House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Child Protection Inquiry CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY Mr PISONI House of Assembly Unley CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:56): Supplementary: doesn't the fact that the Premier has been unable to answer any questions today validate the upper house's inquiry? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The question is entirely out of order but the Deputy Premier seems very enthusiastic to answer it. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Business Services and Consumers The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:57): Yes, I do. This one was supposed to come from this side, Mr Speaker. Since the upper house inquiry has been opened up, it is okay for me to answer the question, so I will. There were two possibilities for the upper house inquiry. One was it was genuinely established for the purpose of ascertaining whether there were problems associated with the State Records Act. If that was what it was on about, as I said yesterday, and I will say again, they had me at 'Hello,' because there is a problem with the State Records Act, and I have said that several times. An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Do we want to go down memory lane? Down memory lane, 55 days. An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Perhaps that can be the next question I answer, about the 55 days, because I've got some answers on that one, too. It is conventional wisdom that people write to the ministers to get public servants to brief them, not to the public servant who then has to send a letter to the minister, which takes several days, but, anyway, let's not go there. So, what actually is the upper house inquiry about? It is clearly not about proving to the satisfaction of me or my colleagues here that the State Records Act needs attention because, as I said, you have got us. You had us at 'Hello.' So the question must be something else. What is the question? Nobody has been able to articulate that. It is some sense of gross disappointment that, in spite of Mr Debelle forensically going through everything for a considerable time and presenting a report, there is nothing there that satisfies them. The reason there is nothing there that satisfies them is there is nothing there to be found. So what we have now is the Kath and Kim effect where the 11 people who are coming up next year are saying, 'Have a look at me, have a look at me.' That is what this is about. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything of any merit because, on the merit bit, we have already said, 'Yes, you've got us.' We tapped them out on that one and we are underway with Mr Moss. So this is just a blatant stunt. And, so, member for Unley, I do not think it warrants any serious consideration because it is what it is, and you on the other side—all of us know what this is: it is a piece of theatre.