Grievance Debate

Minister for Environment and Water

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (15:29): It has been many years since there has been such a damning finding into the conduct of a member of executive government as we have had in the last two weeks from the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report. You would have to cast your mind back to the Clayton report into the Motorola affair and its findings against former premier John Olsen, findings that led to his resignation. The commissioner's remarks about the minister's decision in December last year raise several questions about the competence and the priorities of this Liberal government.

We are enjoying getting to the heart of these issues in this place. We do so despite the government today cooking up a bogus motion, remarkably calling for bipartisanship. We do this despite their failing to notify us about this or even honour pair agreements this morning. What is also extraordinary is the cavalier and arrogant behaviour of the Minister for Environment and Water, the member for Black. It is extraordinary because it seems that he made the decision that the interests of upstream communities in New South Wales and Victoria are to be served above the interests of South Australian communities. He went off to a ministers' meeting and was comprehensively outplayed by his interstate colleagues.

Is there any acceptance or recognition that he got this one wrong? Of course not. Instead, he and his Premier have launched a scathing and repeated attack on the royal commission and the royal commissioner. Let me quote the member for Black, who only earlier this morning said:

The royal commission should also be subject to critique and to challenge. Where comments are made within a vacuum, they should be given context; where ideology trumps pragmatic leadership, this should be called out; and where procedural fairness is denied, a defence should and will be provided.

This behaviour of attacking a royal commission is extraordinary, but it is not unexpected from the member for Black. You see, Mr Speaker, the member for Black has form in this regard. He has long made it clear to this place that he sees himself as the smartest guy in the room. His performance last December in the council meeting where he sold out our state is further evidence that he believes he is beyond the advice of his agency and he is beyond the advice of those with a deep understanding of the Murray-Darling Basin. He and he alone, according to the member for Black, knows the right decision to be made.

The minister has always decried those who are charged with advising ministers. He has long been a critic in this place of the public sector, of public sector executives and of public sector leadership. He made it clear in his contributions in 2014, in 2015, in 2016 and in 2017. He has even been a longstanding critic of those employed by ministers to advise them. Remember this contribution:

Usually underqualified and overly confident, largely aged [between] 25 [and] 35, characterised by having the log-in details of multiple fake Twitter accounts stored in the notes sections of their iPhones. They read InDaily, drink at small bars, enjoy fatty and sugary foods and [they] have the physical characteristics associated with enjoying fatty and sugary foods. They often interbreed, leading to a reduced gene pool, and are loved only by their mothers.

I do not think that is fair on ministerial advisers. Many of them are excellent on both sides of politics. By the member's own standards, I think instead what we have there is an uncannily accurate description of several of the participants in the current Premier's office. The member for Black cannot stand ministerial advisers, in addition to senior public servants and executives and public sector leadership.

We also remember his office demanding a proscription list of former ministerial advisers from his department, an act unparalleled in the canon of Western political experience since the days of Caesar Augustus. What was his justification? He said instead, 'I love ministerial advisers. I actually want to employ more of them.' Rubbish. This is a vexatious minister who thinks he knows best. It is lucky for those former ministerial advisers, too, given the payment that needed to be made to his former electorate office staff. It has not been a good start to his career.

This is the disdain that the minister brings to contemplating advice provided to him, so is it really surprising that we have a junior minister who sets off to a ministerial council meeting and then takes his own counsel to sell our state up the river? The commissioner's comments on this are clear:

It is so contrary to the interests of South Australians that the decision by the Minister responsible is almost certainly a breach of at least cl 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Is there any justification from him? The only one we have heard to date is that he wanted to restore shattered relationships. The commissioner describes it as:

…a capitulation to the interests of the current commonwealth government and those of Victoria and New South Wales.

The behaviour cannot be justified. It is outrageous, and he will stand accountable for it.