House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Government Litigation GOVERNMENT LITIGATION Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg GOVERNMENT LITIGATION Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (14:56): My question is to the Attorney-General. Is it now government policy to take all litigation in which it is a party to trial and not consider any reasonable settlement offer? In the case of Cannon v Atkinson, the government chose the option of a $200,000 settlement, which minister Holloway claimed was the best option for the taxpayer. Last week, however, the Treasurer is reported to have stated in a case in which the government is being sued that, 'The cabinet and Premier agreed with my view that this government would not negotiate a wholesale settlement with a bunch of feral protesters.' Even in that case, if they win, the Treasurer refers to an estimated cost to the taxpayer of $400,000. The government is currently being sued by Ms Kate Lennon for nearly $2 million, which is due to go to trial in a few months, and refers to the conduct of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Attorney-General. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Sir, I rise on a point of order. This is a party political speech. It is utterly unnecessary to explain the question. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop! I think the member for Bragg went a bit beyond what was necessary for the explanation of the question. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly Port Adelaide Deputy Premier Minister for Industry and Trade Minister for Federal/State Relations The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations) (14:58): I will answer the question for two reasons. One is that, given that the Attorney had a conflict of interest on that issue and exempted himself from any discussion on that, it would be inappropriate for him to answer. Secondly, the issue is about statements I made in relation to the action to do with Beverley, and I will come to that in a moment. My recollection is that it is a case by case basis. I remember when former premier and good friend of the member for Bragg, Dean Brown, was sued by the former chief executive of the health department— The Hon. P.F. Conlon House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Blaikie. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Blaikie. That went to trial and it was close to a million dollar payout to him, I think; many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think when— The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And a finding that the judge didn't believe the premier. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is right; didn't believe it. I think from memory the former Liberal government let go to trial the matter of—was Lucas v Xenophon a— The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And Matthew. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: And Matthew. Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Mr GRIFFITHS: Sir, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Mr GRIFFITHS: Sir, the question was quite specific. It was: what is government policy now. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The question might have been specific, but the explanation was not. So, I think the Treasurer is answering the question given the context of the explanation. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Former minister Wayne Matthew had a $175,000 legal bill paid, despite crown law advice saying they should not indemnify him because it was a matter as an MP, not a minister. That payment of $175,000 was made against crown law advice, so the cabinet of the day ignored crown law advice. Former minister Ingerson, I am told, cost about $30,000 for an out of court settlement in that case. I think, as we say, it is a case by case basis. As it relates to the particular action (and I need to be careful, because it is before the courts), the issue related to the Beverley uranium mine—an incident that, I might add, occurred on the opposition's watch, from memory. It was definitely during the Liberal government's term in office that this action took place. The Department of Treasury and Finance, through its insurance arm, SAICORP (the government's insurance corporation), is handling that case. I have said publicly that its view as an insurance company is to negotiate settlements. In fact, a couple of settlements have occurred in that case, some small amounts. I think a gentleman who is legally known as Earthling received a small compensation to settle. Ms Fox interjecting: The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Legally named Earthling. That's his name. The Hon. M.D. Rann interjecting: The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, Earthling, formerly known as something or other. That is what he calls himself. There was a small settlement there. The view of the government's insurance corporation is that in these cases they do like to settle. I took it to cabinet and I consulted with the Minister for Police (and the police commissioner) as to how we should proceed with this. Cabinet took the view, which both the police minister and I support, that we have to send a very clear message to people who may wish to protest and put the care and safety of our fine men and women in uniform at risk—that is, to settle would be sending the wrong message about what we will do in relation to supporting our police men and women. It is a matter of principle. Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: You will let the taxpayer pay for that? The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes. Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: You will let the taxpayer pay for that? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, in defence of our men and women in police. Ms Chapman interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg will come to order. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, absolutely. The Hon. P.F. Conlon House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I think we will wait and see who wins, first. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, that is right. Let us see what transpires through the court, but I have made it very clear. There may be a higher cost to the taxpayer from this action—there may well be a higher cost to government by doing this—but we believe that the right thing to do is to stand behind the men and women who put their lives at risk to protect a private company's assets. The shadow attorney-general clearly is saying that she does not support that. That is fine. Ms Chapman interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Bragg has further questions, I am happy to give her the call. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: No, they are suing each and every police officer. Ms Chapman interjecting: The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The shadow attorney-general (the member for Bragg) is now saying that we should settle with the protesters—as I said, one of them goes by the name of Earthling—and not support the men and women in uniform. I am astounded that that is the position of the Liberal opposition. Mrs Redmond House of Assembly Mrs Redmond: You stand there and make assertions about what our position is. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That is what she is saying. Are you in disagreement with the shadow attorney-general? Mrs Redmond House of Assembly Mrs Redmond: I am saying you are standing there making comments about what we think about it. Tell us your position. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The shadow attorney-general is saying that we should settle. Should we settle, Vickie? Ms Chapman interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am sure the Police Association will be pleased to hear the views of the shadow attorney-general as they relate to this, because she is clearly interjecting across the house that taxpayers should not have to pay more than we would if we were to settle and that this matter should not be taken through to its conclusion in the courts. There are matters of principle and matters of honour when it comes to supporting the men and women of the South Australian police force. You can shake your head, member for Bragg, but we stand behind and in step with the men and women of the South Australian police force against those who wish to do harm to them in a violent manner. An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, I would be surprised if the member for Stuart did not support the government in this action. Are you with us on this one, Gunny? Just give us a nod. I can see a nod. Mrs REDMOND House of Assembly Mrs REDMOND: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer has now strayed into debate. Apart from anything else, he is addressing the member for Stuart who is sitting in the gallery. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Yes, he must not make references to people in the gallery, but he has completed his answer.