<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2011-07-06" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3319" />
  <endPage num="3394" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Burnside Council</name>
      <page num="3348" />
      <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000447">
        <heading>BURNSIDE COUNCIL</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="3164" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2011-07-06">
            <name>BURNSIDE COUNCIL</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2011-07-06T15:21:00" />
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000448">
          <timeStamp time="2011-07-06T15:21:00" />
          <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:21):</by>  I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question relating to the Burnside council.</text>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000449">Leave granted. </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3164" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000450">
          <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  On 28 June 2011 the Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered a judgement in relation to the Burnside council investigation. The Full Court stated in its judgement that:</text>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000451">
          <inserted>It is in the public interest that Mr MacPherson complete his inquiry and report to the Minister, as soon as practicable, on matters within the scope of the Terms of Reference as limited by the Court. The difficulties confronting him in doing so will have to be dealt with, if and when they arise. The orders claimed by the plaintiffs do not prevent him from reporting to the Minister, if he can do so, relying on material on which he is entitled to rely.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000452">Another part of the judgement urges Mr MacPherson to 'complete his inquiry and report to the minister as soon as practicable'. Yet, today the government cancelled the inquiry after more than $1.5 million and after 96 weeks. I ask the minister: why does the government disagree with the Supreme Court that the Burnside inquiry should be completed, thereby leaving the residents of Burnside in the dark about the goings-on in its own council?</text>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000453">Secondly, given that the draft report of the Burnside investigator reportedly contained evidence of criminal conduct, what action will the minister take to ensure that any matters that could give rise to a criminal charge have been or will immediately be referred to the police for further investigation and possible prosecution?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3125" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations</electorate>
        <startTime time="2011-07-06T14:23:00" />
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000454">
          <timeStamp time="2011-07-06T14:23:00" />
          <by role="member" id="3125">The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:23):</by>  First of all, regarding the judgement of the full bench of the Supreme Court which talked about it being in the public interest for Ken MacPherson to finish the report, what the judge was saying in the verdict was the fact that, because there was a new, more narrow term of reference, it was probably in the public interest for him to 'de-strand' the evidence already taken under those terms of reference that were made invalid and remove it, instead of starting the investigation all over again.</text>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000455">He basically wanted the investigation to be completed at a much quicker pace. The problem we have is that, to do that and to 'de-strand' any evidence that was given with regard to those invalid terms of reference, what would happen is that first of all he may have to re-interview some of the people who were involved—bearing in mind that none of those people are now back on the council.</text>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000456">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="36">The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3125" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000457">
          <by role="member" id="3125">The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY:</by>  None of those people—ex-councillors or the ex-mayor—are back on the council. Secondly, the—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. Lucas</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000458">
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. Lucas:</by>  'I've forgotten the second point now.'</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3125" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000459">
          <by role="member" id="3125">The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY:</by>  No.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. Lucas</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000460">
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. Lucas:</by>  Quickly, someone suggest it!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3125" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000461">
          <by role="member" id="3125">The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY:</by>  Secondly, it is not necessarily going to follow that these people will cooperate with the investigator. I have to make a decision eventually on how much we are going to spend on this report. I have to take into consideration myself—no-one else but me—that there are no longer any councillors on the City of Burnside council. So, I have made the decision to end the report as of now. That does not contravene anything with regard to the judgement that was handed down by the Full Court of the Supreme Court.</text>
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000462">When you are talking about criminality, a lot of the allegations that were investigated by the investigator were already referred to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the police, and they found no evidence or no basis to continue on with any action. At the end of the day, once this is all over and done with, I will be talking with the LGA, looking at some of the issues in the broader context of local government and looking at the Local Government Act to see if we can do something that would prevent this sort of thing occurring in the future.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <page num="3349" />
        <text id="201107061fa68125f4734468b0000463">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:</by>  The Hon. Mr Wade has a supplementary question.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>