Grievance Debate

Ombudsman Investigation, Member for Bragg

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:34): We have just heard from the member for West Torrens in relation to a difference of opinion in relation to two different processes that have been undertaken in the course of recent months. Speaking for myself, I readily and immediately accept the Ombudsman's findings that are the subject of the 2 May report.

In saying that, I turn to address the remarks that I made in this place on 18 November last year, and that is not so as to rehearse matters with a view to saying I told you so, but simply to highlight how glaringly obvious it was that we were heading on a path towards the outcome that we have seen, the subject of the Ombudsman's report tabled in this place yesterday.

The Ombudsman has criticised the ham-fisted way in which the matter was referred to him. It is not otherwise his task to critique the parliament's process. That is my task and it is our task in this place to reflect upon two different processes that in all of the circumstances have traversed similar subject matter. The short point is: shame on those. Shame on those who orchestrated this process. Shame on those who led what was a partisan attack under cover of a committee process to bring down a member of this house, the then Deputy Premier of the state of South Australia. It is a matter of concern to all South Australians.

I said in this place on 18 November that at that time, and without the benefit of all that we have seen in the months since, the committee—it was readily apparent—did not inquire in any meaningful sense into the facts. The Ombudsman has now determined that that is precisely what occurred.

Secondly, with respect to the impugned statements, I expressed the fact that in light of the committee's process it was obvious that the committee did not undertake the sort of genuine inquiry that would have been necessary with regard to the impugned statements. The Ombudsman has said that that was glaringly obvious and has found precisely that.

Thirdly, with regard to the matter of conflict—and as I said on 18 November last year—far from 'blindly barrelling on' as Dr Gray characterised it in November, and rather pejoratively as I observed at the time, far from that, the Ombudsman has observed and has traversed in great detail the proper occasion that the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General took to turn her mind to matters of conflict, to address them and to deal with the decision properly and according to all of her duties.

What has emerged is what was predicted. Firstly, as the result of evident prejudgement, a committee of this place has arrived at results that are wholly contradicted by a proper and independent process, the Ombudsman has just now determined. Secondly, the extension of the taint to a committee process of this parliament, insofar as it has allowed a prejudged outcome to be determined by a committee of this place, is a damning indictment on those who would use the committee process to achieve those ends.

The parliament is a serious place. We are entrusted to represent our electors and to serve our community. Our processes must be capable of standing up to scrutiny and characterised by integrity. The Ombudsman's report is devastating to the credibility of those who prosecuted the then Deputy Premier, exposing as it does the defective committee process, the kangaroo court. Shame on those who supported it. The Premier must apologise now.