House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Child Protection Child Protection Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Child Protection Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): My question is to the Minister for Education and Child Development. Now that the police commissioner has revealed that an investigation of the 32-year-old Families SA employee was undertaken last year by SAPOL on referral from Families SA, a revelation publicly welcomed by the Premier and the education minister yesterday, can the minister advise when she was first made aware that SAPOL had investigated the former employee? The Hon. J.M. RANKINE House of Assembly Wright Minister for Education and Child Development Child Protection The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development) (14:04): Yes, I did welcome Commissioner Burns making his statement yesterday, advising about that particular matter, but again, I would like to actually, I think, clarify some misinterpretation that's been made in relation to comments that I have made both in this house and publicly. At all times, when I have been referring to criminal history checks and working with children checks, I have been talking about the person's engagement—the commencement of his employment. Mr Marshall House of Assembly Mr Marshall: That wasn't even the subject for the interview. The Hon. J.M. RANKINE House of Assembly The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, I just think it is really important that we are clear about some of these issues that are being peddled, that I have somehow misled the South Australian public. I have at all times only made comment about this person's engagement. In relation to other matters to do with his employment, I have taken advice about what I can and cannot say, and I appreciate, yesterday, the commissioner making a further statement which, in fact, confirmed the actions that I had been taking when he said, and I quote: I am satisfied that the Government's position in relation to the release of details has been consistent with the advice provided by SAPOL. I would also point out that the commissioner also said: …I am ultimately responsible for the investigation and as such it is appropriate that I determine— Mr Marshall House of Assembly Mr Marshall: Who wrote that for him? The Hon. J.M. RANKINE House of Assembly The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —what information to publically release and at what time. Now, in fact, to answer the leader's interjection of 'Who wrote this?' I would assume that the police commissioner is quite capable of making his own statements, and I think it is impudent and improper of the leader to impugn the commissioner— Mr Marshall interjecting: The Hon. J.M. RANKINE House of Assembly The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, I think it's impertinent of you to question the capacity and capability of our police commissioner. It is absolutely impertinent and improper, and you should be made to apologise for that. I have not spoken publicly about the matter which the police commissioner raised yesterday. I have not done it, on advice. Regarding details in relation to this person's employment, in fact, the commissioner went on to say that he wasn't intending to make any further comments about this matter either. The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Point of order. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Point of order from the Minister for Health. The Hon. J.J. SNELLING House of Assembly The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sir, in the course of the minister's answer, the Leader of the Opposition interjected, when she was talking about the comments of the police commissioner in regards to this matter, 'Who wrote that for him?' Now, that is a slur on the integrity of the police commissioner. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to question the integrity of the police commissioner, he should have the guts to do so by substantive motion and produce some evidence. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of Government Business to order, because that was not a point of order: that was an impromptu speech, and a vice I am trying to stamp out. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: No, I haven't quite finished yet with the Minister for Health. The police commissioner isn't in the same position as members of this house. So, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to insult the police commissioner, he is free to do so, because the police commissioner is not a member of this house, so it doesn't require a substantive motion. If the Minister for Health makes a bogus point of order once more, he will be out. Is this a supplementary?