Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Burnside Council BURNSIDE COUNCIL The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council BURNSIDE COUNCIL The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:39): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question relating to the Burnside council. Leave granted. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have received the text of a letter that I understand the former mayor of Burnside, Wendy Greiner, wrote to the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, dated 11 November 2010. I seek leave to table that letter. Leave granted. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the letter, Ms Greiner refers to 'the sham of the stalled investigation'. She states: The appointment of the investigator in July 2009 without providing evidence to the council of alleged misconduct or the involvement of the Local Government Association and to appoint an investigator without much local government experience beggars belief. The terms of reference were set to ensure that some breaches of the act had to be found. I doubt any local government entity or, indeed, your department could withstand an inquiry with these narrowed terms of reference without minor breaches being found. Ms Greiner goes on to indicate that the 'terms of reference were completely silent on the main issues', and then lists what she considers to be the main issues. The letter continues: Reading the draft report, as I have, leaves one at a loss to understand how it can report ad nauseam on the private and political affairs of elected members under the terms of reference given to it without addressing any of the above. Surely this whole episode must be a salutary lesson to you and your department if the report is ever released in the obvious quest to belittle a local government area without disclosing any evidence. No wonder several elected members took exception to this. I find it incredible that, with a former CEO of Burnside in your department, this whole sorry affair could not have been handled in a more professional manner. In conclusion, she states: The problems at Burnside could have been fixed with sensible discussions and then, ultimately, the ballot box. The leaking of information and all other political machinations go on whatever laws are enacted and are an irritating occurrence in every democracy, but not the grounds for an inquiry with the limited terms of reference given to it. My question to the minister is: does the minister agree with the former mayor of Burnside that the terms of reference she provided to the MacPherson inquiry missed the main issues and served to belittle local government? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council 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 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) (14:42): What a sorry excuse for opposition! The honourable member knows that these are matters that are before the court; I have said in this place clearly before that I have been advised that it would be most inappropriate of me to be commenting on any matter that may relate to those matters before the court. The honourable member knows that, and I have said it in this place ad nauseam. Clearly, there are matters within this piece of correspondence that could relate to matters before the court. As I have said, it is just pitiful; it is woeful. The honourable member is supposed to have some sort of legal background and legal expertise, and it is just woeful that he cannot get this. Is he suggesting that I should be disrespectful of the court and that I should jeopardise those matters that the plaintiffs have brought before the court? Is he suggesting that I should necessarily be in contempt of court and compromise those matters and the case of the plaintiffs? Is that really what the honourable member is suggesting that I do? That is totally irresponsible, and it shows the honourable member's complete and utter disdain and disrespect for the court when he comes back here time and again asking me to discuss such information. He knows that I have been quite clear in this place on many occasions in stating that I am not able to talk about these matters, and that it would be inappropriate to do so. It would be most disrespectful and I could, in fact, end up in contempt of court. As I said, as to the case that the plaintiffs have put forward, it would be disrespectful to them and it would be in contempt of court. Is that what the honourable member is asking me to do? As I have said, it is totally irresponsible and I think it shows his disrespect for the court. I am appalled that he sits there hoping one day to be the attorney-general. He is going to be sitting on the opposition benches for a long, long time as a shadow spokesperson for the attorney-general showing the sort of contempt and disdain for our judiciary that he has shown not just today but on many occasions. I believe that he will be sitting there for a long, long time and I believe it shows complete disdain and disrespect for our courts.