House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Pallaras, Mr S. and Høj, Prof. P. PALLARAS, MR S. AND HØJ, PROF. P. Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Waite Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (15:45): I rise to talk about how important it is for South Australia to attract and retain some of the best minds available in the nation and in the world so as to invest in our future. I want to do so by making particular reference to the contributions, in that regard, of two people: Stephen Pallaras QC and Professor Peter Høj. I note that there is a separate motion on the Notice Paper to deal with thanking them for their service. I do not want to concentrate on that but I do want to talk about the need for intellectual energy if this state is to go forward as a matter of general principle. With regard to Stephen Pallaras, in the period that I have been serving in the parliament I have rarely had to think more deeply than when I have heard his contributions on a range of issues to do with law and order. Our justice system and the future of our community and its cohesion will be very much determined by the quality of the minds who guide and operate the system. Meaningful debates and debates from leaders in the justice system that educate us, whether we are lawmakers or members of the general public, help to dispel the rage of populism, the rage of the lynch mob mentality and the rage of simple solutions to complex problems. Similarly, the intellectual energy that comes from those who operate our justice system must be powerful enough to resist the political system. It must be powerful enough to say no when others—be they premiers, attorneys-general or politicians of any kind—seek to interfere with the system to deliver their own outcomes that may not, after all, be best for the state. In regard to all these issues—whether to do with organised crime, bikies, terrorism, integrity in public office, many of the issues I heard Mr Pallaras raise in his address to the Press Club on 6 May 2005 and in other utterances—I found his contributions to be a rudder of common sense and plain thinking in the wild seas of the criminal justice system, and I fear that we will be losing a good mind with his departure. I now turn my attention to Professor Peter Høj because both as leader of the opposition and as a shadow minister I have had dealings with Peter that I must say have been quite remarkable. The transformation in the University of South Australia has been something to behold. Peter's contribution to trying to bring together the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide into an intellectual engine-room with greater capital and intellectual grunt has been a very worthwhile initiative. Sadly, and perhaps partly because of the failure of that idea to have its day, he is leaving to go to Queensland. I will talk about him again at the appropriate time when the motion comes forward. The purpose of my address today is to make the point that, when you look at Peter's qualifications, history, previous experience not only here but overseas and the fact that he understands the importance of the economic outcomes of innovation and science, with his departure we lose a great opportunity. In closing, I acknowledge these two minds as minds that have made a great contribution to this state. We need to build a state that attracts more of the best minds that are available, not only from here but from overseas, to come here, to make a stake here, to build their futures here and to make a contribution to this great state because that is the competitive advantage that will build a future for our children and our grandchildren: having people like these two—and there are many others—come here to help build a future.