Grievance Debate

Commissioner for Public Employment

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:20): On 6 May, I asked the Minister for the Public Sector about whether there was going to be an open and transparent merit-based process in relation to the appointment of the new Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. I asked a question about whether there was going to be a public advertisement in relation to that position. The Minister for the Public Sector gave an answer that said, 'I am yet to turn my mind to such an eventuality.'

The opposition has been advised that on 7 April, the minister took a cabinet submission to cabinet in the terms that she was advising cabinet that at some future date she would be appointing a particular person—Erma Ranieri—to that particular position, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. I have today written to the member for Frome, the Minister for Regional Development, because as a minister, the member for Frome gets all cabinet submissions. When I asked the Premier about a cabinet submission dated 7 April, the Premier did not say there wasn't one.

I have written to the Minister for Regional Development, the member for Frome, asking him to look at his cabinet submissions and see if there is a cabinet submission dated 7 April, or indeed any cabinet submission, that goes to the question of the appointment of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. The reason I do that is simply this: the Minister for the Public Sector told this house on 6 May that she had not turned her mind to that question. If there is a cabinet submission dated 7 April, nearly a month earlier, where the minister has notified cabinet of her future intention, then clearly the minister had turned their mind to that question.

The member for Frome is in a unique position. He can speak freely of cabinet matters if he wishes under his agreement and certainly I know the member for Frome will be the person who will set the standard for the ministry, because if a minister has misled the house—and I do not allege that quite yet—if a minister has given wrong information to the house, then the member for Frome can be the conscience of the cabinet and speak freely, because we know that this government has no problems with members of cabinet speaking freely. The house will remember the former member for Adelaide, of blessed memory, who was given permission to speak freely about cabinet matters.

So I have written to the member for Frome. I have written to him because, if it is true that there is a cabinet submission on 7 April in the terms that I have outlined, then I am going to allege that the minister has misled the house, and it is up to the member for Frome to consider my letter. I look forward to his response in due course.

The other issue I want to raise is simply a response to the Deputy Premier and the Attorney-General in relation to his speech yesterday in relation to electoral reform, which is responding to my Address in Reply speech. It is somewhat, I think, embarrassing for the Attorney. The Attorney and I have a reasonably good understanding on a lot of things, but the Attorney makes the point in his contribution that:

…the two-party preferred vote, everyone should remember, is a mathematical construct. It actually does not exist in the real world.

He then goes to say:

With the greatest respect to the member for Davenport, I fundamentally disagree, first of all, with his unrealistic inflation of a mathematical construct of a two-party preferred vote being of any particular significance.

I will just draw to the house's attention to the fact that section 83 of the Constitution Act, for which the Attorney-General is responsible and which was put in place as a result of a statewide referendum, requires the consideration of the two-party preferred vote. That 'artificial construct' is actually in the state's constitution at the will of the people of South Australia. I am sorry, Attorney, on that matter I think you are wrong.

Time expired.