Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will slightly amend the remarks I was about to make this evening in the adjournment debate, as the member for Oxley unfortunately continues the representation of Oxley in this place by appalling members of parliament. That contribution was one of the most ridiculous rants we have heard in this place for some time, but it actually leads me to the topic of something we do need introduced in South Australia, which is an ICAC.

In recent times, the member for Oxley has been caught up in this a little bit with regard to donations and dodgy deals with consultants in Queensland and other places. In my home state of South Australia there was recently an expose in the Australian newspaper of certain deals and arrangements that, it is fair to say, are not above reproach. It is quite ironic that the member for Oxley has come into this place this evening and launched into a hysterical rant about proceedings he has very little knowledge of, given the sort of behaviour it appears he may have been involved in in Queensland in recent times, according to reputable newspapers.

What this highlights, certainly in my home state of South Australia, is the absolute need for an ICAC of some description. The new Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, Isobel Redmond, the member for Heysen, an electorate within my federal electorate, has been calling for this for some time. Unfortunately, we have seen the Rann government scurry around and try to find ways to get themselves out of this because obviously they do not want some very dark places in the way they behave, particularly in relation to property development deals, exposed to sunlight. In South Australia in recent times they have given themselves the ability to override local government planning decisions, and in the area of Mount Barker, where I live, that is raising significant concerns about how decisions on property developments are made. There have been significant issues raised and questions asked, and I think the establishment of an ICAC would be an appropriate response.

In New South Wales and now in Queensland we have heard some questions that do need answers. Perhaps the next time the member for Oxley gets an opportunity to speak for five minutes in the adjournment debate—although I am sure the Government Whip will not be rushing to give him one, given that performance—he should use that five minutes to explain some of the stories that have appeared in the Australian newspaper, suggestions about how he does actually operate in Queensland. There have been some significant issues raised, and I think it is important that the member for Oxley, next time he wants to go on a rant about the opposition, think about activities or behaviour that he may have engaged in at some point, according to the Australian newspaper.

I do support the state Leader of the Opposition’s call for an ICAC. I think she is doing a very good job in highlighting this issue. Donations in Australia are a major concern. We have a bill before this parliament on the donation system, which should go a lot further to give people more confidence and to put it above reproach—which I do not think at this point in time it is. I think the biggest concern for people when it comes to donations are the third-party side deals, which appear to have occurred in Queensland and, there is some suggestion, in South Australia.

The second issue in relation to that is the vexed issue of union donations and the toll they take on Australian democracy. It is an issue we need to deal with. There are members sitting here in the House—and I think we know who they are—who have benefited significantly from union donations, and you do have to wonder how they go about managing their business in that respect. So I am very supportive of the call by the South Australian Leader of the Opposition for an ICAC. I think an investigation into what has gone on in Queensland needs to occur. In that respect, it was pleasing to follow the member for Oxley. I am sure any sunlight on these issues would give people a lot more confidence in a system about which a lot of very serious questions, which go to the fundamentals of our democracy, are being asked.

See this speech in context