BURNSIDE COUNCIL

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:27): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question on the subject of the investigation into the Burnside council.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I refer to the fact that the minister's three month investigation into the Burnside council will shortly enter its 11^th month. I note the minister's failure to address my queries yesterday about whether the natural justice period for persons named in the investigative report on the council has commenced. The minister also failed to indicate when she is expecting the report to be publicly available.

I understand that once the minister has received the completed investigation report, under section 273(3) of the Local Government Act the minister must provide a copy of that report to the council and give it a reasonable opportunity to provide a response. This process must be undertaken before the minister is able to issue a directive, make a recommendation to the Governor or take any enforceable action to resolve the affairs of the council.

I also note that, under the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999, the latest possible date for close of nominations for local government elections this year, and therefore the commencement date for the caretaker provisions, is 21 September of this year—it could be earlier than this date—which leaves the minister with, at the most, four months to finalise the report, undertake the natural justice period, receive a response from the council, determine what is required to be done and take that action. My questions are:

1. Has the natural justice period commenced?

2. If it has not commenced, when is it expected to do so?

3. Given the statutory process for dealing with these issues, is it almost inevitable that the council will go into caretaker mode for the November election before this process is concluded?

4. Where is the justice for candidates for the election of the Burnside council, and the Burnside community, if the minister's tardiness in this process means that they will have insufficient time to properly consider the issues that are raised?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:30): It is woeful, Mr President. Isn't it a sad and sorry day! Members have had a considerable period of time to go away and research and come back to this place with questions that are absolutely to the nub and thrust of government, that put us under scrutiny and on the razor's edge and really put this government to the test. What do they do? What do they give us? What do they bring back? The same tired old questions over and over and over—they are like a worn-out old record. What a dull, lazy opposition. How lazy can they be? How lazy is that, that they come back with the same tired old questions when I have already gone to great lengths to put on record all this information; all information that I have at hand is on record?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, why don't you write to Mr Ken MacPherson, the investigator, and request this information? He is completely independent and can conduct this investigation in the way he sees fit to conduct it. It would be most improper and irresponsible of me to interfere in any way whatever. What is more, could you imagine if I did? Had I issued any form of directive to the investigator, can you imagine the howling, hollering and bleating that would go on in this chamber? At least I could then say that they are doing their job, whereas this line of questioning is an absolute abuse and waste of taxpayers' money.

I have put these matters on record: it is a process of the investigator. The process is determined by the investigator himself as he sees fit—he determines that. I do not direct the investigator as to how he goes about that process. I determined the terms of reference in relation to the complaints I had received and I appointed the investigator, but the process is up to the discretion, expertise and professional wisdom and judgment of the investigator. The process is his to determine.

My understanding is that he has begun the preparations for the final stage, the natural justice phase. Exactly how far into that he is, I do not know as it is a matter for him, the investigator. I have already put on record that, clearly, this natural justice stage would, I believe, be determined according to the individual responses, needs, accessibility, and so on in relation to that. They are matters the investigator would have to determine and accommodate, and that is up to him.

As I have said clearly already, it is absolutely in the hands of the investigator and it would be most improper and irresponsible of me to interfere with this in any way at all. I have encouraged the investigator to expedite this as best as he possibly can. He has committed to me to do that, so I believe he is doing his very best to expedite the matter. We must leave it in the hands of the investigator to do the job that he has been put in charge to do.