No-Confidence Motion

MINISTER FOR STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:20): I move:

That this council has no confidence in the Minister for State/Local Government Relations in light of his incompetent management of the Burnside council investigation.

As members would be aware, these types of events usually last an hour. Mr President, I suggest today that the opposition use 20 minutes of that hour, the cross-benchers and the Independent parties have available 20 minutes of that hour, and of course the government have 20 minutes available. I ask if the clock can be started just to keep people on track for time.

The PRESIDENT: There is a clock up there. If you cannot tell the time I am happy to tell it for you.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you, Mr President, if you are not prepared to have the clock switched on. This is the first time in almost 30 years that this house of parliament has moved a motion of no confidence in a minister, either a Liberal minister or a Labor minister. The Hon. Russell Wortley has been a minister for just over a month; in fact, this is only his fifth day in this parliament as a minister. In fact, it has taken only four days of his performance for this parliament and this Legislative Council to arrive at a decision that we have to have a no-confidence motion here today.

What sort of a minister is it that is not game to read a report—cannot trust himself to read a report for fear he might leak the information out of that report? We know that cabinet ministers are faced with a whole range of confidential documents—cabinet documents, documents that are commercial in confidence and other confidential information that goes to cabinet—yet this minister has publicly said that he cannot trust himself to read any document for fear of letting information out. He is clearly not fit to be a minister.

The evidence shows that the minister is guilty of grave misconduct—of behaviour totally unacceptable to any government of whatever political persuasion, Liberal, Labor or any mix of coalition. He stopped the legally-constituted inquiry into the serious allegations involving the Burnside council and, as members would know, at least one senior QC has an opinion that there is nothing in the Local Government Act that gives him the power to do so. An eminent legal opinion is that the minister does not have the legal authority; that is, Kevin Borick QC says that it is illegal to stop this inquiry, but the minister does not think so.

We cannot have a minister—any minister in any parliament—who puts himself above the law. The minister claimed in parliament that he has his own legal advice that he could stop the inquiry, but what sort of advice is it? Is it written or oral, was it formal and will it hold up in court? He does not even have the courage to table that opinion in this place. He has told this house that it was his decision and his decision alone.

He confirmed yesterday, or earlier this week, that he did not talk to the Premier, the Deputy Premier or the Attorney-General. He did not even speak to the other cabinet members, some of whom, Mr President, as you would know, have had more than 10 years' experience of being ministers. You would think that anybody worthy of their job would have sought some advice.

He did not even speak to his own leader in this place, the Hon. Gail Gago. Of course, as we can all recall, she was the minister for state/local government relations who instigated this report. They are only a matter of a metre and half apart, yet he has not even spoken to her. Quite surprisingly, he did not even talk to his close factional colleague, the former leader of the government and also the former minister for state/local government relations in this place, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, who is only a metre or so behind him.

Most shamefully, he has not spoken to the Burnside community and the Burnside residents, the people who are most affected by a poorly performing council. The decisions around the Burnside council will impact on the local residents in Burnside, and shamefully he has not spoken to the residents of Burnside—a disgraceful decision taken for political reasons to end the inquiry.

The Attorney-General fears that it may have been political motivations that were involved. The Premier and Attorney-General said that it should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but the minister did not send it—he knew better. The minister told the parliament in the last sitting week that all the information had been sent to the Anti-Corruption Branch, yet this week he said, 'Oh, no, actually that didn't happen; the police commissioner invited me to send it to him.' Really, what has been going on: a minister who has been in the job four days and he does not even know what day it was.

Interestingly, on Tuesday he could not remember that he had signed a letter on Monday to the police commissioner. It is a joke that a minister has reached a point where, after four days of his performance in this place, the Legislative Council feels that it is compelled to move a motion of no-confidence in him.

The minister has made unsubstantiated, very serious allegations against members of this chamber. He has accused them of criminal acts. On Tuesday he accused the shadow attorney-general (Hon. Stephen Wade), the Hon. Ann Bressington and me of breaking a suppression order. That would be contempt of court—a gaolable offence. He accused me of criminal behaviour. He has not withdrawn, he has not apologised for calling three MPs guilty of criminal behaviour. He should produce the evidence that I am in contempt of court and that the others are in contempt of court or immediately resign, without even waiting for the result of this motion.

The honourable thing for him to do would be to leave this ministry voluntarily. But, Mr President, as you know—and you have known the Hon. Russell Wortley for some time—he has not got the strength of character to do that. The Labor Party knows what sort of man it appointed. That is why it took the government so long to replace the Hon. Bernard Finnigan when he resigned some months ago. What sort of character is the Hon. Russell Wortley? What sort of man is he?

I said at the time when the Hon. Bernard Finnigan become leader—and he would remember from his old farming days down on the dairy farm in the South-East—that the thickest cream eventually rises to the top. The Hon. Russell Wortley is minister because, as we all know, he is the Steven Bradbury of the Labor Party. He was the last man standing—there was nobody left. You can see why. This is a man who has a $10,000 phone bill in just one month.

It was interesting that on Tuesday the minister started to mock the Hon. Ann Bressington for being too preoccupied with Lord Monckton. I am reliably informed that on 4 February 2010 the Hon. Russell Wortley took his personal assistant out to lunch with Lord Monckton.

Yesterday he revealed that he did not even know the name of the Local Government Association president. This is an organisation which is the third tier of government, an organisation which is a large part of the minister's responsibilities, in fact, an organisation with some 10,000 employees and which is responsible for about $4 billion in rate revenue. Clearly a minister who is not capable of doing the job or being across his portfolio.

The Westminster parliament must have standards of accountability. On Tuesday he falsely claimed in this chamber that three MPs, including me, had broken the law. He said, 'You can laugh, scream, call me a bitch if you wish.' Nobody finds that funny; in fact, it demeans the parliament. We do not call him the bitch, we call him unworthy of the holding a commission from the Crown to be a minister.

The public must have trust that the ministerial legal processes are not thwarted for political reasons or to protect their mates. The community must have confidence that a minister will discharge their duties with integrity. The real question here is parliament and the public's trust. This minister has broken that trust. He has clearly demonstrated in just a few short weeks that he does not have the capacity or the integrity to do this particular job.

On behalf of the more than one million South Australian voters and the 700,000 or thereabouts voters who did not vote Labor at the last election in the Legislative Council, and on behalf of decency, honesty and Westminster democracy, we have no choice: we must vote one way. I urge all members in this chamber—and that includes members of the ALP—to support a motion of no-confidence in the Hon. Russell Wortley.

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) (14:29): I rise to oppose what is clearly a political stunt organised by the opposition, and a disgraceful waste of taxpayers' money. Nevertheless, I briefly want to start with a little bit of history about the investigation, particularly during the period of 24 July 2008 to 7 February 2011, when I was the state/local government relations minister responsible for administering the Local Government Act.

Members would be aware of the disquiet around Burnside council during that time, which resulted in calls or howls for investigation. There was widespread support for the call for an investigation of the Burnside council. In fact, demands were made by members opposite me, and other members in this chamber—strident demands—and insistence that an investigation take place. In the face of these demands the government would have been negligent if it had failed to take heed of the disquiet expressed by residents and members of parliament.

The responsible agency, the Office for State/Local Government Relations, provided advice and sought information from the council—all of those things are already on the public record. As the responsible minister at the time, I received legal advice and advice from my agency and carefully considered that advice and, indeed, followed that advice in my actions in relation to the Burnside council.

Of course, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations clearly does not have untrammelled power in relation to matters of council. We must act, obviously, in accordance with the relevant acts. I certainly did take all reasonable steps required by the Local Government Act, particularly in relation to section 727. I considered the submissions of the council and took advice from my agency. I had genuine reason to believe that the council had failed to fulfil its obligations under the act, and on the basis of that belief I instigated an investigation. I took those steps in good faith and I continued to seek legal advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office, which I received and acted on.

As an aside, there have been calls in this place for this type of ministerial legal advice to be released and publicly tabled. However, my understanding is that all legal advice sought by the government is, obviously, privileged; and the purpose of legal privilege is to ensure that the client (in this case, the government) receives full, frank and fearless advice. Therefore, the advice should not be made public as it could have the effect of censuring lawyers' advice or, in the worst case, preventing a client from being frank about their circumstances to their lawyer. That, indeed, would hinder the proper administration of justice and I do not believe any members here would want to do that.

In July 2009 I appointed Mr Ken MacPherson to conduct an independent investigation into the City of Burnside. I asked him to look at whether the council had contravened or failed to comply with, or failed to discharge, a responsibility under the Local Government Act (under which this was undertaken, as you are all well aware—it is all on the record). In response to the investigator's draft report, the matter was then taken to court by a number of the then Burnside councillors, seeking a judicial review of the establishment of that inquiry.

Since then, I have handed over the state/local government relations portfolio. That review process is being conducted by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court. This has resulted in a finding in relation to the terms of reference, and some of those references were found to be invalid and the suppression of the draft provisional report was made. As we know, a suppression order means that the draft report cannot be circulated, referred to or published. To do so would contravene an order of the highest court.

That is all history now, Mr President. All said and done, the good news is that the problem which the investigation set out to examine no longer exists. This is because the electors of Burnside voted for an entirely new council and those involved in the complaint are no longer on the council. The council is new and the feedback to date indicates that they are indeed operating extremely well and need to be congratulated for that.

The lessons of the Burnside matter have also been addressed through the government's public integrity review process. The Attorney-General and the minister have said that work through the new Office for Public Integrity will address issues around local government and will streamline and improve many of those processes.

Minister Wortley now as the Minister for State/Local Government Relations has advised this chamber of his deliberations in relation to the Burnside council matter. The minister has made the decision to disband the inquiry based on legal advice, the facts as they stand and the work done so far. He has made this decision in good faith. He is making sure that we do not expend further moneys unnecessarily in a retrospective, academic exercise, and that is what a responsible minister should do: take account of the facts and advice, make sure that public moneys are not spent unnecessarily, and that is indeed a prudent and proper thing to do.

In summary, the problem that was under investigation no longer exists. Steps are being taken to improve processes through our public integrity mechanisms and we are avoiding unnecessary future spending of public money. The minister has confirmed that any matters that might be of a criminal nature will be examined by the Crown Solicitor's Office and, if any material requires further action, referred to the DPP.

The Minister for State/Local Government Relations has acted in good faith and, based on legal advice, made decisions based on the best public interest. That is what a responsible minister should do and has done in this case. This motion before us today should be a motion of congratulations, not condemnation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:37): Let us pause for a moment to reflect on the extraordinary position we are in today. Today is extraordinary because the Legislative Council rarely passes judgement on a minister. Today is extraordinary because we are reflecting on the confidence in a minister who was only recently appointed. This motion expresses a lack of confidence in a minister who has been a minister for merely 35 calendar days. He is only halfway through his second sitting parliamentary week.

It is unprecedented for a minister to face a vote of no confidence on his fifth parliamentary sitting day. You might say, well, 'Are we being fair? Has he been there long enough for us to pass judgement?' I say, yes, we can make a judgement, because every member of this council knew that he was not appointable before he was appointed. Everything that has happened since lies testament to that fact.

When Labor was looking to replace the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, I had a chat with a Labor member. I said that if the Labor caucus appointed the Hon. Russell Wortley as a minister, I would move a vote of no confidence against him on the first day. The member responded, 'Not if I do first.' I apologise to this council that I am four days late.

This is the man who allowed his taxpayer-funded mobile phone to be used to run up a $10,000 phone bill downloading games. This is the man who continually disrupts the chamber because he has not learned how to turn off his mobile phone. This is the man who was the chair of the Atkinson-Ashbourne select committee when a dodgy draft was leaked to the media.

The Hon. Russell Wortley was a retiring union leader looking for a pork barrel. His first and greatest policy interest in this place has been parliamentary superannuation, but the plan for a quiet life went belly up when he was the only member of the right left standing after a string of resignations. The ALP caucus knew that he was not worthy of being a minister. It left the Hon. Bernard's Finnigan's vacancy unfilled for 63 days as it frantically explored every conceivable alternative to appointing the Hon. Russell Wortley as a minister. Rather than appoint on merit, the right appointed the unappointable.

On 24 June, the Hon. Russell Wortley was inevitably appointed as a minister. Even the appointment showed the government's lack of confidence in the decision. The Premier gave him industrial relations, but rescued workers compensation and WorkCover. Now the Attorney-General is talking about taking back the Burnside council. Industrial relations without WorkCover; local government without Burnside—where will it end?

The appointment of the Hon. Russell Wortley is a defining event in the nine-year span of the Rann Labor government. It shows the lack of authority of the Premier; it shows the shallow talent pool in the Labor team, particularly in this place; and it shows that factions matter more than merit.

So, what of the Hon. Russell Wortley's performance since becoming a minister? We know that the minister will claim that he inherited a mess. That may be true, but he did not have to make the situation worse. In one short month, the honourable minister has taken the Burnside council case from being a complex, sensitive one, to being a disaster zone, where the public no longer trusts a word this minister says.

We should honour the judgement of the South Australian community and express our lack of confidence too. I ask the Legislative Council, based on his performance thus far, can the council have any confidence that he will be able to discharge the duties of a minister of the Crown? I ask the council, can we have any confidence in this minister that he will be able to find a way to de-strand the mess that he has put us in?

We should not have any more confidence in this minister than his ministerial colleagues. Answers in question time yesterday indicated that the Premier did not consult the minister before announcing on Friday that the MacPherson inquiry report would go to the police commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions, in addition to the ACB. The Attorney-General is openly speculating about taking the Burnside issue off the minister.

One of the key reasons to appoint a second minister in this place was to help carry the legislative load, yet the minister has not even been trusted with a single bill since he was appointed. The fact is the public does not have confidence in this minister, the government does not have confidence in this minister, so the council cannot have confidence in this minister.

I would like to reflect now on aspects of the minister's performance to show that he is not fit to be a minister and why he lacks the confidence of this place. Firstly, the minister is recklessly arrogant. On his first parliamentary sitting day, nearly 13 days after his appointment, he announced his decision to terminate the investigation into the Burnside council.

The minister has asserted repeatedly that the decision to terminate the Burnside council investigation was his decision and his decision alone. What has now become clear is that it was not only taken alone, it was taken in isolation of the facts and without advice. The arrogance of the minister is breathtaking.

The minister decided the allegations were petty and the investigation should be terminated without even having read the report. The minister decided that the investigation could not be salvaged without even having spoken to the investigator, Mr MacPherson. He decided the allegations of criminal conduct should be disregarded even though the investigation into them had not been concluded.

He was so arrogant that he did not even consult any of his cabinet colleagues before making the decision. He was so arrogant he asserted that: no-one cares about Burnside, in or out of Burnside. He was effectively saying, 'I don't care about Burnside, therefore no-one does.' There is a sense of tragedy when a person overestimates their own abilities, but we are the fools if we allow them to continue to operate beyond their competence.

Secondly, the minister lacks judgement. Let us for a moment imagine that the decision to terminate the MacPherson investigation was the right one. What if he did have the legal authority to terminate? Still, the way the minister undertook the termination of the investigation showed a complete lack of regard for proper process and planning.

When he announced the termination of the investigation on 6 July his only next step, the only step that he said he would take, would be to engage the Local Government Association on lessons to be learnt for the reform of local government. It is not clear what they are going to talk about considering that they do not have a copy of the report and he will not read his.

There was no sign of an exit strategy to manage the range of other unresolved issues. It was only last Tuesday 19 July, a couple of hours after a grilling on ABC radio, that he belatedly announced he was going to refer the draft MacPherson report to the Crown Solicitor's Office. He had not spoken to the Attorney-General about the plan. For his part, the Attorney-General had not informed the minister that he had already had Solicitor-General advice on the same issue.

The minister intended for the DPP to prepare a case for a prosecution on a partially completed investigation when there is a question mark over the admissibility of the evidence. The minister's lack of judgement in this situation has made a bad situation worse.

Thirdly, the minister has a lack of regard for accountability and for this parliament. The minister's parliamentary performances thus far have been characterised by rambling statements which show a reckless indifference as to whether the statements are true or misleading. For example, in his first two sitting days he made a number of inconsistent statements on whether or not the Anti-Corruption Branch of SA Police had received a copy of the draft investigation report.

I am willing to accept that, amongst the range of statements the minister made, he might have got one right; I just do not know which one. Not only did he fail to return to the council to provide a personal explanation but, in the two weeks since then, he has not corrected the record. It was only last Thursday after the police commissioner revealed that the report had not gone to the Anti-Corruption Branch that the minister saw fit to make a public statement on this issue. He had time to do a photo shoot in Rundle Mall but he could only manage a press release on this issue.

The press release focused on one narrow statement but failed to take the opportunity to correct the other statements on the record and clarify the central issue of what in fact has gone to the ACB. At a parliamentary level I consider that the minister has shown his disdain for this parliament by the casual way he approached parliament this week. Let us remember the context. A week ago, after a week of stunning revelations, there was a widespread view that the minister had a case to answer. Five days before parliament resumed, Ten News journalist Adam Todd tweeted:

Mr Wortley facing calls to resign over handling of Burnside affair. Facing possible censure motion for misleading parli.

I was fully expecting that the minister would come into this council and provide a long and carefully worded ministerial statement to put his case but, when the council sat, it was as though the minister had only just noticed the sitting day in his diary. The minister stumbled and stammered through one of the worst parliamentary performances I have ever seen. The minister's lack of preparation was an insult to the people of South Australia, this council and the parliament. He has no right to our confidence.

Fourthly, the minister has a lack of regard for public integrity. The fact that the minister was happy to close down an investigation without any exit strategy or any strategy to deal with the outstanding elements of the allegations shows the low priority that he puts on maintaining adequate standards of public integrity and administration. He is not alone in the Rann Labor government in that regard, but today's motion is about this minister. He needed an exit strategy.

There are at least 26 copies of the draft investigation report in circulation. We do not know how many copies of those copies have been made. We know that both major newspapers in this state have indicated they have copies. There have been threats of release of the material on WikiLeaks. Did the minister seriously believe that the report would stay out of the public domain if he failed to effectively deal with the allegations? The level of frustration amongst stakeholders is acute. The minister's failure to act risked exposing innocent people who have been named in the report being faced with allegations made public without the investigation being concluded.

The minister has described the allegations as petty and minor. He bragged that he knew from his local government experience that the Burnside allegations were normal. Reportedly, the investigator recommended criminal charges. The police commissioner thought the matter serious enough that it should be referred to the Anti-Corruption Branch, yet the minister was happy to bury the report. This speaks volumes of the low standards of this government and this minister.

Fifthly, I say that this council can have no confidence in this minister because he has shown that he is incompetent. His incompetence is shown by the fact that he does not know his responsibilities and those of other key stakeholders. He purported to close an investigation when independent legal advice suggests that he did not have the power. He decided to refer an unfinished investigation to the DPP when the DPP is a prosecutor, not an investigator.

He is incompetent because he cannot trust himself with confidential matters. A minister who week after week would be entrusted with confidential cabinet submissions cannot trust himself with confidential material. How does he expect other people to trust him when he does not even trust himself? Is he going to warn people as they come in to meetings with him, 'I'd rather you didn't tell me anything confidential; that way it won't be in my head'?

He has shown his incompetence because he cannot manage simple tasks. Last week, the police commissioner suggested that he refer the draft report and associated material to the Anti-Corruption Branch because the commissioner felt that he was constrained from doing it. The minister has told the council that he referred only the draft report without the associated material and that he sent it to the commissioner, not the Anti-Corruption Branch. He cannot follow a simple request. The reason the police commissioner requested that the minister give it to the Anti-Corruption Branch was that the commissioner was of the view that he could not, yet the minister sends it to the commissioner. The commissioner requested that the report and the associated material be referred; the minister only referred the report.

Yesterday, the minister seemed oblivious to the Premier's commitment on Friday, reiterated in the House of Assembly on Tuesday, that the draft investigation report be referred to the police commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Yesterday, he could not even name the President of the Local Government Association, the peak body in his portfolio, in spite of the fact that he issued a press release welcoming him to the post a month earlier and in spite of the fact that he had met personally with the president the day before he made the statement.

On Tuesday, he could not even remember that he had signed a letter to the police commissioner the day before. Yesterday, in response to a question of the Hon. John Dawkins on audit committees for local government regional subsidiaries, he gave a commitment to expedite the matter. He seemed blissfully unaware that he had signed letters on this very issue the week prior. The minister is also lacking in competence in his ability to make decisions.

Earlier this week, the Local Government Association met with the minister and vigorously conveyed its frustration at the lack of a decision on the Local Government Disaster Fund. Recent disasters are likely to strain the fund, and yet the minister has failed to deal urgently with an urgent situation. He has time to do photo shoots; he does not have time to do his job.

I have put five strong arguments, five strong grounds, as to why this council should have no confidence in the Minister for State/Local Government Relations: firstly, the minister is arrogant; secondly, the minister lacks judgement; thirdly, the minister has a low regard for accountability and this parliament; fourthly, the minister has a lack of regard for public integrity; and, fifthly, because he is incompetent.

This chamber is a respectful place. We are tolerant and patient to the point that our colleagues in the other place often accuse us of being timid. The opposition is not moving this motion lightly, and we know that members will not support it lightly, but we need to ask ourselves: if we have lost confidence in this minister, if the people of this state have lost confidence in this minister and there is no reasonable prospect of that confidence being recovered, we fail in our duty to the wider South Australian community if we do not speak the truth—and the truth is that this council can have no confidence in this minister.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (14:52): I rise to of course oppose this very silly motion which, I must say, is completely farcical in its underlying motivation. We all know why we are here today discussing this motion. We all know why we are going through the motions: because the Liberals have had two days of question time absolutely wiped out in this place and did not get on the television news on Tuesday and Wednesday night.

The Hon. Ms Bressington stole their thunder on both nights—first of all with her expletive-laden performance on the first day and, on the second day, with a little stunt, 'My lawyer is bigger than your lawyer.' She got on the news on both nights and the Liberals got nothing, not a skerrick. That is why we are here today—because they are desperately trying to get their faces back in the paper and on the TV news and to get themselves back into the driving seat in this chamber. We should be having instead a motion of no confidence in the Liberal opposition.

Mr Wortley has come into this ministry and has been immediately handed an extremely complex issue bedevilled by Supreme Court judgements, suppression orders and a history of controversy. As the immortal bard would say, 'Who would fardels bear?' Just because he has only been a minister for a short time does not mean that he cannot draw on a wealth of experience to deal with this issue.

He became the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Minister for State/Local Government Relations and a member of Executive Council in June, but he has been a member of this place since 2006—as long or, indeed, longer than most members in this chamber today. He can bring to the important role of minister the experience of having worked—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, nearly most. He brings to this role of minister the experience of having worked as a tradesperson, a workers advocate, a community representative and a committee chair in parliament. I understand that he was elected successfully in 1987 as a councillor in the Fitzroy ward in Prospect city council, which he served on until 1993. His service as a councillor has no doubt given him an acute insight into local government at a grassroots level. Taking all this into consideration, he has become a minister and immediately handed this thorny issue.

What does he do? First, he decides that it is in the public interest not to continue to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on an inquiry that had been made fraught by a Supreme Court decision. Secondly, he seeks legal advice on what to do with the material gathered by the investigation and the draft report, which continues to be covered by a suppression order. Considering that legal advice, he determines that the material should be examined by the Crown Solicitor's Office and any evidence of wrongdoing brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions—an eminently sensible course of action. It is a logical course of action. Then, having received a letter from the Commissioner of Police inviting him to consider providing a draft of the report, the minister tells us that he decided to take up that invitation. What minister would take this course of action without carefully considering legal advice?

The accusations that have been hurled at him by the Leader of the Opposition over there, the spear carrier for the Opposition, the man who makes the key points in this debate: what have they been? Have they been about corruption? No. Have they been about a dereliction of office or of his duties? No. Did he provide any evidence that he misled the parliament? No. All there have been are accusations of his casual approach, his arrogance. Well, if arrogance is a hanging offence members of the opposition should be very careful. He has been accused of being reckless, he has been accused of being indifferent, he has been accused of not turning his phone off. Are they grounds for a no-confidence motion? I would not have thought so.

Minister Wortley quite clearly told this place that the allegations concerning the Burnside council were considered by the Anti-Corruption Branch prior to the establishment of the inquiry. Now, some people in here may have thought they were misled because they misinterpreted what he said; they misinterpreted it is a suggestion that the draft report was provided to the Anti-Corruption Branch. That is not what he said. It is quite clear that Mr Wortley said no such thing.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Next time, before you make these allegations, you should listen a little more carefully—or at the very least, read the Hansard. This leads us to the remaining accusation hurled across the chamber, that Mr Wortley acted unlawfully by terminating the inquiry. What does the Opposition rely on to make this claim? An opinion sought from a QC by the Hon. Ms Bressington. No-one has suggested that Mr. Wortley acted without carefully considering the legal advice provided to him by the Crown Solicitor's Office, as far as I can tell. As I said before, this is simply a case of 'my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer'. If you pay a QC enough money you will get exactly what you want.

Let us look at the track record of members opposite. First, during this whole process of debate, they incessantly complained about the cost of the inquiry. Day after day I sat in this chamber and heard them hurl insults across the chamber about rising costs. Then, when the decision is made to terminate it, they have the hypocrisy to demand that even more taxpayer money is spent on pursuing the issue. They want to have their cake and eat it too, of course, as oppositions always do. This is even after the people of Burnside cast their verdict and threw the council out.

This place should not be wasting any more time on these weak and, frankly, farcical slurs against a minister who, at all times, has acted in the best interests of both the residents of Burnside and, indeed, all South Australians. In closing, I say that hurt feelings of the opposition are not a proper cause for a motion of no confidence.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:58): I want to make it clear, and put on the record, that I support this motion, because, in my view, the Hon. Mr Wortley has not delivered on his responsibilities as Minister for State/Local Government Relations on the Burnside council investigation. This is not just my opinion, but the legal opinion of Kevin Borick QC that the minister's decision to terminate the Burnside investigation was unlawful, and, of course, those people in Burnside who have been adversely affected by the minister's rash and unwarranted decision to terminate this investigation.

If the minister had simply consulted with Mr MacPherson on how long it would take and how much it would cost to produce a final report, he may have made the decision to continue. Let us remember, the investigation is over and what we are now looking at is the final report. He literally made the statement that it could take millions more and years to complete, based on no information from the actual investigator. He has ignored the judgement of the Supreme Court that it is in the public interest that the investigation be completed.

He has then tried to look as though he was prepared to take action and, in my view, tried to dupe the public by referring the matter to the DPP, who cannot use the evidence in court because it is inadmissible. It has not been investigated; it has not been tried and proven. He ignored requests from the police commissioner to forward the report to the Anti-Corruption Branch—all of this without reading the report.

This is absolute incompetence, coupled with an arrogant attitude that he and he alone could whitewash this entire matter and then bury it. I do care that he makes careless accusations in this place about myself and other members being in breach of the law. They are serious accusations, and he had nothing to back them up with. That is not just hurt feelings: that, I believe, could actually be in violation of standing orders, but it was not picked up.

With the Supreme Court ruling, he cherrypicked. He has also done the parliament and the people of South Australia a huge disservice by cherrypicking one aspect of the Supreme Court ruling, and that is the suppression order on the report until the terms of reference that were deemed to be invalid had been removed and the evidence removed in relation to those terms of reference.

This is a political decision, which he admitted himself, and I believe a decision that was made based on party politics and not in the public interest and, let's face it: it is the public who pay his wages and ours. I am pleased that the Legislative Council is at last starting to be proactive in assessing and evaluating the performance of government ministers. My office sought the opinion of a prominent QC, for no cost, and the police commissioner, something the minister could have and should have done himself.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:02): My contribution will be brief. I put on the record that, in supporting this motion today, Family First wants to send a message very clearly that we are not pleased with the way in which the Burnside council situation has been handled, not necessarily just in the last few weeks since we have had a new minister but for a long period of time. This is a very serious issue and, frankly, the people of Burnside deserve better. From that perspective, we put on the record that we would like to see this matter resolved in the most open and transparent way possible from here on in.

Turning to the questions of competence with respect to this particular minister, it is my sincere view that this minister has not been in the position long enough for a genuine judgement to be made of whether or not this minister is competent. I think it is early days, frankly, and because of that, our party is not seeking his resignation. We are, however, saying to him clearly: this situation needs to be resolved, and it needs to be resolved to the satisfaction of all and particularly to the satisfaction of the people of Burnside.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (15:03): As many members are already aware, I will be abstaining from the vote today. However, I will be adding my vote to allow the vote to go ahead, obviously. I am obviously someone who believes wholeheartedly in the power of a vote and therefore not someone who takes their decision to abstain lightly. I hope very, very much that this will be one of the very few occasions, if not the only occasion, where I make this decision, so I would like to take a moment to clarify why I have come to this decision today.

I believe, of course, that there are several motivations for this motion, only one of which is the mess that has been made of the Burnside inquiry. I wholly believe that what has happened with the Burnside inquiry is not right, and I will be supporting all direct parliamentary action which seeks to rectify that. Any motion which comes before this council which looks into the scrapping of this inquiry will have my support.

Of course, the decision on Burnside was made by Mr Wortley himself, but I am not convinced that a motion of no-confidence in him will reverse or make any real difference to that decision. What this motion is really about is attacking the Hon. Mr Wortley and the government, not helping the people of Burnside to see a good outcome. It is about the Liberals trying to get one up on Labor, not about what is right for the people of this state.

While I am comfortable with attacking the government and its ministers when they do something wrong—in fact, it forms a large part of my job—I am not comfortable attacking them when there is not a useful outcome from that attack. I will attack when I think we can get a better outcome for South Australians. I will do that in the future and I have done it in the past. But, to be honest, I know that we need at least two ministers in this house, and if Mr Wortley does not take the place of that second minister I do not know who will do a better job.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Let me continue please. If we shame Mr Wortley out of this position, who will give it and us a better performance? I personally do not think anyone in this house will, and that is a sad reflection on the lack of faith I and many people in this state have in this government. It is, I believe, an opinion which many, if not most, South Australians presently share.

Mr Wortley is not doing a good job now. He needs to do a better job in the future. The government needs to put more supports and resources toward taking its role in the upper house more seriously. This is, after all, the house of review, so I am happy for any measures to be taken for the government's processes to be reviewed so that we in the house of review may do a better job of serving South Australia effectively.

It would be easy for me to support this motion, but that would be playing media politics and ignoring the real complications of this motion. I do not want to use my vote to make people like me; I want to use my vote to make a really beneficial difference for the people of South Australia. Voting for this motion would leave the government scrambling to make their ministers in this place effective, and that is not good for our state.

Voting against it would tell the government that the shabby job it is doing is good enough, and it is not good enough for our state. Therefore, my only option is to abstain. I will leave old tactics to the old parties. I am using my abstention to highlight not so much my lack of faith in the Hon. Mr Wortley but my lack of confidence in this government as a whole.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:07): Just a few words on this matter after deliberation with my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood. There are two or three key issues that need to be addressed: $2 million or more of public money has been spent on an inquiry that has now be put in the drawer with a lock and key. We also have a situation where, in a democratic society, people who have been named and shamed and slurred have a right to be able to find out whether or not the allegations and innuendo are accurate, and at this stage we have been told in this chamber that that is not to occur over and above any issues with respect to any suppression orders, etc., from the court.

Personally I would have much rather supported a privileges committee, even if there has not been a privileges committee in this chamber since 1846. Most times, when an issue is around a minister and a government, it is with a privileges committee. With a privileges committee you get an opportunity to subpoena people in camera and for selected members of parliament on that privileges committee to have a thorough and forensic look at the matters, and that is what the community really needs and that is the way I personally would have preferred this to have occurred.

Having said that, a vote of no confidence in a minister is really a censure motion against a minister, as well as a censure motion against a government. I support this motion not so much with respect to the minister, as I think he was hung out to dry by the government, even as late as Friday by the Premier, quite frankly. Let us just look at a couple of the facts. He is a new minister. Clearly anybody in government with any intelligence and experience would know that the one or possibly two really concerning issues with respect to the minister would have been WorkCover and the issues around the appalling situation regarding the whole management structure for two years of the Burnside council inquiry by Mr Ken MacPherson.

When minister Koutsantonis become a minister, because there were issues over Roxby Downs, that was removed from his responsibility. When minister Wortley as a new minister was given his portfolios, they removed WorkCover because that is a mess and a concern, so they gave it to an experienced minister. I did not even see any mentoring offered to this minister. They knew this was a delicate issue and, frankly, in the middle of this we now have the Attorney-General saying in the media publicly that he feels perhaps that he should take over this matter.

I say that if the government did that—and they had plenty of weeks to deliberate on who was going to be the replacement minister—then they should have done their homework. What it says to me is that there is ineptitude, lack of vision, energy and drive now in the whole government. The reason I am supporting this vote of no confidence is because I believe there needs to be a vote of no confidence censure motion against the government.

This minister happens to be in the middle of copping it, which is what happens in political life, particularly when you are in a ministry—I have been through some of it myself. I want to reinforce on the Hansard that, in supporting this, this is a censure motion and a vote of no confidence in the government more than a vote of no confidence in the new minister.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:10): I rise to oppose this motion in the earnest belief that the moving of such a motion reflects far more on the political nature of this place than it does on me personally. This motion is completely spurious and without substance. As minister, it has been my responsibility to deal with a very complex legal matter with a controversial history.

By way of background, I made the decision to terminate the investigation after the full bench of the Supreme Court delivered a judgement that made three of the terms of reference invalid and continued the suppression order on the draft provisional report. The outcome of the court's decision created a series of legal impediments which made continuation of the investigation very difficult, to say the least. Nevertheless, I have at all times respected the Supreme Court's decision when considering the best course of action on this matter.

Furthermore, I made the decision based on legal advice and knowing that I acted lawfully in deciding to terminate the inquiry. The decision as to whether the investigation should continue was a decision that rested with me as the minister responsible. I made that decision mindful of the advice I had received from crown law. I want to make it clear that it has never been my intention to overlook any allegations of criminality associated with the previous Burnside council.

Having again sought legal advice about the best course of action, I decided that the material gathered by the investigator should be examined by the Crown Solicitor's Office to determine whether there was any evidence that could be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for further action. Subsequently, I received a letter (which is the only correspondence I have had with the commissioner) from the Commissioner of Police, inviting me to make available to him a copy of the draft provisional report, and I did that.

After considering that invitation, last week I made the decision to refer the draft provisional report to the Commissioner of Police, and I instructed my department to make the arrangements for that to happen at the earliest opportunity. Throughout this debate, some members have made statements to the effect that the Supreme Court judgement determined that it was in the public interest for the investigation to continue. However, I ask the chamber to look at the judgement in its totality and to put this statement into context.

The court was not asked to comment on the merits of whether the investigation should continue. What the court's judgement did contemplate was whether it was in the public interest to begin the investigation again with new terms of reference, or to continue on by attempting to disentangle the parts of the draft report obtained using the invalid terms of reference. It has never been my intention to try to conceal anything or to protect anyone from prosecution.

I have clearly stated in this place that some of the allegations investigated were previously referred to the Anti-Corruption Branch before the inquiry, with no further action arising. Some members in this place may be confused in their own minds about this issue; however, throughout, I have been consistent in my statements to this place.

Local government elections occurred across the state in November last year. Not one of the previous Burnside councillors was re-elected at the 2010 election. Democracy has brought to an end the dysfunctional relations that plagued the previous council. Every decision I have made has been with the best interests of South Australian taxpayers and the residents of Burnside at the forefront of my mind. I have acted with the support of my cabinet colleagues and in the public interest.

I understand that this is an emotive issue for people. Indeed, it has certainly inflamed passions, and people feel upset about the course of action that I have taken. Nevertheless, I have not and will not pander to the interests of a small group of people who have sought to politicise this issue to suit their own agendas.

This motion does absolutely nothing to help the residents of Burnside move forward from this issue. It displays the enormous hypocrisy of those opposite who have no interest in respecting the court's decision on this matter. Today's motion is a desperate attempt by those opposite to drag this out for yet another day in the vain attempt to grab a tawdry headline in the few remaining hours left in this session of parliament. The accusations against me have not been proven, and any vote taken in this place will simply reflect the political reality of this chamber that takes any opportunity to display its hostility to the government.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:15): I thank members for their contributions. The case that this minister is incompetent and no longer has the confidence of this chamber has been clearly put. We have heard the government try to rewrite history. It must have sickened the Hon. Ian Hunter to have to come and defend his factional enemy, the Hon. Russell Wortley.

They have reinvented history and the Hon. Russell Wortley talks about the community in Burnside, yet that is the very community that he has shamefully not bothered to speak to. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your contributions and I urge you to support this motion of no confidence.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of 4 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.