HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:44): My question is to the Premier. Did Kate Baldock advise the Premier or her minister, the member for Hartley, when she became aware in February 2012 of the rape conviction of the western suburbs out of school hours care worker at the centre of the Debelle inquiry?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:44): I want to address what has been going on in this house, in both houses, over the last few days. No-one ever before has come into this place or the other place and questioned the findings of a royal commissioner—never. It just hasn't happened. There is a reason that it hasn't happened—

Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir. The question was not about the royal commission. The question was about Kate Baldock advising the Premier or her minister, the member for Hartley.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I will listen to what the Premier has to say and see if he will join up his remarks to your question.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will in due course. We have a Leader of the Opposition who was content to say that this select committee that has been established in the other place was about matters arising peripheral—things that needed to be dealt with outside of the royal commission. He was happy with the royal commission. He thought that was a good bit of work, yet he permits a senior shadow minister of his to go into the other place and make the most outrageous allegations under parliamentary privilege, which directly contradict the findings of a royal commissioner.

There is a good reason why we refer matters to a royal commissioner: because they are beyond reproach. They are beyond reproach, and when you question the findings of a royal commission, what you are questioning are the findings of a former Supreme Court judge, who is a long-standing QC and a long-standing Supreme Court judge, and should not have his competence questioned. He engaged in an extensive exercise that canvassed in the most extreme detail: 239 days, 8,000 pages of evidence, $1 million worth of expenditure and 328 pages of report. Anyone who has read that report—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —would have seen—

The SPEAKER: Point of order from the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is a very long, circuitous route joining the dots between what was started here and what the question was. The question was about—

The SPEAKER: Yes, I know what the question was and I think—

Ms CHAPMAN: It has nothing to do with the Debelle inquiry.

The SPEAKER: —the Premier is about to tilt towards it. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No-one before—the Leader of the Opposition has admitted this, and he should be here to actually account for this. The Leader of the Opposition—

Ms CHAPMAN: This is not a question about the Debelle inquiry. This is a question about a specific—

The SPEAKER: Would the deputy leader and the Premier both be seated. It is not a good practice to reflect on votes in another place. It is not a good practice to reflect on the presence or absence of members of the chamber. We are all here at all times in the view of the house. I now ask the Premier to address the question that was asked.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will address the question, because it goes fundamentally to the question of the findings of the royal commissioner. The reason that we send matters to the royal commission is so that people can have public confidence in the institutions of government. It is the rarest thing that a politician, for some short-term political advantage, puts that above those important public institutions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Now the Premier is suggesting that there—

The SPEAKER: Is there a point of order?

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, are you listening to my point of order?

The SPEAKER: I am listening to it. I am waiting for a point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: Standing order 127.

The SPEAKER: Which is?

Ms CHAPMAN: Imputing improper motive.

The SPEAKER: I don't think—

Ms CHAPMAN: It is a direct allegation against the Leader of the Opposition's purpose in raising questions. That is—

The SPEAKER: No, I think—

Ms CHAPMAN: —reflecting on the questioner, who is not even asking the question.

The SPEAKER: Well, I don't think that standing order has been breached. There may be others, but not that one. Premier—the Premier is finished. The member for Unley.

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