CHILD PROTECTION INQUIRY

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (15:39): My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier believe that the same principles he applied in explaining why he didn't sack his ministerial advisers should be applied to senior public servants named in the Debelle inquiry?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (15:40): I made the judgements that I made about the disciplinary action for my ministerial advisers based on the findings of the Debelle inquiry. You see, we put in place a royal commission because we believe that royal commissions are important institutions and that their findings should be taken seriously.

Indeed, the Royal Commissions Act provides that the findings of a royal commission cannot be challenged in any court of law. They are binding; they are as a court. There is only one political party in South Australia that has had the temerity to cast doubt on those findings, and it's been those opposite.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order, Mr Speaker: can you draw to the attention of the minister that Family First actually moved for an inquiry and they are a different political party to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am happy to—

The SPEAKER: I am not sure that that's a point of order. I think that's just making an impromptu speech.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am very glad of the contribution though because, indeed, nobody from any other party has made a contribution of the type that was made by Mr Lucas in the other place, which directly contradicted the findings of the royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition has to take political responsibility for allowing a senior member of his front bench to make that contribution.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: this question was very specific about whether the Premier is going to apply the same standard to public servants as he did to his own ministerial staff. It has nothing to do with what was in the Debelle inquiry.

The SPEAKER: I think it has everything to do with the Debelle inquiry. The Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The very factual material which actually leads to the question of disciplinary action against my ministerial advisers are the very findings that are contained within the Debelle inquiry, and contained within the Debelle inquiry are all of the relevant findings about what they failed to do. Remember, that's the first thing that we should grapple with here: it was a failure to do something—not a decision to do something but a failure to do something. A mistake, granted, but nevertheless, a failure to do something.

Mr Debelle speaks in detail about the nature of that mistake. He also talks about the fact that he accepts the remarks that were made by my chief of staff about the proper relationship between a ministerial adviser and a departmental person, and said that there is a separation of matters that are appropriately the province of a departmental professional public servant and different matters that are the province of ministerial advisers.

He makes the very clear finding that my ministerial advisers were entitled to rely upon the information that they received to assume the matter was being handled appropriately, because they were told that. It's another matter that they didn't pass the information on to me, and that was a mistake, but that needs to be said against the nature of the mistake that was made and in the context in which it was made and, indeed, their long and meritorious service.

Both of those advisers have been extraordinary servants, not just of me but of the state. I think it is completely wrong, the focus that's being brought to bear in this house on ministerial advisers. If those opposite ever do have the opportunity to sit in the Treasury benches—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —woe betide the precedent they have established.

Ms CHAPMAN: A lecture to the opposition isn't within his jurisdiction to start with or, secondly, relevant to the question.

The SPEAKER: Has the lecture finished?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader.