House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Government Appointments GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS Mrs REDMOND House of Assembly Heysen Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (15:18): It is my pleasure today to rise to talk about this government's interference in the courts—the political interference of this government in the court. It is certainly consistent with their behaviour across a range of areas. First of all, can I say: they think nothing of making entirely inappropriate appointments. I am not just going to stand here and talk in rhetoric; I will give you specific examples. Firstly, let us have a look at the appointment of Jeremy Moore as president of the Guardianship Board. Who is Jeremy Moore? A nondescript solicitor from Strathalbyn who happened to be a failed Labor candidate. He gets appointed to be the president of the Guardianship Board above a young woman who was the acting president for eight months, who did not even get interviewed for the job. She then had to help him to do the job, because he knew nothing about it. He was completely unqualified for it, but, at a cost of a couple of hundred thousand a year, this failed Labor candidate was appointed to that job. An honourable member House of Assembly An honourable member: Jobs for the boys! Mrs REDMOND House of Assembly Mrs REDMOND: Not just boys; remember Robyn McLeod, former water commissioner for South Australia? Who was she? A failed Labor candidate from another state. What about Mia Handshin and her appointment to the chair of the EPA? No qualifications and no relevant experience, but she was appointed to chair the EPA. Who was she? A failed Labor candidate. Now not only can they make entirely inappropriate appointments, but they can certainly play favourites, and everyone would remember Ken MacPherson. Ken MacPherson was the auditor-general and he reached retirement age and when he was coming up to retirement age, this government sought to put legislation through the other place to allow the auditor-general—not all auditors-general, but just this one, Ken MacPherson—to stay beyond the age of 65. That legislation got killed so what did they do then? They appointed him as the acting Ombudsman. Now the legislation for the Ombudsman said that the Ombudsman's retirement was also to be at 65 but, notwithstanding that, they still had him as the acting Ombudsman for, I think, some 18 months and then when that was finished—boy, he must know where things are buried—he then did the Burnside council inquiry. They also on that side of the house make a lot of noises about understanding conflict of interest, but their behaviour makes it clear that either they have no understanding of conflict of interest or, if they do, they simply do not care about it. Can I give a couple of examples there? Firstly, John Rau on 891 this morning— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen will be seated, no time on. The member for Heysen will not refer to the Deputy Premier by his Christian name and by his surname. I believe the member for Heysen did it deliberately in violation of Standing Orders and she will apologise. Mrs REDMOND House of Assembly Mrs REDMOND: I apologise, Mr Speaker; I absolutely meant the Deputy Premier, member for Enfield, who on the radio this morning was trying to justify the financial interests that a member of the planning department has in Connor Holmes who, of course, did the wonderful approval of the Mount Barker redevelopment that has been so contentious. Then, of course, not to forget Sandra De Poi who was not only in a relationship with a member of parliament and who was on the WorkCover board herself, but as a member of that board was the recipient of by far the largest share of the rehabilitation contracts that were awarded by the government. This government is nothing if not good haters; and this parliament has recently passed the Courts Efficiency Bill which was to come into force on 1 July. The Attorney-General has decided, with no obvious explanation, to commence most of that bill but with a couple of exceptions from 1 July. In particular, there is a provision which increases the retirement age for magistrates to 70 in line with the retirement ages of judges of the District Court and judges of the Supreme Court. Why on earth would you want to delay that particular provision? I will tell you why: because the Attorney-General, I think, is playing the part of monkey to someone else's organ grinder. The former attorney-general is playing the tune. The current Attorney-General is apparently acting at the bidding of the former attorney-general who is being heard by highly regarded people in the legal profession stating, indeed almost boasting, of his intentions to prevent Deputy Chief Magistrate Andrew Cannon from retaining his position beyond the age of 65. As it happens, Dr Cannon will turn 65 fairly shortly, but by delaying the commencement of that section, they forced Dr Cannon into retirement. Why would you want to do that? After all, he is a highly regarded person, not just in Australia and I have been to conferences around Australia where he has been highly regarded by the people at the conference. Indeed, he is just back from Germany where he was invited to go over there and teach the judges about doing their jobs. He has been on the bench since 1969 and he has— Time expired.