Three SA MPs break silence on ICAC investigation into use of taxpayer-funded travel allowance
Three MPs asking state parliament to investigate whether parliamentary privilege applies to their travel expenses documents have gone public to vehemently deny they are trying to stymie an ICAC investigation.
SA News
Don't miss out on the headlines from SA News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Explore every available claim for every country MP since 2010
- Read all our coverage of the MP expenses scandal
Three Liberal MPs have broken their silence over a controversial travel allowance, effectively confirming they had been responsible for the stalling of an corruption inquiry.
Outgoing upper house president Terry Stephens, former government whip Adrian Pederick and Yorke Peninsula-based backbencher Fraser Ellis “vehemently deny any allegations of criminality”.
The trio issued a joint statement confirming they would ask state parliament next week if documents they had been requested to hand over to investigators were protected by parliamentary privilege.
In their statement, the three MPs insisted they were not trying to hide behind parliamentary privilege but simply wanted parliament to have an opportunity to decide if privilege existed in their cases.
They confirmed former independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bruce Lander had asked them to hand over documents as part of his investigation into country members’ accommodation allowance claims.
Former minister Stephan Knoll also broke his silence today, telling reporters he had fully co-operated with investigation.
South Australian members of parliament will decide, as early as Tuesday, if parliamentary privilege is appropriate.
But approval from the upper house, where Mr Stephens resides, will be on a knife’s edge, with at least one key crossbench MP labelling claims to parliamentary privilege as “wanting one rule for politicians and another for the public.”
MLC John Darley said he could not believe the bid.
“You have an ICAC investigation looking into a living-away-from-home allowance and these people drag up all this nonsense,” he said.
“It is like there is one rule for pollies and another rule for the public.”
Mr Stephens, Mr Pederick and Mr Ellis said the information Mr Lander asked for “required production of documents evidencing communications and interactions with our constituents about what is happening in government, including the parliament”.
“Self-evidently, the requirement captured information and documents that would ordinarily be kept confidential and protected by parliamentary privilege,” they said.
