Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Parliamentary Committees Select Committee on Community Safety and Emergency Services in South Australia SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:31): I move: That a message be sent to the House of Assembly requesting that the Minister for Education and Child Development (Hon. J. M. Rankine), a member of the House of Assembly, be permitted to attend and give evidence before the Legislative Council Select Committee on Community Safety and Emergency Services in South Australia. I rise as Chair of the Select Committee on Community Safety and Emergency Services in South Australia to table the motion sought by the majority of members of the committee that the Hon. Jennifer Rankine MP be invited to give evidence to the committee. I note that the Liberal Party, Greens and Family First Party, by their representatives, supported it in the committee and so I expect there is a majority for this motion. Convention dictates that the council must have at least one sitting week to consider a motion—not that the government always abides by that convention; however, I advise that we will and that we will wait until the first sitting week after the winter recess, on Wednesday 11 September, to vote on this invitation. The evidence given to the committee has indicated great confusion about what the Community Safety Directorate does, what it does that the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission (SAFECOM) was not already doing and the role of the director, especially now, given that the director has been transferred to become the head of the Department for Education and Child Development. Heads of department have given evidence as to what the minister told them about the process of establishing the commission, and the committee believes and requests that the minister should have an opportunity to respond. I think it is more appropriate to go into further detail on the reasons why the committee made this decision after we have heard other members contribute to this and, as I say, I am up before it is voted on, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. I personally believe that it is fair and reasonable and essential that the minister be given an opportunity to come before the committee and explain the role of the directorate and the focus of intention the government had with this strategy, given the evidence that we have had put before us on the committee. On the other side, it is equally fair and reasonable to establish how the government was intending to appropriate funding for this because there was no appropriation funds. In fact, most of the required additional money was taken out of the police budget, albeit that it has not really been indicated at all as to where some of the other money came from. That alone is of concern, given that the police commissioner advised, in his evidence, that he had told the government that it would be one-off funding and that he had no intention to fund further, only to find that, when the government was desperate for funding, it effectively forced SAPOL into appropriating another approximately $250,000 from its budget, from which they have had $150 million worth of cuts in the forward estimates. Mr Harrison is someone I have worked with as a minister and since being a minister, from time to time, in the roles you have as a parliamentarian working with senior executives in agencies. This has nothing to do with Mr Harrison himself; he is a person of high quality and capability. It is about also asking the minister to explain the appointment process because there was no panel, there was no advertising, either state or nationally or internally within agencies or departments. There was nothing at all like that. This is a very unusual practice, particularly from a Labor government, which says that it supports the democratic right of all workers to have equal opportunity to apply for positions. That needs to be, I believe, answerable to the committee. I have been advised that select committees have requested the attendance of ministers before, as follows: The Aboriginal Lands Trust Bill, 1966-67, request for attorney-general and Mr G.G. Pearson MP to attend (leave was granted); City of Whyalla Commission Act Amendment Bill 1964, request for Mr R.R. Loveday MP to attend (leave granted); Effectiveness and Efficiency of Operations for the South Australian Timber Corporation 1988-89, request for the Hon. R.K. Abbott MP to attend (leave granted); Redevelopment of Marineland Complex and Related Matters, 1990, request for the premier (Hon. J.C. Bannon), the minister for industry, trade and technology (Hon. L.M.F. Arnold) and the minister for environment and planning (Hon. S.M. Lenehan) to attend (leave granted); and Outsourcing Functions undertaken by E&WS department in 1995-96, request for the minister for industry, manufacturing, small business and regional development (Hon. J.W. Olsen) to attend (leave not granted). I add from interstate examples, that in New South Wales ministers have been appearing before select committees since the late 2000s, and I am advised that no minister has refused an invitation to do so. The select committee on Kooragang Island/Orica chemical leak, for instance, saw the Premier and three ministers accept an invitation to appear before the committee. I quote from the Premier's evidence on 21 November 2011, not only for the purpose of this motion but for the council to consider when I shortly move another motion concerning the Debelle inquiry. Premier O'Farrell said in his opening remarks giving evidence: Premier: Thank you for the opportunity to present to this Inquiry. As you are well aware, the Government moved quickly to set up the O'Reilly inquiry into this incident at the Orica plant at Kooragang Island on August 8. That inquiry came up with nine recommendations to ensure that such incidents are handled properly in the future. All nine recommendations are being implemented by the Government. Personally, I do not see any need for this second inquiry. As I have said, the matter has been thoroughly examined by the independent inquiry headed by Brendon O'Reilly. The Premier then said: However, I am happy to put those reservations aside, partly because this is the responsibility of the Upper House, it operates separately and secondly because I want it to look at any measure which would protect the people of Stockton and, indeed, people living near any industrial and chemical area across the state. Clearly, the New South Wales Premier respects the role of the upper house and has no fear of appearing before its select committees. The New South Wales Premier has also appeared before the select committee into their election funding and disclosure arrangements. Ministers have also appeared regularly before select committees in New Zealand; for instance, on 13 June 2012, two ministers on Vote Housing and Vote Social Development. In conclusion, I encourage all members to support this motion, not only because it relates to one of the core terms of reference of the select committee, namely reference 2, which is the process leading up to the creation of the new community safety directorate and analysis of the structure and operations of the directorate, but also as a continuation of the precedents I have outlined that it is proper and appropriate to invite ministers to give evidence. They have the protection of privilege and the chair, and it is an invitation, not a demand. An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There is plenty of protection from the chair; fear not, the honourable member has no fears from the fact there will not be protection from the chair. It is very democratic. It is not a demand, because it allows the minister to decline attending if the minister does not see fit, but I would expect a fairly detailed response from the minister if she was not prepared to come and have a chance to put her points of view forward to the committee. It is an invitation I expect she would accept. I therefore commend the motion to the council. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.