Ombudsman Investigation, Member for Bragg

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (14:53): My question is to the Premier. Will his government accept that it is important for the house now to address the report of the Ombudsman to protect the economic reputation of our state and therefore provide the time tomorrow for the matter to be debated? With your leave, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr TEAGUE: Senior Counsel assisting the select committee, Dr Gray QC, stated in her closing statement to the committee that the existence of a conflict of interest had the potential to undermine investor confidence in South Australia, with associated negative consequences on employment. On 18 November 2021 in this place, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, said:

…the Attorney-General did have a conflict of interest. The Attorney-General did not declare the conflict of interest. The Attorney then acted in accordance with the conflict and rejected a private sector development…The consequences of the Attorney's actions are grave…the committee itself finds, and I quote: 'The existence of a conflict or bias has the potential to undermine investor confidence in the State, with associated negative consequences on employment and development…The case is clear. The minister must resign.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:54): And the minister did resign. The minister did resign. She resigned as Deputy Premier. She resigned as planning minister. Those powers were taken up by Transparency Teague, who then used those powers to appoint people during the caretaker period.

The whole point of the investigation into the KIPT timber scandal of the last government was that decisions were being made where a select committee of this parliament found that there was a conflict of interest, therefore risking private investment in South Australia. There is nothing that this government has done that risked private investment into Kangaroo Island. There is nothing that this government has done that has risked private investment into South Australia.

What we are doing is making sure that the rule of law applies, and the rule of law has applied, and it was applied by the previous government—brutally—to the then Deputy Premier. It wasn't us. We had no power. There were only 19 of us, out of a parliament of 47, in this last parliament. We had no power to influence the outcomes of what occurred in the cabinet. We couldn't advise the Governor to remove the commission, something the former one-term Premier made very, very clear.

He made it clear in this house that the Governor takes advice from the Premier and, after making that statement, the former member for Bragg—slash former—Deputy Premier and Attorney-General ceased being Deputy Premier and a new Deputy Premier was elected. That wasn't our doing: that was members opposite's doing. They are the ones who did this, not us. We did our job. We were Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We saw a scandal, we pursued it, we established a committee with the help of members opposite.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We hired independent counsel, and that could have gone either way, because Dr Gray—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The shadow treasurer says there was no scandal. Well, this house voted overwhelmingly that the former Deputy Premier had misled this place, and I will give you some of those details just to refresh your memory. The select committee found that the former Attorney-General misled the house and recommended that this house 'find the Attorney-General guilty of contempt for deliberately misleading Parliament'—

Mr Cowdrey: Are you going to read the dissenting statement?

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Colton! The minister has the call.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the member for Colton wants to provide the person who wrote it for him, I am happy to read it out, because I know that he didn't write it. Recommendation 1:

(a) find the Attorney-General guilty of contempt for deliberately misleading Parliament, following its factual findings that Statement 1 (relating to property and pecuniary interests) was false and was known to be false by the [then] Attorney-General at the time each of those statements were made and was intended to mislead [this] House [in the last parliament];

(b) find the Attorney-General guilty of contempt for deliberately misleading the Parliament, following its factual findings that Statement 2 (relating to proposed transport routes) was false and was known to be false by the Attorney-General at the time each of those statements were made and was intended to mislead the House…

And, for her conduct, 'suspending the Attorney-General from the service of the House for a period of no more than 11 days'. Further:

(c) find the Attorney-General guilty of contempt for deliberately misleading the Parliament, following its factual findings that Statement 4 (relating to a government report on alternative wharf sites) was false and was known to be false by the Attorney-General at the time each of those statements were made…

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: Time has expired.

The SPEAKER: Very well. The member for Heysen has emphasised that time has expired.