Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:18): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question to the Treasurer, as the Leader of the Government in this place, on the topic of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Members would be well aware, and I am sure the Treasurer is well aware, that the royal commission report has now been handed down and its findings have been made somewhat public. However, in getting to this stage we have seen extraordinary communications between the Marshall government ministers, which have led the royal commissioner to criticise the Attorney-General as 'wrong, discourteous and inappropriate', asking for her statement to be 'completely withdrawn'.

In addition, the Treasurer has noted that while the royal commission was being undertaken the royal commissioner was being paid $10,000 a day, and has drawn public attention to a charter flight between Sydney and Bourke of some $12,000 as part of the commissioner's expenses. Finally, we note that it was reported that the royal commission report was only to be put on the Department for Environment and Water's website for some eight weeks at the initial stage. That has now, I believe, been extended to a year. My questions to the Leader of the Government in this place are:

1. Is it convention to criticise a royal commissioner in this way?

2. What role did you play, as Treasurer, in releasing individual costings of the amount the commissioner was earning per day or the costs of individual items of his expenses, such as that flight between Sydney and Bourke?

3. How long will the royal commission report be on the Department for Environment's website?

4. Why did this government not today table that royal commission report and how can we, as a council and representing the people of South Australia, expect this government to hold those royal commission recommendations with the esteem that they deserve when you have not abided by convention in the treatment of this royal commission process?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:20): I am happy to have a look at some aspects of the honourable member's question. Perhaps I misheard the honourable member's question. My understanding is the royal commission report has been made publicly available. Perhaps the question from the honourable member was about tabling in the parliament.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: It was.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to have the discussion with the honourable member as to what the difference is. It was made publicly available very soon after it was received by the government, so I don't think the government could be accused in any way of not being transparent or accountable in relation to the release of the report. I am happy to have a discussion with the honourable member as to the significance of tabling it in the house and how that assists her in considering the report, as opposed to being able to read it as quickly as she was able to when the house wasn't sitting and having it made available publicly in whatever way it was made publicly available.

In relation to the costs of the royal commission, my recollection was that I was asked a question about costs from somebody in the media. As is my wont, I am always happy to try to be open, honest, transparent and accountable. If I am asked a question, I endeavour to respond to the question, particularly when it involves the expenditure of precious taxpayers' money. I would have thought the Hon. Ms Franks and the Greens would be wholeheartedly in support of honesty, openness, transparency and accountability in terms of the expenditure of taxpayers' money.

That was my recollection; I don't think there is anyone in the community who would see answering a question and providing factual information, which no-one has challenged because they can't—it's a statement of fact as to what the costs were—in any way impugns the integrity or misleads anyone about the operations of the royal commissioner or the royal commission. I will always, to the extent that I can, answer questions openly, honestly and transparently, and I will always be, to the extent that I can, accountable for the expenditure of precious taxpayers' money.

There is no doubting that this was, as all royal commissions tend to be, a very expensive royal commission. I think subsequently there have been comparisons to the costs the former Labor government agreed to with this particular royal commissioner. The costs per day were significantly higher than other recent royal commissions, which we are all familiar with and which were eminent pieces of work by eminent former judges on very important issues. The work in most of those areas hasn't been and wasn't criticised by people in terms of the quality of the work and they were conducted at a significantly lower cost than the cost of this particular royal commission. I certainly reject any notion that answering a question from the media openly and honestly as to what the costs were in any way impugns the integrity of the royal commissioner or the royal commission.

As I said, if I have misunderstood the honourable member's question, I will correct the record later, but if the issue is in relation to the tabling of the royal commission, I will seek advice from the government to see whether or not the intention is to table it in some way. But in no way will the tabling—in my humble view, anyway—assist any greater inspection or transparency or accountability of the royal commission report given that it was made available publicly very soon after the government got it, and available not just to members of parliament but to anyone who wanted to read it.