The Hon. NICK XENOPHON obtained leave and introduced a Bill for an Act to amend the Constitution Act 1934. Read a first time.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I move:
 That this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill to amend the Constitution Act with respect to the promotion of Government Bills, whilst narrow in its scope, takes into account fundamental principles of good govern-ance. The catalyst for this Bill has been the Government's extensive advertising campaign costing, I understand, in the vicinity of $300 000 and using public moneys to promote its Bill for the sale of ETSA. I should note at the outset that a number of telephone calls I have had from constituents, both for and against the sale of ETSA, in recent weeks have expressed concern that public money has been used to promote the ETSA sale Bill.
 Here we have a situation where the Government of the day, before the last election, specifically said on a number of occasions that ETSA would not be sold. So, the Government went to the people last October with a specific promise that the sale of ETSA was not on its agenda. I can understand how exigencies force Governments to take a U-turn in policy from time to time, although in this case the Government has done a double back flip somersault that would make Nadia Comaneci jealous.
 However sceptical I am of the Government's change of mind on ETSA, I accept its right to introduce the Bill and for the Bill to be debated on its merits, but I cannot accept that the Executive branch of Government should use public moneys in an attempt to influence public opinion and, in turn, influence the Legislature in its deliberations on the Bill. That to me is an irregular and improper course to take given the fundamental principles inherent in the separation of powers doctrine. Maybe the Government has had a memory lapse on the meaning of the separation of powers doctrine; maybe like the former Premier of Queensland, Johannes Bjelke Petersen, the Government by its conduct is showing an ignorance of the doctrine.
 I think it is important that Government Ministers and, indeed, Government members be reminded about what the separation of powers doctrine is all about. The eminent constitutional law experts, Professors Wade and Phillips, in their text Constitution and Administrative Law have set out that the doctrine may mean, in considering the interrelation-ship between the Executive Legislature and judiciary, that:
 One organ of Government should not control or interfere with the functioning of another organ.
This Bill seeks to prevent the Executive arm of Government attempting to interfere with the functioning of the Legislature by preventing public moneys being spent on an advertising campaign on a Government Bill or its underlying policy unless the nature and extent of the advertising campaign has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament or the Bill has been passed by both Houses.
 The first exemption allows for public moneys being expended where the extent of the advertising campaign has been approved by both Houses. Presumably, this will mean that a condition of any such campaign, particularly for a controversial piece of proposed legislation, will allow for an alternative view to be articulated in any advertising cam-paign, surely a desirable development that would help facilitate a fulsome and fair public discussion on the merits of the Bill.
 The Bill does not prevent a member's electoral allowance being used to publicise the merits of a Bill or to promote to public discussion. But there is a clear difference in the scope and magnitude and effect of using such an allowance and having a massive advertising campaign that the Government has undertaken, for instance, in relation to the ETSA sale.
 Also, this Bill does not seek to prevent a Government publicising a Bill that has been passed. I understand and accept the need for the public to be informed through a mass media advertising campaign from time to time about legisla-tive changes, although that in itself raises broader issues of the cost involved and the scrutiny of such expendi-ture. I acknowledge the leading role and principled position that my colleague the Hon. Mike Elliott has taken over a number of years in raising these issues of concern with both this Government and previous Governments.
 The scope of the Bill is sufficiently narrow to quash any concern that this Bill, if enacted, would hamper a Govern-ment's getting its message across over laws that have been passed by this Parliament. Clearly, it does not affect that and does not prevent a Government from spending moneys to promote a policy that does not require parliamentary approv-al. For instance, the Bill would not have affected the advertis-ing campaign that publicised the water outsourcing arrange-ments, because that did not require parliamentary approval, although there may be many in the community who wish that it did.
 At this stage, I acknowledge the support of the Hon. Mr Elliott in seconding this Bill. I note that the Hon. Mr Elliott has foreshadowed changes to the Parliamentary Committees Act which would have a similar effect, but I understand that his proposal had different mechanisms in place via the committee system to ensure public accountability. I look forward to the Hon. Mr Elliott's contribution on this issue and to any amendments he proposes in due course.
 I urge the Government, and the Opposition in particular, to consider this Bill seriously, because quite rightly the Opposition has raised concerns about the publicly financed ETSA sale campaign. I cannot overstate the important principles at stake with this Bill. If I can quote from the seminal constitutional text An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, by A.V. Dicey, written over 100 years ago, where in the section dealing with the rule of law and the revenue, Dicey in discussing the authority for the expenditure of public moneys states in blunt and explicit terms:
 Not a penny of revenue can be legally expended except under the authority of some Act of Parliament.
Implicit in that reference is the principle that an appropriation for specific expenditure ought to be clearly made and it not be part of some amorphous fund where moneys are expended at will by the Executive arm of Government not only with little or no accountability but, further, in an attempt to influence the Legislature in its deliberations. It is this latter aspect that concerns me the most, as it seems to be a clear and dangerous breach of the separation of powers doctrine. I commend the Bill to members.
  The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to support the Bill. It is an issue that has been exercising the Democrats' mind for some time now; in fact, I gave notice on 2 July of my intention to introduce a private member's Bill to address the same issue. I was unhappy with the first draft that I had and, as a consequence of both illness and some other pressing legislation, did not have my Bill ready. However, this Bill is elegant and does the job extremely well. I intended to cover some wider ground, but my intention at this stage is to look at how I might amend this Bill to do so.
 This Bill does focus on one particular area, namely, the question of Government advertising in relation to matters which will be subject to legislation. Whilst there might be some arguments about shades of grey and whether or not Government advertising is Party political, when a Govern-ment is using the public purse to promote a view about legislation which is yet to be debated, and when it is using that money to promote only one side of the debate, there is no question that that advertising is clearly Party political.
 The Government has already conceded that it is spending some $300 000 on this campaign in relation to ETSA, but I suspect that is not all the money that is being spent. I believe that is the direct advertising money in terms of the cost of advertisements and the design of advertisements but that it still does not take into account the fact that the Government has also taken onto its payroll by way of contract Alex Kennedy and Geoff Anderson, neither of whom would have come cheaply. We do not know whom else, but all those people have been taken on for one reason and one reason only, namely, to sell one side of a story. As I said, this is an issue which is to be debated by this Parliament and which should be debated by this Parliament exhaustivelyóas indeed should all issues.
 The views that have been expressed by the Hon. Nick Xenophon and held by the Democrats are not held by us alone. I remind members that during Question Time on 18 February I asked some questions in relation to consultants and drew the Treasurer's attention to page 46 of the Auditor-General's Report in terms of this issue. I quote from the Auditor-General's Report, as follows:
 Where communications or issues management consultants are engaged to advise on, and provide services in relation to, legitimate promotional and campaign activities by public authorities, particular care should be taken to ensure that that advice and those services are not used for purposes that can be characterised as being, or substantially being, Party political in nature.
On page 47 of the report the Auditor-General also said:
 Departments of State, statutory authorities, and other public agencies, in meeting their responsibility to keep the public informed about the activities of Government, regularly need to notify the public about a range of matters. These matters include information regarding existing rights or responsibilities under various Govern-ment programs or policies, changes to existing Government programs, and the launching of public awareness campaigns aimed at modifying public behaviour for the public good.
 These promotional and campaign activities are an integral part of representative democracy and accountable government. They increase the public's knowledge about the activities of Government. Promotional campaigns about Government services also serve to educate members of the public in their capacity as consumers. However, when public funds are used to finance promotion and campaign activities relating to measures which implement Party political platforms, where the benefit of those activities accrue principally or substantially to a political Party, questions of propriety may be appropriately raised.
The Auditor-General made reference to the fact that in other jurisdictions there are proposals in place under which one measures advertising campaigns, promotional campaigns, etc., to determine whether or not they are Party political in nature. We note that that is being done in other jurisdictions, and it was an issue that I did pursue with the Treasurer. Indeed, I asked him whether or not the Government would look at a code of conduct. The Treasurer's response on 18 February was:
 I am not sure what a measurable code could be. I will take advice as to whether any work has been done on it, but the honourable member may be able to suggest what a measurable code might look like. As I think about it, I must admit that it is an extraordinarily subjective area.
I suppose some parts of it may be subjective and there may be shades of grey, but I do not think there are any shades of grey in terms of what is proposed under this legislation, which looks particularly at matters which are to be the subject of legislationólegislation which is to be debated and has not already been carried by the Parliament. Quite clearly, putting a single Party view in those circumstances is very black and white. There is no question whether or not that is of a political nature.
 I know that in his past responses the Treasurer has asked, `What about the fact that members have allowances?' True, all members have allowances, and those allowances are of a fixed sized; it is not a bottomless pit. To that extent, if there is a code of practice, it is that each member of Parliament has a fixed size allowance and we cannot spend beyond that amount because there is no extra money. If there is a control, it is a control in terms of the absolute figure. As I have said, it is certainly not a bottomless pit. That is available to every member of Parliament, including Government members. Ostensibly, a Government should have a majority, something approaching a majority, or at least enjoy majority support on the floor. To that extent, by using their allowance Govern-ment members are capable of putting a view in the same way as every other member. But for the Government to use public moneyó
 The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No. When I first asked the question in this place it was about objective codes and having in place some sort of a code of practice. I argue that regarding legislation that is yet to be debated quite clearly a code of practice should be that Government money not be spent to promote one side of an issue. That is precisely what the Government is doing at the moment. That would not prevent any Government or Opposition member using their allotted allowance for that purpose, although I must say that so many issues are involved that you would not spend much on one issue because you would not get very far. The question whether or not to raise members' allowances is a legitimate one, but the point I make is that at the end of the day there is a limit, namely, the size of the allowance that is available.
 However, regarding what the Government is doing in terms of advertising on the ETSA issue, for example, there is absolutely no limit and no code of behaviour whatsoever. The Government can spend as much as it likes to put before the public one side of an argument. If it wants to involve itself in a public education program, it should be of the same sort that we have in respect of referendums where, if there are two sides to the story (a pro case and a con case), both those cases should be put.
 Members of the public are not stupid. Even though only one side of the argument has been put by the Government, the overwhelming majority of the public see through that and no doubt will continue to do so. I think the public would accept a campaign to put all information before them and not just that information which represents one side of the case. This is being done contrary to promises that were made nine months ago before the last State election.
 The Bill is a clear-cut piece of legislation. I do not think it contains any shades of grey. The Bill I drafted would have gone far wider into areas of shades of grey and would have involved some more difficult questions. I do not think there are any difficult questions in relation to this Bill, which the Democrats strongly support.
 
  The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: I wish to make a brief contribution in respect of this Bill which has been introduced by the Hon. Nick Xenophon to amend the Constitution Act. I take this opportunity to congratulate him for putting such a contentious piece of legislation on the table in the Legisla-tive Council for consideration by the major Parties. I say `for consideration by the major Parties' because I refer to the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, one of which is usually in government. I will be interested to hear the Liberal Party's attitude to this Bill. I will be even more interested to hear the Labor Party's attitude to it as we count down the days to when we will assume office in the State of South Australia. It is no longer a matter of `if'; rather, it is a matter of `when'óno doubt fuelled on by the blood-letting that continues to go on unabated in the Liberal Party. I sincerely congratulate the Hon. Nick Xenophon for putting this Bill on the table. It serves to remind us that there is a role for Independent members to play in what is essentially a two Party system in this country.
 Clause 10Bóand the Hon. Mr Xenophon might like to clarify this lateróprovides a definition of `advertising campaign' which means `an advertisement or series of advertisements published, or to be published, in printed form or by radio or television'. My interpretation of that definition is that it does not include public meetings or the caravan tour that the Treasurer is carting around the country at great expense with flights being chartered, etc. I do not think that definition includes the 101 expenses that the Government must be incurring as it wages its public relations campaign on the ETSA Bill.
 The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You didn't bother to come to one of our meetings.
 The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: As much as I would have loved to attend one of your public meetings, I think it has been decided that others will go in my place. I am a little surprised that I am not going to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party, because I have learnt quite a bit about this subject over the past week or two. I think it would be better if I made my contribution on the Bill when it comes before the Council.
 The Hon. Nick Xenophon has raised an interesting topic for the consideration of members. I have no intention of canvassing the ground which the Hon. Mike Elliott covered, but today I have received replies to questions that I put on notice in relation to Government expenditure on promoting its budget. It runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars. That should not surprise anyone, because one should have thought that it would cost millions to get any kind of acceptance by the South Australian public for the budget that was just introduced. I will have a little more to say about that tomor-row.
 As I said earlieróand I will wind up my remarks on this pointóand as the Hon. Nick Xenophon pointed out, this legislation is needed. It puts a bit of accountability, responsi-bility and honesty back into government. If that is all it does, the legislation should be supported for that reason alone. I look forward to hearing contributions from members on both sides of the Council on this piece of legislation.
 
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS secured the adjournment of the debate.