Question Time

POLICE MINISTER, ASSAULT

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:19): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Police a question about conflicts of interest.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yesterday afternoon the President of the Law Society, Mr Ralph Bonig, discussed the unprecedented disgrace which is occurring in another place. I am speaking, of course, about the former deputy premier and treasurer on his feet in the house, under parliamentary privilege, protesting his innocence in a court case involving assault and claims that the member for Port Adelaide behaved inappropriately towards two women. Mr Bonig asked, 'Why should a minister have a right to do that in respect of a personal matter?' Mr Bonig continued and stated:

Then on top of that we have the situation that Mr Foley happens to be the Minister for Police and there's eyebrows being raised as to whether or not that's appropriate given the fact that he, up until last Friday, had two charges in which he was involved, and subject of a police investigation and police prosecution. So once again, eyebrows are being raised...the ordinary person in the street may think...why can he do that? I don't have that opportunity, I don't have that right but he seems to get away with it.

Members may also recall a former Liberal minister, Joan Hall, and the inquiry into the Hindmarsh Soccer Stadium. The auditor-general found that she did not have a direct conflict of interest but, because there was a perceived conflict of interest, then she had to stand down.

We also saw, to our embarrassment, another disgrace (also behind the privilege of parliament) with the Premier describing two outstanding members of Adelaide's legal fraternity, Craig Caldicott and David Edwardson, as 'bikie lawyers'. This is also a shameful misuse of parliamentary privilege. David Edwardson is an independent at the bar, which means he acts on instructions from solicitors. He represents a whole range of people who are charged with criminal offending. My questions are:

1. Does the minister fully support the police minister?

2. Does the minister agree with the Law Society president that there is a perceived conflict of interest in Mr Foley remaining as police minister?

3. Will the minister advise the Premier to apologise to the lawyers for being attacked under the cover of parliamentary privilege?

The PRESIDENT: I must remind people that in this house I am not going to tolerate people talking about or referring to things very close to court cases, whether it be the opposition or the government. The honourable minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (14:22): Thank you, Mr President. I thank—well, I don't thank the honourable member for his outrageous question at all. I think it is an insult to this place, to the Parliament of South Australia, that we have such a fundamental attack on people's human rights. It is absolutely outrageous.

I absolutely support the Premier in his comments when he said that anywhere in our city and everywhere in this state, no matter who you are or where you are, whether you are a member of parliament—a member of the opposition or a member of government—or whether you are a general citizen, it does not matter who you are or what position you have in life, you are entitled to walk our streets and be safe. You are entitled not to be assaulted in a public place, particularly, and we are all entitled to live peacefully.

The last I heard a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, and it is outrageous that a man who is out in a public place—that anyone out in a public place—who has been assaulted is then not entitled to defend themself or their reputation. Indeed, I do support the Premier when he said that this is indeed not a conflict of interest. Victims are entitled to defend themselves.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Has the honourable minister finished her answer?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just to remind the house, people are innocent until proven guilty, and one is not required in this country, thank goodness, to be assumed guilty until their innocence is proven. As I said, people should be entitled to walk our streets, engage in public activity and enjoy the amenities of this city and state and do so in a peaceful way. They are entitled to do that in a way where they are not bashed or assaulted. It is a disgrace that the honourable member would bring such a despicable question to this place.