Parliamentary Committee Evidence

Mr BROWN (Florey) (14:27): My question is to the Leader of Government Business. Can the leader advise as to the importance of evidence and references provided to parliamentary committees being accurate and whether risks arise for the integrity of parliamentary proceedings when incorrect or misleading references are supplied?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:27): The parliament and its committees are the highest courts in South Australia.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are. When you speak to the parliament, you must speak truthfully, honestly and accurately, and you cannot mislead, as members opposite learnt the hard bitter truth of in the last parliament. You cannot mislead the parliament. You cannot give the parliament information, either knowingly or unknowingly, that's not correct and, if you do so, you need to apologise immediately and correct it. There are no exceptions to this rule—none. If you did it in a court, there are severe consequences, including the loss of liberty. During a natural disaster—

The Hon. V.A. Tarzia: How is Michael Abbott?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He's well; he sends his regards. He's a KC—his peers thought he was good enough. At the very least, when members go to parliamentary committees and they say the following:

…I am going to give you the references, professor, okay? I have decided to give you the references so you can see that I am not just plucking it out of midair as a conspiracy theory—

they are strong words. I have written to the recently re-endorsed Heidi Girolamo in the upper house, who is Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, who was given a reference by the new watchdog, handpicked by the Leader of the Opposition to contest the seat of Waite. Those references, sir, reference reports that just don't exist.

When you go to a parliamentary committee and you say, 'Listen, I'm not raising some conspiracy theory here. I'm referencing peer-reviewed scientific reports to spread my conspiracy theories,' you want to have evidence to back it up, and when you don't, what does that mean? It undermines the integrity of our independent agencies. The EPA and SARDI are respected independent institutions that are backed up by scientific peer-reviewed information. The people who work there are experts—they are experts. Frank Pangallo turning up there saying, 'Stand aside, college boy, have I got some information for you,' doesn't cut the mustard.

The Leader of the Opposition has now got to show whether he is fit to be the Premier of South Australia. What does leadership mean? Leadership says when you get it wrong, you apologise. When members get it wrong, and they do it deliberately, you sack them. This is now a question of leadership not for Frank Pangallo—we know he is not going to walk away from all this. Frank is going to be Frank. We know what Frank is like; we all know what he is like. The question is: what is the alternative Premier of South Australia going to do? Is he going to get up and stand by these dodgy documents? Is he going to stand by these dodgy references? We know what happened to the last leader of the Liberal Party who had dodgy documents in this parliament. We know what happened there.

My advice to my young friend is: show leadership. Show leadership. Don't stand by Frank. Cut him loose. He cannot be allowed to continue on this committee. He must be told to stand aside from this committee. But of course my young friend won't do that; he is going to back him in. They are claiming some sort of administrative error—an administrative error on scientific peer-reviewed reports. I have to say this goes too far. This goes too far. If Frank Pangallo had done it in this parliament, he would be sanctioned. The last person to mislead this parliament was sanctioned, and it wasn't done by a majority Labor government, it was done by a Liberal government. Why? Because their Deputy Premier misled the parliament.