Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Ministerial Appointments MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:35): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier, a question about ministerial appointments. Leave granted. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Paterson & Ors v MacPherson & Anor, Chief Justice Doyle, supported by Justice Peek, said that minister Gago's letter to Burnside council of 22 July is not well expressed. He also states: Unfortunately, the Notice of Appointment is also apt to confuse. It appears to refer to a belief by the Minister relating to unspecified circumstances and perhaps all provisions of the LGA. In this respect it is poorly expressed. Elsewhere, he states: Nevertheless, the letter of 22 July 2009, the Notice of Appointment and the Terms of Reference fall short of what could and should have been achieved in terms of precision. In the same judgement, he states: The focus by the Minister on such a general provision is unfortunate, but that is what the Minister has chosen. He draws the following conclusion: No-one can suggest that this is a satisfactory outcome. It is regrettable that all this time has passed, the completion of the investigation not having been achieved. However, the problems begin with the manner in which the Minister has expressed her belief for the purposes of s272(1), and then continue with the manner in which the Notice of Appointment and Terms of Reference are expressed; it is not surprising, when one reflects on the manner in which these documents are written, and the nature of the issues that thereby arose, that things have got to this stage. Given the minister's failure to get right any of the three documents for the Burnside council investigation, I ask the Premier, through the leader: 1.	Does the Premier have confidence in the minister's capacity to discharge her responsibilities? 2.	Will the Premier follow the Westminster tradition, hold the minister accountable for the Burnside debacle and demand her resignation? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council 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 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) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for his questions. I cannot believe that he can stand there and ask those questions without a smile on his face. What a hypocrite! What an absolute hypocrite! We are in this place week after week, where he and others demanded that an investigation occur—absolutely insisted that this investigation take place. What is more, he wanted all sorts of corners cut at the time and all sorts of potentially disrespectful conduct towards the courts, as well. Once the court had made decisions about the state of the report, the member came in here insisting that I not abide by those directions, so it is absolutely outrageous that I stand here today listening to the drivel from the honourable member. I think this matter goes before the court again tomorrow. There are matters still unresolved, and it is most important that nothing is stated at this point that could prejudice those unresolved matters. However, what I can put on the record today is that indeed all the decisions—and I emphasise 'all the decisions'—that I made in my former role as Minister for State/Local Government Relations in relation to this investigation were made on the basis of legal advice, and that includes the terms of reference. Let me put on the record that that was legal advice I did follow; so I can emphasise that. It is quite clear that I would have been derelict in my responsibility if I had not progressed to put an investigation in place—I would have simply been derelict. I did proceed to put an investigation in place. I did that in the best of good faith and, as I said, in regard to all of the legal advice that was afforded to me. At this point in time, that is probably all that I want to put on the record. I know the Minister for State/Local Government Relations will be making further statements after the court proceedings. I stand here in all good conscience, noting that, in good faith, I did progress the matter as expeditiously as I possibly could following the legal advice that was afforded to me.