HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE OVAL

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:01): I move:

That this house establish a Privileges Committee to investigate whether the Treasurer has deliberately misled the house in relation to his knowledge about the cost increase of the proposed Adelaide Oval upgrade prior to the 2010 state election.

The reason I move this motion today is that this is the only avenue open to the opposition to move a privileges committee. The house will recall that on 22 June the opposition raised a matter of privilege into whether the Treasurer had deliberately misled the house. You gave an opinion, Madam Speaker, that you would not give it precedence that particular day and that, if the opposition wished to, it could raise it another day. The opposition attempted to suspend standing orders, but the government used its numbers to quash that move, so the option for the opposition was to give notice, which we did, to debate the motion today.

The government tried to be smart by offering to bring the motion forward on another day and, of course, that was the day that Julia Gillard knifed Kevin Rudd, because they did not want any publicity on the matter, and the opposition quite rightly held the position that today was the appropriate day to debate the motion. The reason we are here is that the Treasurer said to the house, 'that I was not made aware in any way, shape or form prior to the election that the 450 would not be sufficient'.

The Treasurer said those words to the house in the full knowledge that what he was saying simply was not true—it was simply not true. All the evidence that has come out since that statement backs up the opposition's argument that that statement simply was not true and that the Treasurer knew that that statement simply was not true.

Let's go through some of the evidence as to why the opposition reaches this position. I remind the house that this motion is about the principle as to what standard the house wants to set for ministers. What standard does this house want to set for ministers telling the truth to the chamber? If the house simply accepts the excuse that 'I forgot', then every single minister will use that excuse ad infinitum and there will never ever be a minister held accountable to the house for misleading the chamber, and that will essentially give the government carte blanche to abuse their power and abuse the chamber. They will be able to come in here and be serial misleaders and simply nothing will happen.

Some would argue that we are getting to that point now; that is, the government tactic is to mislead the chamber at the start of question time and then sneak in at 5 to 6 when the media are not here and correct the record. So they get the media reporting one story and then they correct it to try to protect themselves. The chamber should protect itself from that tactic.

The reason we are here is that the Treasurer said to the house that in no way, shape or form was he advised before the election that the Adelaide Oval project was going to blow out. That is simply not true. The Treasurer has this defence (which, in my view, is laughable) that he was honest enough to come out and correct the record immediately on coming back to parliament and, indeed, on 2 June, five days after he had made these particular comments. I want to walk through why this defence is a crock. I want to walk through why the parliament should not accept this particular defence and why the Treasurer came out and clarified the record.

The reason the Treasurer came out and clarified the record on 2 June is simply this: on 26 May, the very same day that the Treasurer misled the house, the upper house established a Budget and Finance Committee, where the government do not have the majority of votes. The Budget and Finance Committee is an upper house committee. It can call witnesses, but the minister does not attend. It is a separate committee from this chamber, and new members to the house should appreciate that the minister from this chamber does not attend that particular committee, and therefore it is limited in its inquisition of the minister. That is why we need a separate committee in this chamber to examine just one issue: did or did not Kevin Foley tell the truth to the chamber? That is the principal question we need the committee to establish.

The upper house committee is established. The Budget and Finance Committee was established on the same day that Kevin Foley misled the house. A couple of days later, the Budget and Finance Committee established a reference to the Adelaide Oval project. Kevin Foley then knows that witnesses can be drawn to that committee—Ian McLachlan, Leigh Whicker, Kevin Cantley, Bruce Carter—to test their knowledge about whether the Treasurer was telling the truth. Kevin Foley becomes aware of that on 26 or 27 May. The reason that is important is Kevin Foley then realises that he has lost control of this issue. He has lost control of the issue because the evidence is going to come out in the Budget and Finance Committee in the other place.

In the Budget and Finance Committee in the other place, Kevin Cantley, the senior Treasury officer on the government steering committee, confirms to the committee in his evidence that Leigh Whicker did contact him on 25 or 26 May, very angry, in Mr Cantley's words, that a set of minutes are not a complete set of minutes and they leave out a very important set of words—this is the government steering committee minutes. They are words to the effect that Leigh Whicker had told the government steering committee that he had met Kevin Foley on 19 February, a day before the state election was called, and advised him of a budget blowout, the blowout now being to the figure of 469 million.

So, Kevin Cantley is aware that Leigh Whicker is angry on 25 or 26 May. Kevin Cantley confirms in his evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee that he speaks to Stephen Mulligan on 27 May about a ministerial statement about this, Stephen Mulligan being the Treasurer's chief of staff. There is a direct link on this issue. It goes from Leigh Whicker telling Kevin Foley on 19 February to Leigh Whicker ringing Kevin Cantley very angry. The reason he was very angry is that the Stadium Management Authority was being accused of misleading the government, because on 27 May Kevin Foley had announced the new government figure, the $530 million figure.

All the media were going to the Stadium Management Authority asking, 'Have you misled the government?' Leigh Whicker was very angry about that, so he rang Kevin Cantley and said words to the effect, 'We haven't misled the government. Look at the minutes of 22 February and the minutes will show you, if you look at the full set of minutes, that I actually told Kevin Foley on 19 February.' That is why Leigh Whicker rang: specifically to draw to Kevin Cantley's attention that the Treasurer had been told on 19 February. That is why Whicker rang Cantley.

What did Cantley do? As a dutiful senior Treasury officer he rang Stephen Mullighan and drew to his attention the fact that there are two sets of minutes (one on 1 April and one on 13 April) that relate to the Adelaide Oval project; and that brings to the attention of the Treasurer's office that the Treasurer has a problem. He has misled the parliament—and knowingly misled the parliament, in the opposition's view.

So, we know there is a direct link. Leigh Whicker told Kevin Foley on 19 February—before the election was called—that there had been a blowout to $469 million. Leigh Whicker went to the Stadium Management Authority meeting on 22 February (three days later) and advised the group that he has told the Treasurer. A set of minutes is produced—an abridged version that leaves out that section of the minutes.

So Leigh Whicker rang Kevin Cantley and Bruce Carter, and said, 'Gentlemen, you have a problem. We want the full set of minutes distributed please.' So they distributed the full set of minutes, and it is crystal clear that the Stadium Management Authority knew that Kevin Foley had been told. Kevin Cantley then rang Stephen Mullighan and we can only surmise whether Stephen Mullighan told the Treasurer.

The reality is that the Treasurer wants us to believe this fantasy that he was told on 19 February—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No; but then he told no-one—not a soul—for the whole campaign. Every time it was raised in the media—on 6 March, 9 March, 10 March and 13 March—even on the soul of his grandmother, Kevin Foley said that he had received no advice. He hid it from the public and his own colleagues for the whole of the election campaign. Then he wants us to believe that when he comes to the parliament he forgets. He remembered during the whole intense pressure of the election campaign: 'Don't reveal the figure.' Then he comes in here and he wants us to simply believe that he forgot. If the parliament accepts that argument then every minister in the future will simply use that defence.

The Treasurer said, 'What is the political benefit to me for saying this? There is no political benefit.' That is what he said. He said that 'there is no political benefit'. The political benefit is simply this: had he got away with it, he would not have been branded the dishonest Treasurer he has been branded for misleading the public for the whole election campaign. He would have escaped that public criticism and criticism from his own party members. There is a huge political benefit for Kevin Foley in trying to hide this particular issue.

But he got caught out because the Budget and Finance Committee was going to call the witnesses, and they were going to tell the truth. Leigh Whicker in his evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee said that he was going to tell the truth and, if asked, he would say that he told Kevin Foley before the election. He told Kevin Cantley that and Kevin Cantley rang Stephen Mullighan. Members can put two and two together and see where the story goes. The other reason why Kevin Foley came out was that Ian McLachlan was on radio on 2 June saying that he had sent numerous signals to the government before the election about the cost blowout. That sent a message to Foley's office that, again, they had a problem.

What day did they pick to come out? He did not come out on the first day available. He could have come out the day after he found he had misled the house. He could have rung the opposition spokesman and said, 'I'm just letting you know that I have made an error. Here it is. I correct it for you straightaway.' He could have rung you that day, Madam Speaker, and done the same thing: he did not. He waited five days, and he waited five days when Ian McLachlan was on the radio. He called a press conference at the very time the opposition was being briefed. Why did he do that? He did that because it was a politically motivated move. It was not about honesty, it was not about clarity, it was not about behaviour to the house; it was simply a politically motivated move because he had been found out.

There is no doubt in the opposition's mind that we should establish a privileges committee. A privileges committee looks at three elements. Was there a misleading? There was a misleading; the Treasurer has admitted he misled the house. Was it deliberate? Well, that is a matter for the committee to establish. They can call treasurer Foley, they can call Stephen Mullighan, they can call all the evidence of the minister's staff, they can call all their emails and all the documents in the minister's office. Let's have a look at the email trail and see exactly who knew what when. We will not get that unless we have a privileges committee, of course.

The third element as to misleading is: was it consequential to the house? No-one in their right mind could possibly argue that the Adelaide Oval blowout and the Treasurer's knowledge before the election have not been central issues to the house. So, there is only one question for the house, and that is: should we establish a privileges committee to see if the Treasurer deliberately misled the house and the Treasurer was deliberately dishonest? The opposition says the evidence is crystal clear. There is a need for a committee, and we urge the house to support the motion to establish a committee of privileges into the Treasurer's honesty.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Industry and Trade.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Gambling) (11:17): I noticed a difference between the way the government behaved during the Treasurer's speech compared with the way the opposition behaved. This is not about what the opposition claims this motion is about. This is about the ambition of one man.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We have been here before. We have done this. This is Groundhog Day. The opposition had its opportunity. They moved a motion in the parliament; it was defeated. They went out and claimed it was defeated on party lines. They ignored the fact that Independents did not support their motion.

I wonder really what this is about, because there were three speeches on the day. There were three addresses to this parliament: two were mediocre and, actually, one was embarrassing. We all know that one member gave the speech of his life, and that was the member for Davenport. His colleagues were impressed and his leader and his deputy leader were embarrassed.

What this is about is a second bite of the cherry. It is a do over. He wants to show again how good he really is because he never got a chance to face an election as leader. He never got the chance to show his skills in a debate. He never got his chance to show his skills in the last six months in the parliament leading up to an election. He never got that chance, but he had a brief glimpse of what could have been, a brief glimpse of what might have been.

What we are seeing today are the last gasps of a failed leadership—a man so committed to South Australia, so committed to this parliament that he wanted to resign and contest Mayo and cause a by-election. He is a man so committed to the Liberal Party that he sooked the entire time of the last campaign and was nowhere to be seen. Now, after we have had the debate and the Treasurer has rectified his remarks, everyone has moved on except one person—the shadow treasurer. Why? Because he is clinging to this like a desperate man. It is so obvious. After the election—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —he was promised greatness by his leader. He was promised the deputy leadership, but, of course, there is one thing the member for Davenport cannot do: he can make great speeches, but he cannot count, and he got rolled by a much better operator. But, of course, that operator was unacceptable to the current leader, so she rolled him in the most undignified way.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: There are only six minutes to go in the honourable member's contribution. Is he going to actually mention the Treasurer?

The SPEAKER: Minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So, the deputy leadership—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —was then decided by a man—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The deputy leader of the Liberal Party—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The opposition is so bereft of any form of policy that all it has is something that was cleared up two weeks ago—like an old bone. The member for Davenport reminds me of a dog that goes into his backyard and digs up a bone he buried two weeks ago. The truth is that this has been dealt with by the whole house, and the matter has been dealt with and settled. The Treasurer has corrected the record.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Davenport, being disingenuous, says, 'The chamber must protect itself.' Well, yesterday—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I did not interject once during your remarks, not once. The former deputy leader said, 'This chamber must protect itself.' Yesterday, when the Deputy Premier attempted to correct and give more information to the house at the soonest possible time, opposition members objected, and why did they object? They objected so that they could say on morning radio today that the Deputy Premier had to come back after question time to correct. That is why—completely disingenuous. If we are here—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Here he is. The feathers are in full bloom—all feathers and no meat; no meat at all. The former deputy leader had his opportunity yesterday—didn't do it—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that right?

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It has been cleared; it has been done; it has been finished. This opposition, in a desperate attempt to get any form of traction it possibly can to try to hold its own misgivings—because this is the one important fact: Adelaide Oval is an election commitment of this government. The opposition is doing everything it can to destroy football coming home. The opposition has a choice to make: does it support football in the city?

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: What has football in the city got to do with the question of forming a privileges committee? It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold that point of order. Minister.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Only the opposition would think that a motion about a proposed Adelaide Oval upgrade is not about football coming back to the city. Only the opposition would think that.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The truth is, this opposition cannot bring itself to support football coming home. This opposition cannot not bring itself to support South Australia. Two AFL football clubs want to come home to the city, and the only people who want—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Madam Speaker. How can the minister talk about bringing football back to the city, when they can't even get Barton Terrace West open?

The SPEAKER: That was very frivolous, member for Finniss.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a real shock that he got sacked. The truth is, this is all about the ambitions of one man: a failed leader, a failed deputy leader, a failed candidate for Mayo and soon to be a failed shadow treasurer. This shadow treasurer said yesterday that football does not want to come to Adelaide Oval. He said to this parliament that the football teams do not want to come to Adelaide Oval. Well, I would ask the shadow treasurer to provide evidence to the house of his statement yesterday. Provide that evidence. Silence; silence! But hang on; the shadow treasurer said that football does not want to come to the city.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The problem is, if people do not want to come to the city, why would they have gone to your $1.2 billion stadium?

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's right; yes. They are questions we don't need to answer—that's right. Football doesn't want to come to the city unless they build it. Is that right? It is the Kevin Costner model. If we build it, they will come; that is their model. It is the field of dreams. One minute he says, 'They do not want to come.' The next he says, 'They will come if we build it.' Now, the leader of the opposition wants to build it behind a public school, Adelaide High School.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The opposition is a farce.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (21)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F. (teller)
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M.
Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R.
Such, R.B. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
NOES (25)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Caica, P. Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O.
Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D.
Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. (teller)
O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, T.
Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M. Rann, M.D.
Rau, J.R. Sibbons, A.L. Snelling, J.J.
Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.
Wright, M.J.

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

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