MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): My question is for the Premier. Has the Premier now considered whether the Attorney-General in his statements about Deputy Chief Magistrate Cannon was in breach of the ministerial code of conduct and, in particular, section 2.3 which states:

In the discharge of his or her public duties a minister shall not dishonestly or wantonly and recklessly attack the reputation of any other person.

If so, did he obtain crown law advice on same?

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (15:07): I am very pleased to answer this question. The answer is that he did not breach the code of conduct because he honestly believed that the judgment or the determination of Magistrate Cannon was absolutely wrong and, indeed, I said that I felt that he was absolutely wrong, as did, I am told, the Supreme Court of South Australia.

I guess that is the difference. We have heard from the other side today that opposition members, if they were in government, would cave in to the protesters and not fight back, but they would agree with the release of every parolee and all the rest of it. That is the difference. I think it is good that we have a difference in this state, but let us go back to the code of conduct. It is about whether or not he dishonestly or wantonly and recklessly, and with absolute malice, decided to do so. That was clearly not the case. He was giving his honest interpretation of what Magistrate Cannon said. I did likewise. The Supreme Court of South Australia came down with a damning judgment, on my advice, on what Mr Cannon had said in his determination.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Describing it as a 'press release'.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Describing it, I am just advised, as a 'press release'. All of us on both sides of politics give thousands of interviews. This is all about one phrase used by the Attorney-General for which he apologised profusely, but it continued and we had to make a judgment. We made a judgment that bringing over the Supreme Court judge from Western Australia—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg will come to order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —would cost massively more than fighting the case. I have to say, I strongly disagreed with what Mr Cannon said. I said so on the day. He did not sue me, he did not sue the Supreme Court of South Australia, but he did sue the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General ventured his views honestly and sincerely. He used an unfortunate phrase, but that is quite different from recklessly peddling forged documents, recklessly peddling fake documents. it is quite different from having an opposition unit on the 2^nd floor that is about dirty tricks and forgeries. It is about forged websites, fake Twitter sites, people who fake names—that is the opposition's standards.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is now debating.