Sustainability, Environment and Conservation Minister

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:50): The sad reality of governments that have been in for a long time is the creeping arrogance of the ministers that is demonstrated. We see it here on a daily basis when parliament sits in question time from all ministers, but in particular in recent times perhaps the worst example has been the performance of minister Hunter where, when the most reasonable of questions might be asked by any member of the Legislative Council, the minister refuses not only to answer the question but then to engage in a diatribe on a completely unrelated and distant subject.

It is one thing to see that arrogance in the treatment of other members of parliament as perhaps being fair game, but sadly what we are now seeing from minister Hunter is that that arrogance has now crept into his treatment of real people outside Parliament House in the management of his portfolios.

We see now not only journalists, community representatives and many others, but also being joined by Labor MPs, quietly, and staffers, commenting on minister Hunter's creeping arrogance, the fact that he has been out of touch on so many issues, and his unwillingness to engage with real people in terms of communicating the government's message in whatever portfolio he happens to preside. This comes from a person who claims that he is a scientist and takes all decisions on the basis of science, who claims to be intellectually superior to most other human beings and MPs, yet refers to the internet as 'that interweb thing'.

This minister has a sorry record for non-performance across all the portfolios for which he has had responsibility. He has lurched from crisis to crisis, whether it has been in terms of Clovelly Park contamination, management of the APY lands and Aboriginal affairs or, more recently, in relation to the performance of SA Water. This is the minister—I think perhaps the only minister—who has had two successful no-confidence motions moved against him on his performance in the space of a period of less than 12 months.

At the end of the Clovelly Park issue, and subsequent to that, Daniel Wills, the state political editor, commented as follows, in an article headed, 'What was a drip could well become a torrent':

Mr Hunter wore a lot of bumps and bruises over the Clovelly Park groundwater contamination scare for failing to rapidly grasp the level of community angst. He made the frustration worse with bureaucratic garble and the promise he made to co-design a new engagement paradigm.

Mr Hunter's big problem again is ignorance of the size of community frustration. Telling people stuck in traffic or having had properties smashed by flying bitumen that their concern is misguided is a sure fire way to attract accusations of being out of touch.

There has been a litany of headlines in relation to the minister's recent performance in terms of SA Water: 'Hunter digs himself deeper into disarray. Q. Which is sinking faster? A. This excavator. B. The career of our under-siege Water Minister'; 'Will Hunter fix this mess? That's just a pipe dream'; 'Hapless Hunter digging a deep hole for Labor'; 'Minister out of his depth on water torture', and many, many others to which one could refer. The Advertiser editorialised:

Water minister Ian Hunter is now in open defiance of Premier Jay Weatherill over his refusal to show any real concern for people affected by burst water mains.

This kamikaze-like behaviour has made him the subject of anger and ridicule—from both the general public and inside his party.

The Advertiser at the end of last year, in terms of their annual report card on the minister's performance, listing him at an almost equal low of 4/10, said:

He is said to have been a reluctant minister and looks it. Lost Aboriginal affairs in a reshuffle, and departed the portfolio leaving a mess to clean up. He also got into a tangle over comments about a possible state-based carbon tax and was forced to rule out a proposal in his own rubbish industry reform plan the day after it was published.

That does not even refer to the mess he made of the Clovelly Park contamination incident and the more recent problem in relation to managing leaks and SA Water and water management. Whilst it might be argued that it is in the best interests of the Liberal Party that minister Hunter stays in his portfolios for ever and a day, and long might he continue, I have to say and we have to say that we would like to put the state's interests first and that perhaps it would be in the state's best interests if Mr Hunter resigned, and if he didn't, if he were sacked.