Grievance Debate

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:07): Next month will mark the first anniversary of the parents at a western suburbs school finally being told that their children had been in the care of a rapist. The unelected Premier is still under the spotlight, and it is the thousands of parents of South Australian school children who are shining it at him and demanding answers. This line of questioning will continue until the parents and the public have their questions answered.

It will continue until those responsible for the cover-up and the concealment of a succession of sad and grievous crimes against children are called to account. Parent after parent wrote to Labor MPs and ministers wanting to know why they were not told the truth. The Liberal Party dragged this government kicking and screaming to have an inquiry. Further information has come to light since that inquiry concluded and it is information that should disturb all well-intentioned people.

I heard things in the corridors this morning about Kate Baldock and about the failures of this uninspiring, unelected Premier. People are talking and Labor people are plotting. Let's face it: Don Farrell is not a happy camper this week. First, he made concessions to the left for the premiership, then he made concessions to the left for the Senate and he is now unemployed. The Premier still refuses to answer questions—

The SPEAKER: Point of order, the Minister for Transport.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Unley has said that Senator Farrell is unemployed. He is not.

The SPEAKER: Will the member for Unley be seated. The member for Unley may be wrong and, indeed, he may be misleading the house, but he is not misleading the house about a matter before the house, in connection with a bill or motion.

Mr PISONI: Destined for unemployment, sir. Thank you. The Premier still refuses to answer questions and—

The SPEAKER: Point of order: minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Votes are still being counted by the independent Electoral Commission and the member for Unley is making predictions about the outcome.

The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order—a valid one anyway.

Mr PISONI: You have warned and actually removed me from this place for frivolous points of order, sir. I ask you to be consistent. Was Professor Freda Briggs playing politics when she said on 30 August that issues arising from the royal commission demanded further examination, including a mystery email chain from within the Premier's office? Is it the Premier who is playing politics by not remembering or failing to act against those who have let down the parents of the people who once trusted this government? Is it the Premier who is playing politics? It is because it is the only game he knows how to play. Playing politics is the only way he can prevent Labor's faceless men from removing him, just like they did to Mike Rann.

It is about time the Premier took charge, said no to his puppet masters, and blew this ugly affair are wide open for all to see. He needs to 'fess up to his own failures. He needs to ask questions of his own ministers and his own staff about 'Kategate'. Why did Kate Baldock hide behind her $100,000-plus salary and not come forward and admit that she knew about the rape at the western suburbs school a full month before minister Portolesi said her office knew?

To whom did Kate Baldock speak about this matter? To her own boss, to the Premier's staff, to Simon Blewett, to Jane Harvey, or maybe to the Premier himself? The Premier needs to apologise again to the parents of South Australia's schoolchildren. He needs to apologise to Mr Debelle for failing to provide him with all the relevant information needed to conduct a thorough inquiry. He must commission Mr Debelle to reopen his inquiry.

What other documents are missing? Who else is involved in the cover-up and did not come forward? People demand answers. We are approaching three years since the incident that began this tawdry affair, and we are yet to see any of those who failed in their duty held accountable. It starts and finishes with a failure of leadership, the Premier's leadership. The Premier cannot say he takes responsibility and then refuse action. He says he has counselled Mr Blewett and Mr Harvey but they are still—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Point of order. The member for Unley will be seated. The Minister for Transport has a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standing order 127:

...a Member may not...impute improper motives to any other Member [and/or] make personal reflections on any other Member.

I put to you, sir, that that is exactly what he is doing to the Premier of South Australia.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley will be seated while I consider the point of order. The clock is stopped; there's time on. I did think along the same lines as the Minister for Transport, so I would ask the member for Unley to be careful not to violate the standing orders in his contribution. Member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: When the Premier doles out punishment to his friends he flogs them with no more than a wet lettuce leaf, but it is the parents searching for answers and searching for justice who are paying the real price for this cover-up. He refuses the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee inquiry relating to the Debelle royal commission, which is seemingly incomplete after his government failed to hand over all documents and provide all witnesses.

Fair-minded people would see what the Premier clearly does not. This is not about him or his political future: this is about doing the right thing, which he still refuses to do. The Premier said a parliamentary hearing would be a pre-election circus designed to hurt him, but at a circus the real leaders are usually the fearless lion tamers or the death-defying trapeze artists. At this circus, the Premier fears his—

The SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

Mr PISONI: You said I was going to get more time. Have you gone back on that, have you?

The SPEAKER: Well, you did. The clock was stopped. The member for Davenport queried one of my rulings about why a question from the member for Unley was out of order. I refer to page 300 of the 22^nd edition of Erskine May:

...Moreover, questions requiring information set forth in accessible documents such as statues, treaties, etc., have not been allowed when the member concerned could obtain the information of his own accord without difficulty.

I took the view that whether Kate Baldock did or did not give evidence to the royal commission will appear in the royal commission report; but, as chance would have it, I discovered another ruling in Erskine May from page 362 of the 24^th edition; that is, questions are not permitted about royal commissions. It states:

Questions have been ruled inadmissible which referred to the evidence of witnesses or other matters before a Royal Commission.

But I am not enforcing that point of order; I am allowing questions to be asked about the Debelle royal commission.

Ms CHAPMAN: A point of clarification, Mr Speaker. I hear your ruling and thank you for giving that consideration. I seek some clarification because the questions today, to the best of my knowledge, did not relate to any evidence given at the royal commission and, in fact, I think it was very clear from the comments made today and the questions and answers that the assertion that the subject of the question, which was a certain person, apparently did not appear at all in the commission, so the relevance of her evidence or potential evidence was actually never traversed in today's question time.

So, regarding the reference to her name not being in any report of a royal commission, whether it was an omission or whether that was the public record, I am asking you to determine if it is still reasonable for the opposition to ask questions about whether certain persons have been made available to give evidence at a particular royal commission?

The SPEAKER: That may all be so but I am not enforcing that ruling of the House of Commons. I am not enforcing it to say you cannot ask about a royal commission but I just draw it to the house's attention. The member for Unley has a point of order.

Mr PISONI: I asked you, sir, if you could clarify whether that ruling regarding a royal commission was in reference to a royal commission that was in session or a royal commission that had been completed.

The SPEAKER: And that is a fair question and I will look into it. Minister for Education.