House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply Response by Hon Michael Wright Agreed to by Hon Michael Wright and the Standing Orders Committee Pursuant to Standing Order 398: September 18, 2021 Dear Premier, I write following your Ministerial Statement to Parliament on Thursday, September 9, 2021 concerning a complaint made about the conduct of the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing at a meeting which I attended. The Statement contains several significant errors and inaccuracies about my participation in the meeting upon which you then rely to suggest that I acted with improper and/or ulterior motives. I will address each of the significant errors and inaccuracies and the misrepresentation of my motives for participating in the meeting. The Ministerial Code of Conduct You asserted in your Statement that; Mr Wright had with him a copy of the code and quoted to the minister sections 2.4 and 2.5'. That assertion is inaccurate. I did not have a copy of the Ministerial Code of Conduct in my possession at the meeting. I raised the issue of the Ministerial Code of Conduct towards the very end of the meeting and read passages from sections 2.4 and 2.5 from hand written notes I had prepared prior to the meeting. I informed the Minister that he may have breached the Code in his handling of the funding arrangements. The Scope of Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct In your Statement you referred to the Ministerial Code of Conduct and said: Clause 2.4 deals with honesty. Clause 2.5 deals with fairness and diligence in decision making. This is an incomplete and inaccurate summary of the provisions of Clauses 2.4 and 2.5 of the Code in the context in which the provisions were raised at the meeting. Clause 2.4 requires a Minister to act not only 'honestly' but also 'diligently and with propriety in the performance of their public functions and duties'. The omission of the reference to diligence when referring to Clause 2.4 is relevant because that is precisely the point I was making to the Minister at the meeting. It is also relevant because narrowing the scope of Clause 2.5 of the Code in your Statement to acting 'honestly' underpins the suggestion in the Statement that I was acting with improper and/or ulterior motives, an issue I will return to shortly. Clause 2.4 of the Code deals not only with 'fairness and diligence in decision making'. Clause 2.5 of the Code reads; Ministers should not make an official decision without first giving due consideration to the merits of the matter at hand and the impact the decision is likely to have on the rights and interests of the people involved and the citizens of South Australia. A Minister must use all reasonable endeavours to obtain all relevant information and facts before making a decision on a particular issue and should consult, as appropriate, in relation to the matter at issue. The omission in your Statement of the requirement on Ministers under Clause 2.5 of the Code to consider the impact of decisions on the rights and interests of citizens and to consult is relevant in the context of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the Minister that the rights and interests of the sporting community were overlooked in his decision making and he had not given sufficient weight and consideration in the consultation process undertaken by his Department, to the views of those whose interests were adversely affected by a fundamental change in funding arrangements. That was and remains our grievance with the Minister. The Assertion that the Minister was Accused of Dishonesty You assert in the Statement that I suggested that the Minister had acted dishonestly. You said; I believe the minister was entitled to respond strongly to the suggestion of dishonesty made by the President of Sport SA. I emphatically deny that I suggested, or in any way implied, at the meeting that the Minister had acted dishonestly. In response to the reference at the meeting to the Ministerial Code of Conduct the Minister asked me twice whether I thought he was being dishonest. On each occasion, I responded 'No'. I was not given the opportunity to further explain to the Minster the relevance of my reference to the Code because of his continual interruptions and escalating overbearing behaviour. The Chief of Staff to the Minister abruptly terminated the meeting almost immediately thereafter. You have invited me through your Statement to withdraw any suggestion of dishonesty on the part of the Minister. I note you have not contacted me directly about an invitation to withdraw. I can confirm that as no suggestion of dishonesty was made by me, it would not be appropriate to issue a withdrawal. Suggestion of Improper and/or Ulterior Motives In your Statement you impugned my motives in participating in the meeting with the Minister. As referred to above, you made a truncated and not contextualized reference in your Statement to Clauses 2.4 and 2.5 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and then said; Mr Wright could not have been unmindful of the fact that his action would provoke a response. I emphatically deny that I acted with the intention, or expectation, of provoking the Minister. As noted above you go on to say in your Statement that the Minister was 'entitled to respond strongly to the suggestion of dishonesty'. I made no such suggestion and that was made clear to the Minister at the meeting. The Minister was not responding to a suggestion of dishonesty, there was no such provocation. The Minister's conduct and behaviour cannot be explained or excused as a reasonable response to anything said by me at the meeting. The Investigation Process I was not given the opportunity prior to your Statement in Parliament, during the proclaimed 'independent' investigation or any other occasion, to deny or comment on the assertion that I suggested that the Minister had acted dishonestly. I was not given the opportunity to deny or comment on the assertion in your Statement that I was motivated to provoke the Minister. This represents a failure of fairness and process and calls into question the objectivity and reliability of any findings contained in the report or arising from the investigation generally. I should add that I was not provided with a copy of the report or the contents of the report which relate to my involvement in the meeting. I respectfully request that you urgently correct the record and withdraw any imputation about my motives, in Parliament by a Ministerial Statement of equal prominence to your Statement of September 9, 2021. Hon Michael Wright