Minister for Infrastructure and Transport

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Given that answer, did the minister mislead the estimates committee of the house on 3 August when he answered a question from the member for Reynell? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The minister was asked if he instructed the CE of the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing to tell Ms Leah Cassidy, the CE of Sport SA, not to attend a COVID-19 brief because she had made a complaint against the minister. The minister answered that question in estimates by saying, 'The answer to the question is no.' On 19 August, Ms Cassidy swore a statutory declaration saying the following, and I quote:

I, Leah Cassidy, do solemnly and sincerely declare that on 28 July 2021 I was involved in a Microsoft teams meeting with Kylie Taylor, Chief Executive, Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing. At the end of the meeting I indicated to Kylie that I was shocked to receive a phone call from her (on July 22^nd) indicating I should not attend an industry briefing called by the minister given my complaint to the minister regarding bullying and intimidation. I asked Kylie if this instruction had come from the minister's office to which she replied yep. When asked why Kylie indicated, 'the minister, the minister' there was a view it was in the best interest I didn't attend.

She makes this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 1936.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:47): I received a complaint letter from Ms Leah Cassidy. On receiving that complaint, I forwarded it directly on to the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment in South Australia, Ms Erma Ranieri. She has appointed somebody to do an investigation of the allegations raised by Ms Cassidy. The minister has already outlined to the house the advice that he received was that she not attend that meeting following on from that complaint that had been made. I strongly support the advice that he received from his office. I think that is the correct course to take.

I think the other correct course to take is to forward that letter of complaint on to the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment in South Australia. That work is being done at the moment. I hope to be able to update the house on it very shortly.

The SPEAKER: The Premier will resume his seat. The member for West Torrens rises on a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standing order 98: the Premier is not answering the substance of the question. The substance of the question was: was the parliament misled?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! The Premier or any other minister is entitled to answer a question as may be appropriate. The Premier has referred to actions taken in relation to the circumstances. The Premier is entitled to answer the question in that way. Has the Premier concluded his answer?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: No, sir. I think that the minister has provided a perfect explanation as to what has occurred and I do not believe for one second that he has misled the parliament. But if the member has information to suggest that he has—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What we know about the member for West Torrens is it's one plus one equals 38,000. This is what we are used to. It was particularly worrying when he was the Treasurer of South Australia, when we had constant advice from those independent ratings agencies that we were just not up to scratch. In fact, we were the lowest rated jurisdiction in Australia when the member for West Torrens was the Treasurer of South Australia. That was the situation that we inherited from those opposite.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat for a moment. The leader on a point of order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Standing order 98: it's clearly debate. This was not a question relating to the exceptional economic management under the former Labor government, particularly with regard to debt, in comparison to this one. The question was very specific, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The question was very specific regarding the inconsistencies between the statement made by the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —Minister for Infrastructure—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Premier!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —and what was just read out in a statutory declaration.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The making of a point of order is no occasion to engage in impromptu debate. Members on my right will cease interjecting. I uphold the point of order. The question from the member from West Torrens was quite specific as to its subject matter. By leave, he introduced facts, and fulsomely so. The Premier has addressed the substance of the question in his answer, as he is entitled to do. I draw the Premier back to the substance of the question. The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I have nothing further to add, sir.

The SPEAKER: The Premier has concluded his answer.