Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Question Time Burnside Council BURNSIDE COUNCIL The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON Legislative Council BURNSIDE COUNCIL The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:59): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Local Government Relations questions about the investigation into the City of Burnside council. Leave granted. The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON Legislative Council The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: It was with disappointment but not with surprise that I learned of the Supreme Court's recent decision to partially quash the terms of reference for the inquiry into the Burnside city council, known as the MacPherson inquiry. I would not be the first to suggest that neither party to the court proceedings desired the release of the provisional MacPherson report. Many point to the fact that the former minister did not question the plaintiff's standing in the proceedings and opted to oppose by affidavit alone as evidence that this government was reluctant for the report to go public. Such cynicism was bolstered by the new Minister for State/Local Government Relations, who, at the press conference following the determination, argued against the continuation of the MacPherson inquiry, stating, 'One of the things that will occupy our minds is that the court of public opinion has already disposed of the former Burnside council.' Given that information provided to me suggests that the provisional MacPherson report made numerous findings of suspected criminal conduct by both former councillors and a private citizen, who I am led to believe exerted significant influence over a core group of councillors and staff, the suggestion that not being re-elected is a sufficient penalty is absurd. While the former minister stated that she would refer any findings of criminal conduct to the Anti-Corruption Branch, this now looks increasingly doubtful, given that the final report is unlikely to contain such findings following the determination of the Supreme Court. Further, given the uncertainty surrounding the future of the MacPherson inquiry, even if findings of suspected criminal activity are reported upon, this will not be for some months, if not longer. For these reasons, it is argued by some that the provisional report should be referred to the Anti-Corruption Branch posthaste so that those who did engage in corruption and offended against their positions can be held accountable for their conduct. My questions are: 1.	If some or all of the findings of suspected criminal conduct in the provisional MacPherson report now fall outside the limited terms of reference and are subsequently not included in the final report, how can the minister refer these findings to the police, as suggested? 2.	Is Mr MacPherson legally prevented by the suppression order, or otherwise, from referring his preliminary findings of suspected criminal conduct to the Anti-Corruption Branch for investigation and possible prosecution? 3.	If not, has the government instructed Mr MacPherson not to refer his findings? 4.	If not, will the government now encourage Mr MacPherson to refer his provisional report to the Anti-Corruption Branch? 5.	Why must residents of Burnside council wait for the minister to sort out the mess that is the terms of reference before those who offended whilst in office are brought to justice? 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) (15:03): Indeed, I have put on the record in this place before that the government will not be making any final statements on this inquiry until all matters are resolved before the courts. The matters are not fully resolved at this point, and therefore the minister (Hon. Patrick Conlon) has made it very clear that he will not be making any final public statements or comments about the court findings until all matters before the court are fully resolved. I understand that the last elements of that are still before the court (I think we are waiting on a decision), so we hope that all matters will be fully resolved soon and then public statements will ensue. In the meantime, I am happy to pass on the honourable member's questions to the minister in another place and bring back a response.