am not sure how often that has changed but its most recent iteration does use the words 'and incurs actual expenditure', which is closer to the determination, but a bit different to the form which is signed which says, 'I incurred the expenses claimed above in so doing'.

I think it is important to place on the record the facts in relation to claims because, whilst it is easy for words—and I heard in a debate in another place, the member for West Torrens throwing around the word 'corruption' very easily in relation to these issues—it is very easy to throw that word around in relation to particular claims, but I think it is incumbent upon members to have evidence to justify a serious claim in the parliament. I am surprised that a claim of corruption in any house of parliament can be made by way of interjection without being asked to be withdrawn, given the standing orders in relation to both the other chamber and this particular chamber.

Putting that to the side, it is so easy to throw that particular word around. It is important for members to actually understand the rules that govern the payment of these particular determinations. If any member, Labor, Liberal or Independent, offends against the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal, then responsibility for that rests on that individual member's head.

The only other point I would make is this allowance is specifically an accommodation allowance. I did see an interview by an Independent member who referred to expenses from country members which related to meals and other aspects of travel. Some allowances do incorporate meal expenditure. If you look at the determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal, there is a separate allowance for other members, not the country members' accommodation allowance, that does refer to what is referred to as the 'accommodation and meals allowance'. In that particular allowance the tribunal specifically incorporates claims for accommodation and meals. This particular allowance only refers to accommodation.

Honest members of parliament can have mistaken views that perhaps the accommodation allowance does cover meals, but certainly upon my reading and the fact that other allowances refer to 'accommodation and meals' and this one does not, it would appear that that might not be the case if the Auditor-General has a look at those particular claims.

It is important that members, before they start throwing accusations of corruption around, actually look at what the rules are that govern. I have been unafraid to defend the salary and conditions of members of parliament over a very long period of time, because I believe members of parliament do an important job and it is so easy to criticise members, their salaries and their entitlements. If there are abuses or offences or mistakes, then members have to accept responsibility for those. But it is possible for members to make honest mistakes and for them to have the capacity to correct those and take whatever consequences there might be without necessarily being accused of corruption in relation to these particular issues.

I have confidence that the Auditor-General—if I can conclude by saying that the Auditor-General has had for many, many years a function to look at various accounts in terms of Parliament House in terms of claims. Twice a year, I am advised, members of the audit staff, if they so choose, can look at members of parliament country member claims and indeed some of the other claims members of parliament make as well.

I have been around long enough to recall that in the early 1990s the country member circumstances of one former Independent member of the Legislative Council were called into question, and country members and their allowances were subjected to a forensic audit by the Auditor-General, in around 1993 or 1994 at the time of that particular state election. The audit staff went through the country members' claims. I understand they may well have found one or two particular issues that needed to be corrected by individual members. That was done, but by and large they did not find systemic rorting and certainly did not find corruption in relation to country members' utilisation of the country members' allowance at that particular time.

Given that you have, as presiding member, invited the Auditor-General to ramp up, have a closer look, pay extra attention, given that he already has the function in terms of the country members' accommodation allowances, and that overnight or this morning the presiding member in another place has done exactly the same and invited the Auditor-General, and whilst no individual can dictate to the Auditor-General what he or she might do, with the exception of the Treasurer in relation to certain investigations and they are strictly defined, the Auditor-General makes his independent decisions in relation to this.

But given the fact that two presiding members of our houses of parliament have called upon him to have a closer look, I would be surprised if he did not draw the attention of his staff to have a closer look perhaps along the lines of that early to mid-1990s audit of country members' accommodation allowances that was done at that particular time.

I have confidence that the Auditor-General will not start from the view that he would assume there is corruption or rorting. He will look at the rules, he will look at the claims and he will make reasonable, fair and independent determinations as a result of his particular inquiries. With that, I place those facts on the record and indicate the government's support for the motion.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:45): I acknowledge the comments that were made by the Hon. Tammy Franks in relation to privacy in these matters. I think it is quite important. I would also like to commend the Speaker in the other place and also you, Mr President, for your openness, transparency and willingness to have these documents made available, and it was done quite quickly. In my previous dealings with MPs in the past, you almost had to drag them to water to get them to reveal information. I think it has been quite refreshing that we have had both houses willing to make these documents available and going back as far as they are.

I also note that the Treasurer refers to long-past members also having to come under scrutiny. One wonders whether those long-past members will have their records and be able to remember what they did some time ago. I cannot even remember what I did five years ago. Probably from a journalistic point of view, I would say that long-past members may not be as newsworthy as those who are in the current news cycle.

The reference to 75 kilometres, I imagine that is an archaic figure that has been pulled out. When I was a youngster, 75 kilometres was a long way. In fact, when growing up we considered McLaren Vale was actually a country town, but these days it is a short skip and a hop away. Travelling to Victor Harbor was also considered a regional area. That may need to change as well.

I hope that one day, after all this, we can go further with the establishment of a code of conduct for all MPs in South Australia. It was talked about in 2014 by the then premier, Jay Weatherill. I believe they passed a motion in regard to that. That seems to have fallen by the wayside and nothing further has been progressed upon it.

I would certainly like to see both houses of parliament move in that direction and move quickly in that direction because this will give South Australians additional confidence that their elected members will uphold the high standards that are expected of them. I think that is the least we can expect from MPs and certainly what the expectations are from the community and the taxpayers.

I would hope that a code of conduct would also require the establishment of an integrity commissioner, as the Hon. Tammy Franks mentioned, to uphold the code and other matters that would impact on the performance and behaviour of MPs, so in effect actually having a police person for MPs in this place.

The Hon. Mark Parnell, I noted, pointed out the lack of information provided to members. I found this myself, actually, when I was elected to parliament, that there is no guidebook or manual that explains the requirements and complexities of this rather important job. I hope that is corrected as well.

I think accountability is important to this profession which, unfortunately, like my previous profession and that of car salesman, tends to be at the lower end of respect from the community. I hope that one day we can lift it to the standard that is expected by the community. I must say that it is gratifying to see that Labor is suddenly all altruistic about this and wanting to see more accountability and transparency. With that, I commend the motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:50): I thank members for their contributions, and some important contributions. I note particularly some of the comments made by the Hon. Mark Parnell but expanded on much more by the Hon. Tammy Franks, which I guess go to some of the unintended consequences of things that we move or do here.

The disclosure of these documents will necessarily disclose an address, and I know that three members today were asked would they consent to the complete and full tabling of documents, so those three members are on the record as being comfortable with that, but there might be other members, particularly past members, who might not be.

I do not know everyone who has been entitled to this, and I certainly would not have addresses to contact them. It may be the case that the parliament, perhaps through the Clerk or the President, might have the ability to contact past members and alert them that this is to be tabled at 5pm on the next sitting day, and in the three or so weeks, if there is a compelling and legitimate reason that one of those addresses of a past member, not being someone who has agreed to it today, should not be released, we have an opportunity for that perhaps to be considered on that sitting day before it is released at 5pm according to this.

I do not think it does any credit to the Treasurer to be ascribing motives to people who are sitting here. I did nod my head when the Hon. Tammy Franks mentioned that because that is a good point. I did not nod my head, as the Treasurer would have you believe and put on Hansard, by agreeing that I would undertake any such action. I think that demeans the Treasurer and I think upon reflection he will probably be slightly ashamed that he trivialised such an important issue with such contributions.

I do think it gives an opportunity for officers of the parliament to make perhaps former members aware, to make aware any member other than the three who have agreed to the full disclosure during answers in question time today, and if there is a very compelling reason that an address ought not be made publicly available, we have an opportunity then to consider that as a chamber before these are publicly tabled and publicly released by 5pm on the next day of sitting, Tuesday 21 July.

Having said that, it is pleasing to see a unanimous view of this chamber that transparency and accountability is important. It did take some time for that to be arrived at by the Premier, but it is pleasing that the Premier has finally come around to that view, and I am pleased that this motion, from indications that have been given, will be passed unanimously by this chamber. With that, I commend the motion to the chamber.

Motion carried.

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