HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

BURNSIDE COUNCIL

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:06): I want to raise some serious issues concerning the Burnside council investigation. From the outset it is clearly evident that the government, through a series of ministers, has mismanaged this whole process. I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered but I do want to make the point, again, that this investigation was to take 12 weeks to complete and now we are two years down the track and continuing to deal with it at a cost of $1.5 million. This can only be described as an absolute debacle.

The decision made by minister Wortley to terminate the investigation was his first catastrophic mistake, and since then he has lurched from one crisis to another in his management of this issue, so much so that the media are now criticising his performance. It is my observation that when a minister is first appointed the media usually cut them some slack, but the performance of this minister has been so appalling they have passed that by and are openly hammering him, and so they should.

I think that the minister believed that he would make the announcement on 6 July to terminate the investigation, run the 24 to 48 hour media cycle and the issue would disappear. We all know that has not happened. What appears to have taken place is that the minister has provided conflicting information—or, to be less polite, he has been absolutely wrong—in the statement he has made.

It is my take that the minister has been guessing at answers when asked about allegations of corruption being referred to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the police, given that information that has come to light since the minister made a statement on 6 July in the other place that all allegations of corruption have been referred to the Anti-Corruption Branch, even prior to the investigation, and that there has been no evidence presented to the Anti-Corruption Branch that warranted further investigation because the police commissioner himself has asked the minister to refer any allegations to the ACB for further investigations.

So, how can the minister say that all the allegations made in the report have already been referred to the police when the police commissioner, the most senior police officer in the state, has sought the minister to refer those allegations to the Anti-Corruption Branch for investigation The minister has been caught out, and has been trying to cover his tracks ever since—quite unsuccessfully, I might add.

Even yesterday, the minister was backtracking on previous statements. He was making statements in the other place in a feeble attempt to qualify his remarks and his answers given concerning the issues of allegations being referred to the police. Furthermore, another revelation has come to light just this morning where legal opinion has been provided by the highly respected Queen's Counsel, Mr Kevin Borick, that, in his opinion, the minister has acted unlawfully in terminating the investigation.

It is clear that the minister has not acted entirely on his own in relation to this and that the Attorney-General has his fingerprints all over this as well. The Attorney-General must explain why he kept minister Wortley in the dark about advice from the Solicitor-General regarding the MacPherson investigation. He must explain if the termination of the investigation was lawful, and he must explain why the government's only answer to this problem is to refer the matter to an as-yet non-existent public integrity office which is unlikely to be operational within the next 18 months. He must declare whether he trusts the Minister for State/Local Government Relations to handle this investigation when the minister cannot trust himself.

This is the most serious matter that the local government sector has been faced with for many years and I think it is abundantly clear that this minister is either incompetent or lazy in not apprising himself of all the facts before making statements, or he is both, that is, lazy and incompetent. He is a glaring example of why this government is failing the South Australian community and needs replacing.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Croydon! I think you need behave. I suggest you go and have a cup of coffee. The member for Mitchell.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT