BURNSIDE COUNCIL

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:37): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question about the Burnside council.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On ABC radio this morning, Mr Bevan stated:

We put in a request to Gail Gago, really to ask her...could you have managed this better rather than putting in process a train of events that has stretched for a year and spilled over into the election process? She isn't available to talk to us.

Mr Abraham then adds:

...she's not going to talk to us because her media adviser has said that her advice is, the legal advice is that she can't talk about this because it could then become anything she says could then be used in the court case itself, so she's not going to talk about it.

Given the minister claims that she does not have a copy of the MacPherson report, she is presumably not concerned about inadvertent disclosures of any material from that report. Alternatively, the minister may be concerned about inadvertent disclosures involving her conduct in relation to the process. I therefore ask the minister:

1. Does she understand that the order of the court made yesterday precludes her from making any public comment in relation to the Burnside council or its election?

2. If not, why is the minister refusing to fulfil her responsibility to be accountable for her actions in relation to the Burnside council?

3. If the minister is concerned about disclosures about the process rather than the report, is she concerned that the process she has undertaken is vulnerable or does she intend to be less frank with the court than she would want to be with the public?

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister might want to respond to the ABC?

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) (14:39): What a series of outrageous questions and assumptions behind those questions. It is absolutely outrageous, particularly coming from the Hon. Stephen Wade, who is supposed to have a legal background and is holding himself up to be attorney-general one day—that will be a long time coming, with the behaviour and conduct that we have seen today, and not just here in this chamber but I read his transcript from the program this morning and it was also a disgrace. He should know better, and it is absolutely disgraceful that he pose the questions as he did today, particularly the last question.

I can see that he is just as embarrassed here in this chamber this afternoon asking these preposterous, outrageous questions as he was on radio this morning. He nearly died of embarrassment on the radio this morning. You should have heard him, Mr President. It was truly an embarrassment to listen to the stumbling and the umming and the ahing. He nearly died of embarrassment on the radio, and that was because he knew that what he was saying was absolutely outrageous.

I was pleased at least to hear the level of discomfort in his voice while he was doing that radio interview as here today. The honourable member knows that this matter is before the court and he knows that I am unable—and what is more, I have been advised as well that it would be most improper and irresponsible of me—to discuss any matter that may relate to those matters before the court.

In respect of that judicial process, I have indicated in this chamber that I have received advice that I should not—and it would be most improper of me to—talk or discuss any matter that may relate to the matters before the court. The honourable member, as I said, knows that and it is an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace to his former profession that he would come into this place and ask those questions with those particular assumptions, particularly the last question that he asked.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wade has a supplementary question, without an explanation.