HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

No-Confidence Motion

PREMIER

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (15:20): I move:

That this house no longer has confidence in the Premier of this state.

I move this motion with something of a heavy heart, not because of any sympathy—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, well may you laugh because I do it not out of any sympathy for the Premier but because he is bringing the office of the Premier and, indeed, this state into disrepute by hanging on until 20 October. I move this motion not because we expect to win it but precisely because we won't, and we won't win it because of the gobsmacking hypocrisy of those who sit opposite us, and it is a hypocrisy that needs to be exposed for everyone to see.

First, the hypocrisy of this Premier, which is evident in so many ways, from some of his earliest efforts, such as writing the pamphlet 'Uranium Play it Safe', or his coining of the phrase 'the mirage in the desert', all in reference, Madam Speaker, to the development of something you would be familiar with, and that is Roxby Downs—Roxby Downs and the whole of uranium mining in this state was something adamantly opposed by this Premier.

He wrote pamphlets, he coined phrases, he fought against it with all his being, and now he sings its praises because he is hoping, and hoping beyond hope, in fact, that Roxby Downs and the future development there will be able to drag this state back out of the abyss of debt into which he has plunged us over the 9½ years of this government.

There is, of course, a litany of aspects of the hypocrisy of this Premier, but the more recent statements, perhaps, are most telling—the statements about the Premier's intention to continue as the Premier of this state. Back on 28 July 2009, Keith Conlon said to the Premier during an interview, 'Sitting a full term is not running for the next one,' to which the Premier replied:

When I said this to The Australian they said, 'What about 2014?' I said, 'I'd like to run in 2014.' Then they came back and said, 'So, can you guarantee you'll be running in 2020?' It got silly, so, what I've said is that I will serve a full term. I'm loving the job, I'm still young and I really love what I'm doing.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Because of the interjections on that side, I cannot hear the speaker.

The SPEAKER: I am having similar problems, and I uphold that point of order. Leader of the Opposition, you will be heard in silence.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your gracious protection.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order from my right also!

Mrs REDMOND: The next statement that I have come across is on April Fool's Day last year, and maybe we should have known because it was April Fool's Day. The reporter said:

Premier, speculation doesn't go away about your future. I know you've said this a number of times but in 2014 do you seriously expect to be taking the Labor Party as leader into that election campaign?

To which the Premier responded.

Look, I can keep repeating and repeating and repeating and you can keep asking and asking and asking. I said before the election that I will lead the government into this election and serve a full four-year term, and that's exactly what I intend to do.

That is what he said on 1 April last year. Then, when interviewed at the end of last year, on 10 December, David Bevan said, 'So you're still planning to be the leader at the 2014 election?', to which the Premier replied, 'Exactly what I've said before, so there's no news stories on that one.' Notice that the language is getting a little bit more vague each time we talk about it.

Then we get to the beginning of this year, 7 January. This time it was Mike Smithson who asked the Premier, 'Mike Rann...good morning...now you say in the paper you will be around to 2014 to finish your job,' to which the Premier responded, 'I've said that all along, so there's not really anything new in that one.'

And then finally in June (this is the month before the message was delivered by certain brave souls), the month before the message was delivered, David Bevan, again, said, 'Are you going to be here in 2014?', to which the Premier replied, 'I've already said that and I'm intending to keep doing what I'm doing.' The hypocrisy of this Premier when he is given the message to decide then, well, he's not going after all.

As I said, there is a litany of instances, and all these comments. What do they tell us about this man? There is a consistency there, and the consistency is about deception. It is about the deception of the people of this state. Just as bad as the hypocrisy is this Premier's lame attempt to write his legacy in the last few weeks in the position. The reality is, if you have not done it by now, it is not going to be part of your legacy.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: You have had 9½ years to write this legacy. By the way, the legacy of politicians is not written by the politicians themselves, it is written well after the event by those who can look at it with the distance and the time to clearly assess it, unemotionally, and make a true assessment of what this government has or has not done.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg and the member for Norwood, the leader does not need your help.

Mrs REDMOND: I always need the help, and love the help, of my team, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I would hope you can speak without them.

Mrs REDMOND: Suddenly, at the end of 9½ years, this Premier wants to chalk up announcements in the hope that they are what he will be remembered for. Indeed, the one that he has planned for the very last day may indeed be one that he is well and truly remembered for, because on 20 October the Premier plans to have a great big party—a big farewell party—with none other as the special guest than Cate Blanchett. She is a wonderful actress that I admire—absolutely wonderful—but she is being brought here as the specialist guest to open the Premier's new film hub.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: What will be memorable about this event is the fact that, in the face of soaring mental health problems in this community, this Premier has chosen to destroy the Glenside mental health facility. Can I remind the Premier that some years ago, after the tragic death of Margaret Tobin, the previous director of mental health, this government chose and appointed one Dr Jonathan Phillips to be their director of mental health.

About the Glenside facility, he said, 'It is the jewel in the crown of mental health in this state and an asset that no other state can boast.' Instead of treasuring that asset—instead of making that precious jewel in the crown something that we had that no-one else could have—this government and this Premier have chosen to destroy it, in order to indulge the Premier's fantasy of a film hub there.

I do not know whether that is why the Premier is going at that particulate date, because of his date with Cate Blanchett, and that is because he wants that opening to be part of his legacy, but if it is it shows a profound lack of insight into what is important for the people of this state and this community. On the other hand, the date may have been chosen because the Premier is not being allowed by his own colleague to take the mantle he most coveted—that of becoming the state's longest-serving Labor premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: Isn't it the case that your colleagues want you gone before you can claim that title? The chosen date allows you to just take second place from Don Dunstan: supposedly someone that this Premier admires, but I am sure someone who would be turning in his grave if he could see what this government has done over its 9½ years in government. That, of course, will leave as the lasting legacy of Labor governments in this state John Bannon as the longest-serving premier, he who took us to the brink of bankruptcy—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —with the State Bank disaster. This Premier certainly will not have served as long, but will he have served as badly? At least. Will his legacy be any better? I doubt it. By staying in office, by insisting that he stay, in spite of the shoppies union—and we all know that the shoppies union decide in this country who will be the prime minister and who will be the premier of the state, but in spite of being told by the shoppies union and his colleagues that he should go, this Premier is showing utter disdain for the people of this state, and that is the true hallmark of this government.

Right now, this state is in a dire economic position. Businesses are struggling, leaving the state and closing; we cannot attract them here and we cannot retain them here, because you have gained for us the mantle of being the highest-taxing state in this country. There is a loss of confidence in this state which is palpable. We desperately need to build this state's confidence. Instead, to indulge his own petty, puerile self-interest, this Premier insists on staying in the role until 20 October. No matter that it leaves the rest of the nation bewildered at the insanity of politics in South Australia and makes us a laughing stock nation-wide. As always though self interest, and not the best interest of the state, is where this Premier will land.

This Premier has always treated the people of this state with contempt. They were simply a means for him to achieve his end. I think he was best described by Chris Kenny, who coined the phrase, 'A skeleton clothed in ambition.' To that I would add, as well as a skeleton clothed in ambition, I would coat him in a mirror coat, because he likes to reflect whatever he thinks people want to see. It was always about Mike Rann becoming Premier.

To quote American president Thomas Jefferson, 'Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.' Another American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, said, 'The opportunist thinks of me and today. The statesman thinks of us and tomorrow.' This Premier is an opportunist. But let us look at the hypocrisy of the rest of the team. Jack Snelling, the member for Playford—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order: Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We have listened in silence to the vitriol, but to accuse any member of hypocrisy is against standing orders. She did it with the Premier—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Madam, I ask you to rule; to accuse any member of hypocrisy—she did it to the Premier, and she has just done it to Jack Snelling—is against standing orders.

The SPEAKER: I will not uphold that point of order, because it was a collective term; however, I will listen very carefully to what she says, and I also remind the member to refer to people by their title and not by their name.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member for Playford, 'Jack Hammer', the so-called pugilist—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —at least the member for Playford displayed a degree of courage which everyone else lacked on the night of 29 July, when he went with Peter Malinauskas of the Shoppies' union—

Mr Pederick: Right behind him, he was.

Mrs REDMOND: Right behind him—to tell the Premier his time was up. Now, I do not have any illusions that the member for Playford was acting out of true love for Jay Weatherill (the 'Anointed One'); I think he was simply removing one more person in the path between him and the top job.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond, you are very vocal today.

Mrs REDMOND: But, I would be prepared to put money on the member for Playford showing a lack of integrity today. Having told the Premier weeks ago that the party no longer had confidence in him and he had to go, I will bet that today he will vote against this motion, which puts it out there for the public to see, that this house has no confidence in this Premier.

What about the pretender to the throne, the member for Cheltenham? How will he vote on this motion? I bet I know, and it will not be to stand up against the man he clearly despises and seeks to usurp; the man who says he needs mentoring, but excludes him at every opportunity; the man who was the subject of the member for Cheltenham's speech. Remember when the member for Cheltenham gave the speech—I think it was to the wizards and wiccans or someone—when he spoke about the need to move from 'announce and defend' politics to the 'consult and decide' mode?

I never expected the member for Cheltenham to do other than what was expedient for his own political ambition. Why would we expect him to stand up for what he truly believes on this occasion when he never has before? We know, for instance, that the member for Cheltenham was expressing to former colleagues in the legal fraternity his deep concern at the proposed changes to WorkCover legislation from 2008, which have been the subject of the report brought up by the Treasurer this afternoon.

We know that he was concerned about that, but did he do anything about it? Did he speak out about those concerns? Not once. He is nothing if not consistent. He has not spoken out once against any of the decisions of this government, and he has been a minister of the government the whole time. Of course, some might say, 'Well, you know, cabinet minister, cabinet solidarity; he can't really breach that,' but of course, this government set the precedent for breaching that. They had Jane Lomax-Smith as a minister. Remember that?

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, and when she did not want to agree this government decided, 'Oh well, cabinet solidarity doesn't matter any more.' So there is precedent among their ranks to actually be able to speak up, but did the member for Cheltenham speak out when he had the opportunity? Not once. Ambition kept him from speaking out then, and it will keep him from voting in favour of this motion today. Can you imagine if we had an honest vote? If all those who actually—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: Imagine an honest vote of all those who actually wanted the Premier gone and were prepared to vote with us on this motion! Can you really imagine that this Premier would insist on staying until 20 October if all the people who actually wanted him gone voted with us in favour of it, if he were sitting with no-one except perhaps the retiring and former treasurer, Kevin Foley? What about the others over there? What about the others? How about the Deputy Premier—he who has been passed over but who still no doubt harbours ambitions for the top job, the one many think I will actually face as Premier in 2014? He never says much, but it must smart when the right overlooks the Deputy Premier in favour of the golden boy from the left.

How will the member for Enfield vote? Does he have confidence in the Premier? How is the member for Mawson going to vote? He has obviously been doing a lot of heavy lifting and hard yards for this and for the would-be Premier, but of course he has not got a guaranteed spot as yet so he has to just do what is right for him because he does not have the ministerial guernsey to put on yet. The member for Hartley—an acolyte, a devotee of the member for Cheltenham—clearly will vote whichever way the member for Cheltenham votes. After all, the would-be Premier has made it clear that no matter how badly she performs in her current role she will be promoted to a much more senior role by the new premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: What about all those on the backbench who have over the years, outside the chamber, expressed their anger and frustration over the behaviour of this government—be it the government's decisions or the behaviour of the most senior members? Are they going to step up? Are those backbenchers going to step up and say, 'Look, I've got to be honest, I have no confidence in this Premier and I will vote accordingly'? Of course they will not because the hallmark of this government is spin, deception and dishonesty.

This government has been about expediency over effort, about spin over substance, about deception over honesty. I implore those members opposite just this once to vote according to their conscience. They have no confidence in the Premier. They have told him so, and one of them, with his hand held by someone much bigger and much stronger and much more powerful—

Mr Williams: Who was that?

Mrs REDMOND: —that was a union official named Peter Malinauskas—did actually get up the courage to go in and tell the Premier to his face. I implore those members opposite to have the courage of their convictions and actually put paid to this nonsense, vote with us in favour of this motion and have the Premier gone before 20 October.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (15:38): Was that it? It is interesting—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Norwood. Sorry; I missed that, Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I was merely going to take a point of order. We listened to that vitriol in silence; could we get the same courtesy from that side?

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Can I just say that over the last 26 years that I have been in this parliament I have seen many no-confidence motions. This was the most dismal. Of course, there has been a big build-up. They have been telling the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order: Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Again I point out that we had the courtesy to listen to their apparently important motion in silence; they may do the same thing. It would just be courtesy.

The SPEAKER: I uphold that.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Of course, they have been telling the media they had it. This was going to be the big day, a ferocious attack, and that was it: Isobel in Wonderland. Can I just say this—that for 9½ years—

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mr PISONI: Members must be referred to by their constituencies or their titles.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I have already reminded people of that, and I remind the Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: For 9½ years, I have been waiting. I have been waiting week after week, day after day, month after month, year after year—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —for the Leader of the Opposition to move a no-confidence motion in me—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Bragg.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —to ask me to resign. Well, she has today—after I have already announced that I am resigning. I am pleased with her obsession with me. It is almost somewhat comforting. In fact, as Don Dunstan once said, 'Your enmity towards me gives me enduring comfort.'

But I know what it is about. It is about a number of dates over the past few years—a date in 1997, a date when we turned you into a minority government, after you had the biggest majority ever of Singapore proportions. It is about a date in 2002, a date in 2006, a date in 2010, when you thought it was in the bag. And, of course, your anger continues. Well, keep being angry because you are going to be angry after the 2014 election as well, when Jay Weatherill, as premier, leads this government to another victory. But I've got some advice—the Leader of the Opposition has given me some advice today; I've got some advice for her.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, 104: any member must address you, Madam Speaker, and not play for the cameras.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Stuart, but I do not uphold that point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It's about the close, the member for Stuart; it was almost like, 'Will the next leader please stand up?'

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: He has.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Stuart.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Madam Speaker, I did not hear your ruling on that point of order.

The SPEAKER: I said that I will not uphold that; the Premier is aware of it. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I would like to thank future leader Pellekaan for playing my straight man. The other issue, of course, is that my advice for the Leader of the Opposition is this: she and I are the same age—born in 1953. We are the golden oldies of the parliament, along with the member for Schubert. My advice to her is that I am stepping down for a younger successor, and I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to do likewise. Let's do it together on 20 October because—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: There has been a bit of a record in this. Since the time I have been the leader of the Labor Party, we have had as leader of the Liberal Party Dean Brown (1993 to 1996), John Olsen (1996 to 2001), and Rob Kerin followed for about four months. Then we had Iain Evans (2006 to 2007) and then Martin Hamilton-Smith (2007 to 2009), and now the current Leader of the Opposition. And deputy leaders: Stephen Baker (1993 to 1996), Graham Ingerson (1996 to 1998), Rob Kerin as deputy, 1998 to 2001; Dean Brown as deputy, 2002 to 2005; Iain Evans as deputy, 2005 to 2006; Vickie Chapman, 2006 to 2009; Isobel Redmond as deputy leader for five days; Steven Griffiths, 2009 to 2010; Martin Hamilton-Smith as deputy leader, seven days; and Mitch Williams, he is still there but he came in only two votes, other than his own, and there is still doubt about whether he actually voted for himself.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I guess the message is: 16 leaders and 16 deputy leaders of the Liberal Party since I have been the leader of the Labor Party. What is this really all about? It is all because the leader has been urged to lift her game because, at about the time—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Again, I stress that we listened in courtesy to the diatribe from that side; we should be listened to.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister for Transport.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Because, at about the time that I announced that I was stepping down, she got onto the plane—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —to the tropics. She went all tropical. She went up to Port Douglas. Of course, people were saying in her own party, 'What the hell are you doing? There's a leadership change going on in the Labor Party. Why aren't you here?' No, no, no; she was going on holiday, and we're told, round the corridors of power—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —that the big man of the Liberal Party, Rob Gerard, asked her, 'Do you really want this job? Do you really want the job as premier?' So, what has happened, six weeks in the making, a bit like Hendrik Gout's speech, stream of consciousness—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —stream of bile. It is interesting that she talked about our terrible record. It is up to others to decide what our records are and what our legacies are, but I will tell you one thing: when you and I finish on 20 October, when we both step down for someone younger, I will be very happy to have my record and contribution to this state put up against yours any day of the week. She just said that the economy was in dire straits in South Australia. It was all a disaster.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: What contempt she has for the people of this state!

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. Member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: The Premier just referred to the Leader of the Opposition as 'she'.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It is not normally acceptable, but I think in the context that that was. It was the way it was phrased. It had to happen. I do not want any frivolous points of order.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: She said that we were in dire straits. Did she see last week's employment and unemployment figures? Did she see last week's employment figures, because South Australia had lower unemployment than the rest of the nation, equal second lowest in the country. There are now 132,000—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —more people in work than there were on the day that we were first sworn in in 2002. I will say this: if you want to compare records, have a look at the full-time jobs growth rate, our time compared to yours. It is about twenty times greater.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Have a look at the infrastructure.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Norwood for the second time.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Eighty billion dollars worth of projects, and you talk about mirages in the desert! Let me tell you this: I am looking forward to coming in here and introducing the legislation for the world's biggest mine.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Bragg for the second time.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Then we will compare—because basically you are anti-mining. That's what you are, you are anti-mining. We have gone from four mines—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —to eighteen mines. There are another 30 to 40 still coming. It keeps going on. The defence projects: we saw your attempt to talk them down, your attempt to white-ant us, your attempt to run up the white flag on South Australia's future, but we forced a showdown with Victoria and won the air warfare destroyers contract and we also secured the biggest project in Australian history in terms of any defence contract, with the next generation of submarines.

You say the economy is in dire straits. We entered by winning the biggest defence project in Australian history, and I will step down hopefully introducing into this parliament legislation to secure the biggest mine in world history. I will compare that record against yours any day of the week. So it goes on. In health, we have 1,200 more doctors, 56 per cent more than when we took office. We have more than 4,500 more nurses, 42 per cent more. We are building the nation's largest, most advanced hospital, the 800-bed new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Every metropolitan hospital is being rebuilt—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —or redeveloped, putting 250 extra beds into the system after you closed them. So it goes on. In law and order: in 2014 we will have 1,000 additional police, after you cut police numbers. We have upgraded and toughened virtually every aspect of the criminal law, and it absolutely irks you that a combination of a stronger economy and being tougher on law and order with more police has seen record drops in crime in this state, whereas under you it went up.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It goes on and on again. We have mentioned defence and mining. Have a look at water: we have a desal plant 100 per cent powered by renewable energy that will guarantee our water security for the next 100 years. As I said before, we have seen the electrification of the trains begin and the extension of the trams. We have seen record infrastructure growth in this state, and in the environment we easily lead the country in terms of rolling out the strongest renewable energy campaign in the country's history, with 54 per cent of Australia's wind power.

In closing, I say this to the Leader of the Opposition: you have to do better than that. I was leader of the opposition for nearly eight years—you have to perform, you have to come up with one idea, you have got to come up with one policy, you have got to develop a vision for our state's history—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Most of all—and you are the 16th leader or deputy leader I have had to deal with—you have to secure the support of the people behind you. I reckon what you will do is you will ask your deputy—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —to speak next so that it makes you look good, rather than invite one of the young ones from behind.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Sit down until we get some quiet, deputy leader. Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:50): True to form, the Premier never answers the question before him—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: The question before the house is: does the house have confidence in the Premier? The answer to that questions is, of course, no. The opposition has never had confidence in this Premier, but what is really important today is that the Labor caucus no longer has confidence in this Premier. We know for a fact that the Premier does not have the numbers to continue even until his preferred departure date, apparently early next year—notwithstanding his continual claim that he would remain until at least 2014. What can you believe when this man opens his mouth?

That brings me to the crux of this debate. The only reason we are debating this question today, the only reason this government is in turmoil today, is because of a lack of honesty. As I have already said, everyone here knows that the Premier does not enjoy the confidence of the majority of this house. What we need to ask is: why is this so? Why is it that his own party has turned on him? We know that he is not going of his own volition: he is going because his party has told him to go.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: The question is: why would they do that? The opposition has argued for the whole term of office of this government that the government, its ministers and the Premier cannot be relied on to deliver what they promise. Indeed, this government's legacy will be its record of overselling and non-delivery. This spin has been so blatant and so obvious that even members of the government have often questioned the sense of it. Unfortunately for the state, the caucus only decided to do something when it directly affected them.

Until the polls showed that the voting public had had enough, the Labor caucus was happy to put up with a poor government run by this master of spin and deception. It was only when it became evident that the public had turned that the caucus roused itself. I will give a few examples of why the public has lost confidence in this Premier, but before I do let me note some observations of others about our profession; it does aid understanding. James Thurber once wrote, 'You can fool too many of the people—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: You live by it, Premier. 'You can fool too many of the people too much of the time,' which probably caused Franklin Pierce Adams to write that 'there are too many politicians…with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time'—and there are a few of them in front of us.

This exactly describes the malaise that has beset the whole of this government's tenure. The spin has been so thick, so encompassing and so constant that this government believes its own propaganda. As others have said before, it became intoxicated in its own verbosity. It has been the public of South Australia who has said, 'This is all too much.' It has been the public that has lost confidence in this Premier and this government, and that is why now even the Labor caucus, and thus the house, no longer has confidence in this Premier.

Let us explore why the public has come to this conclusion. I recall this Premier promising that there will be no selling off of government assets under his premiership, no privatisations. By any other name, the proposal to forward sell the harvest rights of our forests is a privatisation. One hundred years of forest growth being sold is a direct contradiction of that firm and solemn promise of this Premier. Do I have to mention the Lotteries Commission or the shopfront of Tourism SA or the myriad of public assets sold by this government? When you argue that selling public assets is always wrong and promise not to do it, do not expect public forgiveness when you put the for sale signs out.

I recall this Premier promising that he would govern for all South Australians. The public took that to mean that there would not be first and second class citizens in this state. That is why they will not forgive this Premier or this government for policies attacking country communities, especially those who have the temerity to assist the health system and save the state money by operating community not-for-profit hospitals.

Country South Australia has been gutted by this government. Whether it is via country health, Shared Services, asset sales, school bus contracts, slashing the PIRSA budget or the cutting of regional development funds and crime prevention programs, regional South Australia has been a constant target of this government. To their credit, our city cousins have recognised that this is not only unfair but un-South Australian.

I recall this Premier stating that he wanted to be known and remembered as the education Premier. What we have seen is a cruel hoax played on the youth of South Australia by this government. The latest figures available from the NAPLAN testing proved that this state's education system is failing our youth, yet all we get from this government is platitudes and more spin as education outcomes decline. It is ironic that the Minister for Education, overseeing this failing system, has been picked by his colleagues to become the next premier.

I have listened too many times whilst this Premier has pontificated about our Aboriginal communities, about how as a former Aboriginal affairs minister he had a special understanding and a special bond. The truth behind the rhetoric is that we, in this first world country, have to rely on the Red Cross to deliver food parcels. I heard the minister say, 'Where are the starving children? Show me the starving children.' I could just hear the Premier saying, 'Let them eat cake.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: I recall this Premier making law and order an issue on which he wanted to be judged. 'Look at me; I'm so tough on these lawbreakers', he would say. Remember, he was going to bulldoze the bikie fortresses and obliterate them from the landscape. He could not even enact laws that would stand up to the scrutiny of the country's courts, let alone remove one brick from a bikie fortress.

He continually crowed about more police (and he did it again a few minutes ago) but we read daily that our local service areas are so undermanned that we cannot even provide a safe community in which South Australians can go about their daily lives—these and many more broken promises, all whilst turning this state into the highest taxed in the nation.

The spin is now telling us that we have the biggest infrastructure spend in history. What the spin ignores is that, when the commonwealth contributions are deducted, the spend on infrastructure is less than the debt being racked up for future generations of South Australians. Good government is not about using debt to deliver what governments should deliver from within their own means.

These examples are but a few of the litany of broken promises and disastrous decisions that have caused the public of this state to lose confidence in this Premier, and that is why his own caucus has now turned on him. Much has been said and written in this state about this Premier. I believe the most insightful and accurate summation of this man was authored by Tory Shepherd in The Advertiser on 24 November 2009. It so encapsulates the reality of this Premier and, as such, explains why he has lost the confidence of the public and his party. I wish to quote from that article. Ms Shepherd wrote:

Get mad because your government treats you with condescension. Because your Premier has such a profound and obvious aversion to straight talk.

In explaining the incident when he was struck with a magazine and his response when asked if he knew Rick Phillips, I quote:

'I've never met him before,' Mr Rann said, then added he did not know why Mr Phillips attacked him.

Ms Shepherd then stated, and I quote again:

And that one little nugget arguably encapsulates the Rann government's entire approach to the truth. Statements can be literally true and simultaneously deceptive.

She went on to explain, and again I quote:

The Rann government rarely answers questions properly. In parliament, day after day, ministers adhere to the old adage 'Listen carefully to the question, then answer the one you wish they'd asked.'

Ms Shepherd's article concludes with the following:

What does affect the State of South Australia is this constant spinning of half truths, the subterfuge and propaganda and, sadly, that culture of secrecy has already spread well beyond the Premier's office.

Madam Speaker, that is why the Premier has lost the confidence of the public, his party and this house. It is the culture of a government that is rotten.

But there is a further irony. The members opposite will not support this motion, despite its reflecting their own convictions. We do know that on 29 July the Premier was visited by his Treasurer and the SDA secretary Peter Malinauskas and informed that he no longer had the numbers. The Treasurer did not act alone: he was not a sole conspirator. His message was sanctioned by a majority of the Labor caucus. But the Premier outfoxed the boys sent to do a man's job. It was not just driven by burning ambition but by self-preservation of those caucus members.

This first day of the parliament after the winter break is the first opportunity for those who have told the Premier that he no longer has their confidence to do what their convictions tell them; but they will not vote with those convictions. The irony is that the Premier's demise is a result of a lack of honesty, a result of his no longer being believed, yet the first action of those who will replace him is to be one of dishonesty. Those who wish to replace him because he is no longer believed will today demonstrate that they are also imbued with that same culture that Tory Shepherd wrote about—the constant spinning of half truths, the subterfuge and propaganda.

The Liberal opposition in moving this motion is offering those who wish to take over this government an opportunity to take some decisive action. They can support this motion and show that they are capable of acting in accordance with their belief and conscience or they can confirm that the culture is so ingrained that we can expect no changes in the near future. The greatest pity is that this should be about South Australia, not about an endeavour to rewrite a failed premier's legacy. The aphorism attributed to Abraham Lincoln is: you may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. South Australians are not fools and this Premier does not deserve any records of longevity. He should be gone.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Education.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Education, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:03): Madam Speaker, I do not know whether it is the six week break or whether it is the condolence motion that we heard earlier, but there was something about the first few words that the Leader of the Opposition spoke and then the contribution she made and, of course, what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, which reminded me of just about everything I think people hate about politics. There was no contribution on public policy. There was an opportunity to come up and make a critique or a contribution on public policy, but there were just the most basic political statements. By the looks of the shoulders of those opposite that slumped when they heard the first few words, everybody in this room understood the same thing.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will hear the Minister for Education in silence.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The arguments are misconceived, they are disingenuous and, worst of all, they are calculated to bring this house into disrepute and bring all of us down. If anybody thinks at the moment that the state of politics in this nation reflects well on any elected leader, then they need their heads read. We are all regarded in an appalling light, and today was a stunt which was calculated to lower us further in the estimation—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and in the eyes of the community.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, you are on your second warning. You are on your third warning now; next time you will be named.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am sure that there are lots of people on both sides of the house who do not want to be regarded in that way. It is an honourable profession. We do this to advance the interests of the people of South Australia, and we are sick and tired of being regarded as little better than—well, I won't name another profession.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is misconceived, because they seem to suggest that somehow our decision to engage in an agreed transition somehow—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —reflects a lack of confidence—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —in the Premier of South Australia. Indeed, it does the opposite by setting—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. The Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I cannot hear what the minister is saying—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —and the reason I can't is because they are a rabble.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister for Transport.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Madam Speaker, by fixing a date—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and having the Premier complete the tasks that he has established to complete, it demonstrates our continuing confidence in the Premier, not a lack of confidence. This idea of an orderly transition—outside of this place and outside of the rest of the political world—is regarded as simply common sense. Just ask an ordinary person in the street about this and they will tell you—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —that it makes sense for there to be an orderly transition so that there can be arrangements made to exchange information so that someone can prepare for—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —what some might suggest is a reasonably important role. Now, these are pretty elementary and—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Kavel.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —simple propositions, but lost on those opposite. The reason they cannot comprehend this is because there is nothing in their history, nothing in their make-up, that could conceive of the fact that we could reach this agreement, and that we reach it in an orderly way and that there could be the whole of this caucus behind a new leader. They cannot conceive of that. They cannot conceive of the fact that, in 17 years, there have been only two leaders.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Madam Speaker, I think that the way in which the Premier—obviously by virtue of this debate—was in a sense obliged to talk about his legacy is, frankly, I think, something that he should not have been subjected to. The truth is that any fair judgement of his legacy will be that he has made an extraordinary contribution to transform the social, environmental and economic future of this state, and—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Hammond.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —can I add to that remark by saying that there is a level of disingenuousness in those opposite because, on the last day, on 20 October, many of them will be joining me in saying precisely the same thing, and they know it. If they search their consciences, they know that he has made a massive contribution to this state, and they will acknowledge it, because there are at least some decent people on that side of the chamber. Of course, the contributions that were made to the state are many and myriad. I will not go through all of them. One that I think—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: One that I will select for a special mention is the school retention initiative. When those opposite were last in government 67 per cent of our students at their low point were completing high school. What the Premier chose to do was to establish a Social Inclusion Unit and draw all of the authority of his office—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and the strength of the bureaucracy to lift the school retention of students into year 12 from 67 per cent to 84 per cent. All of those thousands of students now have a better opportunity to realise their hopes and dreams because they were able to complete high school. That is the public policy legacy he will be remembered for, and there are countless others.

The legacy that I think is most important of all—and it will be the privilege of those of us who remain to build upon—is the change in the mindset of this state. It is shaking off the conservatism that existed in this state, a state which was always finding reasons to say no to things, and permitting us to actually imagine a brighter future for ourselves—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —a future that we have chosen together to create. It is one of his greatest legacies, and it will be my privilege, and those of us who are in leadership roles, to build on that legacy.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Let's be clear about what this is: it is a political stunt. They could have come in here and taken the opportunity to ask some questions about a public policy issue. They could have actually surprised us all and engaged themselves in a recent controversy like the APY lands. I thought that, given the recent controversy, they might have preferred that as a major public policy, but they have returned to type on the APY lands. It was a stunt when it was valuable to be a stunt. When they could come in here and advance some positive ideas for improving the circumstances of people in the APY lands, they simply went missing on that point.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The great grief of this debate is the way in which it reflects on us, the circus they were seeking to create, which we are not cooperating in. The community expects more of us. They expect better from us: they expect us to concentrate on the positive ideas that are going to make a difference to the lives of everyday South Australians.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Madam Speaker, we had an undertaking from the opposition not to go beyond 30 minutes. 'Gentleman', you said.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (16:12): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am absolutely—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: —delighted and proud to be able to stand in this place and give my statement of confidence in the leadership and the premiership of Mike Rann. I have known the Premier since 1982. I have probably known him longer than just about anybody in this place. There are probably two or three others around who have known him as long. I got to know him when he was the press secretary for then premier John Bannon, and I was a candidate for the seat of Mitcham, and he helped me in that fantastic election campaign.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: You lost.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: That's true, I did lose, but went on to greater glory at a later time. I got to know Mike very well at that stage, and I have known him pretty well for 30 years. Over those 30 years, in a whole range of circumstances, both in government and out of government, as a member of parliament and as a staffer, as a leader and as a friend, I can say that I have come to the conclusion that Mike is a man of very strong qualities. He is an intelligent person, a determined person, a person of great integrity, a person of great creativity, a person of great energy, and he is generous to a fault—generous to a fault.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The great characteristic that I think defines Mike Rann is his enormous strength of character. All those qualities I have just enunciated are why he has been the leader of our party for 17 years. I cannot think of any other leader we have had, perhaps other than Don—

Mr Pisoni: A bit more enthusiasm, John.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Unley!

Mr Pisoni: We're going to sleep over here.

The SPEAKER: Member for Unley, you are warned.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: He is playing with something below the desk there, Madam Speaker. I hope it's his iPhone. I would say this, Madam Speaker: I have known a number of our premiers over the years, and I do not think any premier has had as much mud thrown at him as has the Premier, Mike Rann, with the possible exception of Don Dunstan—

Members interjecting:

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